Banyule City Council Agenda 25 July 2016 inc Attachments by Banyule City Council

Ordinary Meeting of Council Council Chambers, Service Centre 275 Upper Heidelberg Road, Ivanhoe 25 July 2016 commencing at 7.45pm Following the public forum commencing at approximately 7.30pm and may be extended to 8pm if necessary.

AGENDA

Acknowledgement of the Traditional Owner, the Wurundjeri willam people "Our meeting is being held on the Traditional Land of the Wurundjeri willam people and, on behalf of Banyule City Council, I wish to acknowledge them as the Traditional Owners. I would also like to pay my respects to the Wurundjeri Elders, past and present, and to the Elders of other Aboriginal peoples who may be here today” Apologies and Leave of Absence Confirmation of Minutes Ordinary Meeting of Council held 11 July 2016 Disclosure of Interests 1. Petitions 1.1 Reichelt Avenue and Buena Vista Drive intersection, Montmorency - Request for 'road closure' to be repositioned ........................................................3 REPORTS: 2. People – Community Strengthening and Support 2.1 Sporting Reserve User Guide Review.....................................................................9 2.2 Age-friendly Victoria Declaration...........................................................................13 3. Planet – Environmental Sustainability Nil 4. Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment 4.1 Rosanna Road and Banyule Road, Rosanna - Road Safety Audit ........................17 4.2 Removal of vegetation at Seddon Reserve (103 Green Street, Ivanhoe) - P260/2016 ...........................................................................................23

AGENDA (Cont’d) 4.3 4.4

Hurstbridge Rail Line Upgrade – Lower Plenty Road Level Crossing Removal - Consultation Update .............................................................35 Yarra River Protection Discussion Paper ..............................................................41

5. Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life 5.1 Hughes Street and Deirdre Court, Montmorency - Proposed Permanent Road Closure .....................................................................................43 5.2 Commemorative naming events ...........................................................................49 6. Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely 6.1 Adoption of Services Asset Management Plan......................................................53 6.2 Reappointment of the Chief Executive Officer ......................................................58 6.3 Assembly of Councillors........................................................................................60 6.4 Items for Noting ....................................................................................................63 7. Sealing of Documents Nil 8. Notices of Motion Nil 9. General Business 10. Urgent Business Closure of Meeting

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 2

1.1

REICHELT AVENUE AND BUENA VISTA DRIVE INTERSECTION, MONTMORENCY - REQUEST FOR 'ROAD CLOSURE' TO BE REPOSITIONED

Author:

Sanjev Sivananthanayagam - Transport Engineer, City Development

Ward:

Hawdon

Previous Items Council on 18 February 2013 (Item 4.3 - Reichelt Avenue, Montmorency - Road Closure/Opening) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A petition with five (5) signatures has been received from the residents of Reichelt Avenue, Montmorency, requesting the repositioning of the bollards and chain on the west side of the intersection of Reichelt Avenue and Buena Vista Drive, to south of Buena Vista Drive. The petition prayer is as follows: “We, the undersigned, petition or request Council to to [sic] replace the two barriers on the west side of the section of Reichelt Avenue-Buena Vista intersection with one barrier at the bottom of Buena Vista Drive, leaving the present barrier on the east side of this section of Reichelt Avenue.” The following reasons for support of their petition were offered: • • • •

Several incidents occurring, with emergency vehicles taking the wrong way to Reichelt Avenue, only to be stranded wrong side of the barriers and causing delay in life-threatening situations. No changes to the through traffic arrangement is requested, but rather access to five (5) additional properties requested from the west section of Reichelt Avenue. If road closure is repositioned, potential minor reduction in traffic driving through Buena Vista Drive and Mitchell Avenue, adjacent to the school and pre-school. The previous consultation process was flawed as surveying more than one hundred properties regarding traffic flow in Montmorency was bound to cause unnecessary concerns and confusion.

The reasons given above are generally accepted and it is considered appropriate to undertake a community consultation with the view of initiating a 3-month trial of repositioning the bollards and chain to the southern end of Buena Vista Drive. The trial would enable properties between 34 to 38 Reichelt Avenue to access their properties from the west section of Reichelt Avenue. No changes are proposed for the road closure on the east side of the intersection.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 3

1.1

Petitions

1.1

Petitions

REICHELT AVENUE AND BUENA VISTA DRIVE INTERSECTION, MONTMORENCY - REQUEST FOR 'ROAD CLOSURE' TO BE REPOSITIONED contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d RECOMMENDATION That Council: Receives and notes the petition. 1.

Consults with properties whose access would be affected, in relation to a 3 month trial of repositioning the bollards and chain from the west side of intersection of Reichelt Avenue and Buena Vista Drive, Montmorency, to the southern end of Buena Vista Drive.

Initiates the process under the Local Government Act to conduct a 3 month trial of repositioning the bollards and chain from west of the intersection of Reichelt Avenue and Buena Vista Drive, Montmorency, to the southern end of Buena Vista Drive, if majority support is gained from Item 2 above.

Notifies the primary petitioner and owners and occupiers of affected properties in the western section of Reichelt Avenue, between Buena Vista Drive and Grand Boulevard, Montmorency, of the above resolution.

Receives a report in relation to the outcome of a 3 month trial in Reichelt Avenue, Montmorency should it proceed and whether or not to retain it permanently.

, as

BACKGROUND A petition with eight (8) signatures was received in October 2012, requesting the relocation of the point of road closure in Reichelt Avenue, Montmorency, on the west side of the Buena Vista Drive intersection. Extensive community consultation was undertaken in December 2012 with residents of Reichelt Avenue (between Buena Vista Drive and Grand Boulevard), Buena Vista Drive (between Reichelt Avenue and Mitchell Avenue) and Mitchell Avenue. A high response rate of 72% was received, with 76% of the respondents indicating to retain the existing arrangement. Council at its meeting on 18 February 2013 considered a report in relation to the feedback received and resolved: â&#x20AC;&#x153;That: 1. 2. 3.

The existing road closure in Reichelt Avenue immediately west of the intersection with Buena Vista Drive be retained. The existing No Through Road signage at the intersection of Reichelt Avenue and Grand Boulevard be upgraded. Petitioners be surveyed on a proposal to consider changing their property addresses to Buena Vista Drive to address their access concerns. Should there be unanimous support to this proposal, Council re-address these properties as a continuation to Buena Vista Drive.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 4

REICHELT AVENUE AND BUENA VISTA DRIVE INTERSECTION, MONTMORENCY - REQUEST FOR 'ROAD CLOSURE' TO BE REPOSITIONED cont’d 4.

The residents of Reichelt Avenue between Buena Vista Drive and Grand Boulevard, Buena Vista Drive between Mitchell Avenue and Reichelt Avenue, and Mitchell Avenue be advised.”

Accordingly, no changes were made to the position of road closure at that time. A follow up survey was undertaken with residents of 34 to 38 Reichelt Avenue, as per Item 3 of the resolution. Council did not receive unanimous support to change the addresses to Buena Vista Drive. However, residents in this section of Reichelt Avenue have continually raised concerns in relation to access. An article was published in the Diamond Valley Leader recently, which generated some further community feedback. LEGAL CONSIDERATION All necessary steps were undertaken at the time of closure of Reichelt Avenue, Montmorency and as such it is recognised as permanent road closure. Consequently, any change to the positioning of the closure must be instigated through the Local Government Act. Council’s powers concerning road closure is defined under The Local Government Act 1989, Section 207 and Schedule 11, which allows Council to temporarily or permanently close any road under its management after considering a report from VicRoads on the proposed closure. Additionally, Council must seek and consider public submissions on the proposal under Section 223 of the Local Government Act. Under Section 223, Council must publish a public notice: • • • •

Specifying the matter in respect of which the right to make a submission applies; Containing the prescribed details in respect of that matter; Specifying the date by which submissions are to be submitted, being a date which is not less than 28 days after the date on which the public notice is published; Stating that a person making a submission is entitled to request in the submission that the person wishes to appear in person, or to be represented by a person specified in the submission, at a meeting to be heard in support of the submission.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 5

1.1

Petitions

1.1

Petitions

REICHELT AVENUE AND BUENA VISTA DRIVE INTERSECTION, MONTMORENCY - REQUEST FOR 'ROAD CLOSURE' TO BE REPOSITIONED cont’d DISCUSSION The intersection of Reichelt Avenue and Buena Vista Drive, Montmorency, is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 – Location of Reichelt Avenue and Buena Vista Drive, Montmorency

All five (5) petitioners live in the section of street between 34 to 38 Reichelt Avenue, where they have vehicular access only via Mitchell Avenue - Buena Vista Drive link. The community consultation which occurred in December 2012 included residents of Buena Vista Drive and Mitchell Avenue, as the proposal included the additional option of reopening the closure at Reichelt Avenue and having through access to Buena Vista Drive. This would likely to have been a major factor in residents overwhelmingly indicating to retain the existing arrangement.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 6

REICHELT AVENUE AND BUENA VISTA DRIVE INTERSECTION, MONTMORENCY - REQUEST FOR 'ROAD CLOSURE' TO BE REPOSITIONED contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d Residents of 34 to 38 Reichelt Avenue are not in favour of changing their address to Buena Vista Drive. Given this, the ideal arrangement would be for these properties to have vehicular access via the western section of Reichelt Avenue, removing any confusion for emergency vehicles and visitors to the area. The change in traffic generation expected with the repositioning the closure point in the western section of Reichelt Avenue will be insignificant, with only additional five (5) properties obtaining access. It is considered reasonable to trial the changes for a 3 month period to assist the affected residents to form a view in relation to the impact the potential repositioning will have on them. In order to understand whether such a trial is supported by the directly affected residents a community consultation is proposed. The consultation will seek views on a 3 month trial of repositioning the bollards and chain at the southern end of Buena Vista Drive, enabling residents between 34 to 38 Reichelt Avenue to access their properties from the west section of Reichelt Avenue. No changes are proposed for the road closure on the east side of the intersection. Considerations will be given to waste collection vehicles to turn around at the end of Buna Vista Drive and at the end of the western section of Reichelt Avenue, as part of the proposed repositioning of bollards and chain. The proposed trial is shown in figure 2.

Figure 2 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Proposed Trial of Road Closure in Buena Vista Drive

Appropriate processes in accordance with the Local Government Act will be undertaken to should a trial proceed. ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 7

1.1

Petitions

2.1

SPORTING RESERVE USER GUIDE REVIEW

Author: Ben McManus - Coordinator Leisure & Cultural Services, Community Programs

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Council has recently reviewed The Sporting Reserves User Guide (SRUG) which establishes the general terms and conditions that seasonal sporting clubs must abide by and also provides the basis for allocating sporting facilities to clubs on a seasonal basis. The SRUG includes two key documents: • •

Sporting Reserve Allocation Policy which provides the basis for allocating sporting facilities to clubs Sporting Reserve Terms and Conditions of Use which established the roles and responsibilities required of both tenant clubs and Council

These documents were last reviewed and adopted by Council in 2011. The current review process included benchmarking with similar municipalities, club surveys, internal and external workshops and conversations with club representatives. The feedback indicates the overall document is sound. Minor changes have been proposed including the length of agreement, changes to the demerit points program, maintenance of sports field lighting, fencing of grounds to host promotional games and competition finals. The revised documents are now ready for the final consultation phase and this report recommends that Council release the draft documents for the purpose of community consultation between 26 July and 9 August 2016. RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1.

Advertise the draft Sporting Reserve User Guide (Attachments One and Two) for the purpose of community consultation 26 July – 9 August 2016.

A further report following the community consultation period will be presented.

CITY PLAN This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction to “promote and support health and wellbeing”.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 9

2.1

People – Community Strengthening and Support

2.1

People – Community Strengthening and Support

SPORTING RESERVE USER GUIDE REVIEW cont’d BACKGROUND The Sporting Reserves User Guide (SRUG) establishes the general terms and conditions that seasonal sporting clubs must abide by when occupying Council pavilions and grounds. This document also provides the basis for allocating sporting facilities to clubs on a seasonal basis and establishes the roles and responsibilities required of both tenant clubs and Banyule City Council in the management of these facilities. The SRUG includes two key documents. The Sporting Reserve Allocation Policy which provides the basis for allocating sporting facilities to clubs and the Sporting Reserve Terms and Conditions of Use which established the roles and responsibilities required of both tenant clubs and Council. The sporting codes that are governed by the SRUG include, Football (AFL), Football (Soccer), Baseball and Cricket. The SRUG includes the following principles: • • • •

Inclusion – encouraging a diverse section of community participation in sport Responsibility – ensuring roles and responsibilities are clear Fairness – ensuring consistency and transparency in facility allocation Partnership – ensuring both club’s and Council’s partner to improve sporting opportunities for the community

This is the second revision of the SRUG which was originally prepared in 2007. A further review was conducted in 2010 and adopted by Council and implemented for the 2011 winter season. LEGAL CONSIDERATION There are no direct legal implications arising from the recommendation contained in this report. HUMAN RIGHTS CHARTER Victoria's Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities (the Charter) outlines the basic human rights of all people in Victoria. The Charter requires that governments, local councils and other public authorities comply with the Charter and to consider relevant Charter rights when they make decisions. In developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. It is considered that the subject matter does not raise any human rights issues. CONSULTATION To identify issues that should be considered as part of the review process, all sporting clubs were invited to participate in a Club Survey in November 2015 and a total of 44 responses were received. Responses were received from a range of sporting and recreation groups including AFL (13 responses), soccer (5 responses), cricket (3 responses), and baseball (1 response).

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 10

SPORTING RESERVE USER GUIDE REVIEW cont’d All clubs were also invited to participate in a workshop in December 2015. This workshop was well attended and various issues were discussed including Fees and Charges, Occupancy Agreements, Maintenance and Communication. A further workshop with internal stakeholders was held in February 2016 which included Leisure and Cultural Services, Property Services, Building and Civil Works, Parks and Gardens, Finance, Health Services, Waste Management, Town Planning, Risk and Local Laws. In addition, a bench marking exercise was conducted with similar municipalities in relation to the SRUG. Following a review of all information received during the research phase, an Issues and Options paper was developed which included the proposed changes to the document. A Community Reference Group (CRG) was established through an expression of interest process. This group included six community members who represented each of the sports governed by the SRUG. Members of the CRG met in June and discussed the proposed changes to the document. Overall the CRG was comfortable with the proposed changes however concerns regarding the limitations placed on pre-season training were raised. CURRENT SITUATION The feedback indicates the overall document is sound however in some cases the same information was included in both documents which proved confusing for the reader. The revised SRUG, which incorporates the Draft Sporting Reserve Allocation Policy (Attachment One) and the Draft Sporting Reserve Terms and Conditions of Use (Attachment Two) include minor wording changes to create greater clarity, the deletion of duplicate information in both documents and improved formatting to allow the reader to easily navigate from the contents page. The more significant proposed changes within the draft documents relate to the following: • Demerit Points Program – review of implications • Ground Usage – promotional games • Pre-season Training - during the summer season • Sports Field Lighting – maintenance responsibility changes • Fees & Charges - utilities bundle • Fees & Charges - overdue payments • Allocation of Sporting Pavilion and Ground - longer tenancy A summary of the key proposed changes are included in Attachment Three. To increase the awareness of the SRUG, once adopted officers will send the SRUG to sporting Club at the beginning of each season and also have the SRUG permanently available on Council’s website.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 11

2.1

People – Community Strengthening and Support

2.1

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

SPORTING RESERVE USER GUIDE REVIEW contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d TIMELINES Assuming Council adopts the draft SRUG, a two week targeted consultation with key stakeholders will occur from 26 July to 9 August 2016. Feedback from the wider community will also be invited until the 9 August 2016. Officers will then prepare a final draft SRUG having regard for submissions received and present the final draft to Council for consideration in September. OFFICER DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 (Act) requires members of Council staff, and persons engaged under contract to provide advice to Council, to disclose any direct or indirect interest in a matter to which the advice relates. Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter. CONCLUSION The SRUG is the principal agreement between seasonal sporting clubs and Council since 2007. The feedback during the review process indicates the overall document is sound. The revised documents also respond to the key issues and options raised by key stakeholders during the review process. The deletion of double up information and revised formatting will also provide a more user friendly document for sporting clubs.

ATTACHMENTS No.

Title

Draft Allocation Policy 2017-2020

Draft Terms and Conditions of Use 2017-2020

Summary of Proposed Changes July 2016

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page

128

Page 12

2.2

People – Community Strengthening and Support

AGE-FRIENDLY VICTORIA DECLARATION

Author: Catherine Simcox - Senior Community Services Development Officer, Community Programs

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On 14 April 2016, the Victorian Government and the Municipal Association of Victoria signed the Age-friendly Victoria Declaration. The Declaration provides a commitment to working together on creating age-friendly communities. The Age-friendly Banyule Advisory Committee recommends that Council become a signatory to the Declaration. RECOMMENDATION That Banyule City Council become a signatory of the Age-friendly Victoria Declaration.

CITY PLAN This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction to “promote and support health and wellbeing”. BACKGROUND On 14 April 2016, the Victorian Government and the Municipal Association of Victoria signed the Age-friendly Victoria Declaration to provide leadership for better state and local planning for more age-friendly communities (see Attachment 1). The declaration provides a commitment to working together on creating age-friendly communities by: • • • • • •

promoting an age-friendly Victoria supporting state and local planning processes providing local government with access to advice, expertise and support empowering and encouraging seniors' involvement addressing issues listed in the World Health Organisation Age Friendly Cities Guide valuing stakeholder engagement and collaboration.

As part of its commitment, the state will deliver $2.2 million over four years for agefriendly projects led by councils. Councils are encouraged to demonstrate their support for the Declaration, and their commitment to creating liveable communities for older Victorians, by signing the Agefriendly Victoria Declaration.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 13

2.2

People – Community Strengthening and Support

AGE-FRIENDLY VICTORIA DECLARATION cont’d In November 2014, Banyule City Council was accepted as a member of the World Health Organisation Global Network of Age-friendly Cities (GNAFC). Currently, there are only six Victorian local governments which are members of the GNAFC. This Age-friendly Victoria Declaration supports our commitments to the GNAFC. Becoming a signatory to the Age-friendly Victoria Declaration supports Councils existing commitments towards continual improvement in enhancing the wellbeing and quality of life of older people, as adopted Council meeting October 2014. LEGAL CONSIDERATION There are no direct legal implications arising from the recommendation contained in this report. By becoming a signatory to the Age-friendly Victorian Declaration, Banyule City Council will: • • • •

Fully endorse and support the vision of the Age-Friendly Victoria Declaration for better state and local government planning. Recognise the integral role of older people in achieving an age-friendly Victoria and commit to the ongoing involvement of older people. Endorse the importance of partnerships between government, the community and the business sectors in working together. Agree to work in partnership with the Victorian Government and/or the Municipal Association of Victoria to achieve an age-friendly Victoria.

The statement of support and partner endorsement is located in Attachment 2. HUMAN RIGHTS CHARTER The Age-friendly Victoria Declaration demonstrates Councils commitment to meeting human rights and supports the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The Age-friendly Victoria Declaration will aid Council in the development of a Banyule Age-friendly Policy. CONSULTATION On 10 June 2016, the Age-friendly Banyule Advisory Committee discussed the Declaration and recommends that Council becomes a signatory to the Declaration. OFFICER DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 (Act) requires members of Council staff, and persons engaged under contract to provide advice to Council, to disclose any direct or indirect interest in a matter to which the advice relates. Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 14

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

2.2

AGE-FRIENDLY VICTORIA DECLARATION contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d CONCLUSION The Age-friendly Victoria Declaration provides a commitment to working together on creating age-friendly communities. Councils are encouraged to demonstrate their support for the Declaration, and their commitment to creating liveable communities for older Victorians, by signing the Age-friendly Victoria Declaration. The Age-friendly Banyule Advisory Committee recommends that Council become a signatory to the Declaration.

ATTACHMENTS

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 15

4.1

ROSANNA ROAD AND BANYULE ROAD, ROSANNA - ROAD SAFETY AUDIT

Author:

Justin Dynan - Senior Transport Engineer, City Development

Ward:

Ibbott

4.1

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

Previous Items Council on 4 April 2016 (Item 4.2 - North East Link - Quarterly Report) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Concerns have been received in relation to pedestrian and traffic safety at the signalised intersection of Rosanna Road and Banyule Road, Rosanna, particularly during the morning and afternoon school peak periods. A recent pedestrian count conducted at the intersection confirms that it meets the warrants for a school crossing supervisor and the associated State Government subsidy. Council commissioned an independent Road Safety Audit of the intersection of Rosanna Road and Banyule Road, which identified a number of issues that need to be addressed by VicRoads as the responsible Road Authority under the Road Management Act. Given the safety concerns at this intersection, it is proposed that the site be supervised as soon as a crossing supervisor is available and that VicRoads be requested to address the safety concerns identified at the intersection. RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1.

Continues to pursue a 50% funding arrangement with VicRoads for the provision of a school crossing supervisor at the intersection of Rosanna Road and Banyule Road, Rosanna;

Employs a school crossing supervisor for the signalised intersection of Rosanna Road and Banyule Road, Rosanna, as soon as a crossing supervisor is available, because the site now meets the relevant warrants for a school crossing supervisor and there are safety findings and recommendations coming out of the Road Safety Audit of the site;

Until such time as a funding arrangement with VicRoads be reached, fully fund the cost of the school crossing supervisor of up to $16,000 for the 2016/17 financial year at the intersection of Rosanna Road and Banyule Road, Rosanna;

Includes the intersection of Rosanna Road and Banyule Road, Rosanna, as part of the application to VicRoads for the 2017/18 school crossing supervisor subsidy; and

Requests action from VicRoads to address the findings and recommendations of the Road Safety Audit at the intersection of Rosanna Road and Banyule Road, Rosanna.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 17

4.1

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

ROSANNA ROAD AND BANYULE ROAD, ROSANNA - ROAD SAFETY AUDIT cont’d CITY PLAN This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction to “support sustainable transport”. BACKGROUND At its meeting on 4 April 2016, Council considered a report on the status of the North East Link and resolved: “1.

That Council note that the State Government and VicRoads have not progressed planning for the proposed North East Link.

Once the safety review on the intersection of Banyule Road and Rosanna Road is completed, that a meeting be organised with VicRoads and all Councillors, to discuss the outcome and possible solutions to any issues raised.”

Further to the above resolution, at its meeting on 14 June 2016, Council considered an item of Urgent Business regarding the safety of Rosanna Road and resolved: “That Council: 1.

Write to VicRoads: a)

Call on VicRoads to: a)

b) 3.

expressing the Banyule community’s urgent concerns about the safety of Rosanna Road and requesting that VicRoads takes immediate action to address the safety issues that have been identified in the SafeSystemSolution report dated 14 March 2016 titled “Rosanna Road, Heidelberg Road Safety Assessment”; and expressing disappointment that the SafeSystemSolution report on Rosanna Road safety issues was not provided to Council prior the request of Council to endorse the Road as an Over Dimensional (OD) route, despite having the report at the time of making the request of Council.

provide a 50% contribution for a Crossing supervisor as a matter of urgency at Rosanna and Banyule Road, with Council contributing the balance; and require all trucks to be restricted to the centre lane only.

Write to local Members of State Parliament requesting their support to advocate to the State Government and VicRoads for immediate action to address the safety issues in Rosanna Road.”

This report responds to item 2 of the Council Meeting on 4 April 2016 and item 2a of the Council Meeting on 14 June 2016. Other resolution items have been addressed separately. A locality plan showing the subject site is shown in Figure 1.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 18

ROSANNA ROAD AND BANYULE ROAD, ROSANNA - ROAD SAFETY AUDIT cont’d

Figure 1 – Locality Plan

LEGAL CONSIDERATION A Road Safety Audit is a formal examination of a future road or traffic project or an existing road, in which an independent, qualified team reports on the crash potential and safety performance. Under the Road Management Act, VicRoads is the Road Authority for Rosanna Road and the intersection. In the interests of the safety of the public and road users they have a responsibility to investigate and act accordingly on the findings and recommendations of the Road Safety Audit. HUMAN RIGHTS CHARTER Victoria's Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities (the Charter) outlines the basic human rights of all people in Victoria. The Charter requires that governments, local councils and other public authorities comply with the Charter and to consider relevant Charter rights when they make decisions. In developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. It is considered that the subject matter does not raise any human rights issues. CURRENT SITUATION In accordance with item 2 of the Resolution on 4 April 2016, a meeting has been arranged between VicRoads and Councillors for 15 August 2016, to discuss the findings and possible solutions of the Road Safety Audit.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 19

4.1

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.1

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

ROSANNA ROAD AND BANYULE ROAD, ROSANNA - ROAD SAFETY AUDIT cont’d In accordance with the Resolution of 14 June 2016, letters were sent to VicRoads and local Members of State Parliament on 22 June 2016. Rosanna Road is a primary state arterial road under the control and management of VicRoads with a posted speed limit of 60km/h, while Banyule Road is classified as a ‘collector’ road under the control and management of Council and has a default speed limit of 50km/h. In March 2016, VicRoads engaged Safe Systems Solutions Pty Ltd to undertake an independent road safety assessment of the existing conditions along the full length of Rosanna Road. The assessment found that in the five (5) year period to the end of June 2015 there had been five (5) crashes at the intersection with Banyule Road, which included four (4) rear end crashes. There were no crashes involving pedestrians at the intersection. It also highlighted the locations along Rosanna Road where pedestrian activity is concentrated and narrow traffic lane widths exist, which included the intersection with Banyule Road and that the signals at the intersection be considered for an upgrade to LED lanterns. Further concerns have been received from residents relating to pedestrian safety at the signalised intersection of Rosanna Road and Banyule Road, Rosanna. The concerns are that motorists frequently failed to stop at the red light and speed through the intersection when the pedestrian green lights are displayed. The consequences of these issues are worse during the morning and afternoon school peak periods when children are using the crossing. The nearest school is Banyule Primary School which is located approximately 400m to the east of the Rosanna Road and Banyule Road intersection. Council is responsible for the ongoing review of the school crossing program including the operation of supervised school crossings throughout the municipality. Each year the State Government provides a subsidy to Council to offset approximately 24% of the costs of the supervision at sites that meet specific warrants. Council must submit an application for this subsidy to VicRoads. The 2017/18 school crossing supervisor subsidy application will be submitted to VicRoads in October 2016. An assessment of the warrants for a school crossing supervisor at the intersection of Rosanna Road and Banyule Road has been undertaken in relation to VicRoads guidelines. For a supervisor to be warranted at a signalised intersection there needs to be more than 20 primary school children per hour. A supervisor may also be considered where there are other factors affecting safety such as excessive vehicle speed, road geometry, limited sight distance, high volume of heavy vehicles or road width. A count was undertaken on Thursday 2 June 2016 between 3pm and 4pm to determine the number of pedestrians crossing Rosanna Road at this intersection. The results of the count are provided in Table 1.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 20

ROSANNA ROAD AND BANYULE ROAD, ROSANNA - ROAD SAFETY AUDIT cont’d Table 1 – Pedestrian Count – Rosanna Road at Banyule Road, Rosanna Date Thursday 2 June 2016 between 3pm and 4pm Warrants Signalised Intersection

Primary School Children 21

Secondary School Children 6

Adults

N/A

In accordance with VicRoads’ guidelines, this site is eligible for VicRoads subsidy funding for a supervisor. Council also engaged Trafficworks Pty Ltd to undertake an independent Road Safety Audit of the existing conditions at the intersection of Rosanna Road and Banyule Road. A copy of the Road Safety Audit along with the findings and recommendations can be found in Attachment 1. A summary of the audit findings and recommendations are as follows: • •

• • • •

Pedestrians crossing Rosanna Road are at risk of being struck by a turning vehicle so it is recommended that an early start to the pedestrian movement across Rosanna Road be considered. Existing long queues of traffic on the Banyule Road approach increases the risk of motorists turning on the amber and red lights as they become impatient. Consideration to be given to relocating the Rosanna Road crosswalk to the north of the intersection or widening of Banyule Road to provide a second stand up lane. Existing alignment of the Rosanna Road crosswalk is not aligned perpendicular to the road which presents a greater risk of a pedestrian being struck by a vehicle exiting Banyule Road. The sound of the pedestrian push button on the north-east corner was observed to not be working correctly. Consider installing traffic islands on Rosanna Road to physically separate the two directions of travel. Motorists were observed to be running red lights on both Rosanna Road approaches which increase the risk of a collision between vehicles and pedestrians. Consideration to be given to the installation of a road safety camera.

Therefore given the pedestrian count and the safety issues raised in the Road Safety Audit, a school crossing supervisor should be provided at the intersection of Rosanna Road and Banyule Road. However, subject to Council’s request for VicRoads to provide a 50% contribution for a crossing supervisor, Council may be required to fund the cost of a supervisor for 2016/17, until funding is available as part of 2017/18 subsidy application to VicRoads. Initial discussions have commenced with VicRoads regarding the Road Safety Audit. A copy of the report has been forwarded to them for their consideration and action.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 21

4.1

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.1

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

ROSANNA ROAD AND BANYULE ROAD, ROSANNA - ROAD SAFETY AUDIT cont’d FUNDING IMPLICATIONS VicRoads subsidy has recently covered approximately 24% of the costs of a permanent school crossing supervisor and the remaining 76% has been borne by Council which equates to approximately $12,000 per year. This includes staffing, training and equipment costs. However, should a crossing supervisor be employed immediately and Council is to fully fund the supervisor for 2016/17, until VicRoads subsidy is available, then it would cost Council approximately $16,000. OFFICER DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 (Act) requires members of Council staff, and persons engaged under contract to provide advice to Council, to disclose any direct or indirect interest in a matter to which the advice relates. Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter. CONCLUSION Following concerns from the community regarding pedestrian safety at the intersection of Rosanna Road and Banyule Road, Rosanna, a pedestrian count was undertaken by Council. An independent Road Safety Audit was also commissioned. The pedestrian count indicated that the site meets the warrants for a school crossing supervisor under VicRoads’ guidelines. While the Road Safety Audit highlighted a number of findings and recommendations regarding safety at the intersection. Given the volume and nature of traffic on Rosanna Road, it is proposed that a school crossing supervisor be provided at its intersection with Banyule Road as soon as a school crossing supervisor is available and that the findings and recommendations of the Road Safety Audit be forwarded to VicRoads for their consideration and action. A meeting has been arranged for 15 August 2016 between VicRoads and Councillors to discuss the outcomes of the Road Safety Audit.

ATTACHMENTS No.

Title

Road Safety Audit

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 136

Page 22

4.2

REMOVAL OF VEGETATION AT SEDDON RESERVE (103 GREEN STREET, IVANHOE) P260/2016

Author:

Jackie Bernoth - Development Planner, City Development

Ward:

Olympia

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application seeks approval to remove a total of 18 trees to facilitate the development of two netball courts at Seddon Reserve (103 Green Street, Ivanhoe). Council is the land owner and permit applicant. The application has undergone public notification and five objections have been received. 27 letters of support with respect to construction of the netball courts have also been received. The application will allow for the construction of two netball courts in the south-eastern corner of the Reserve. It is considered that the application should be approved subject to appropriate replacement planting. RECOMMENDATION That Council having complied with Section 52, 58, 60, 61 and 62 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, resolves to issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit in respect of Application No. P260/2016 for the removal of 18 trees at 103 Green Street IVANHOE subject to the following conditions: Plans 1.

The tree removal approved by this permit must not be commenced until a landscape plan is prepared by a suitably qualified landscape designer or landscape architect (three copies at a minimum size of A3) and is submitted to, and endorsed by the Responsible Authority. The landscape plan must show the following: (a)

The provision of a ten large canopy trees and ten small trees or tall shrubs canopy trees selected from the EVC 55 Plains Grassy Woodlandâ&#x20AC;&#x201C; PGWOvp River Red Gum (volcanic plain) vegetation class in the southwestern section of the Reserve. At least three trees are to be located to the south of the proposed netball courts and three to their east;

(b)

The plant type, numbers, and species of trees, shrubs and ground covers to planted;

(c)

The pot-size of the specimens to be planted; and

(d)

All site features (including trees, vegetation, buildings, and other structures) to be retained or proposed.

(e)

The location of tree preservation fencing and other protection measures to be installed around trees to be retained in the vicinity of the proposed works; and

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 23

4.2

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

4.2

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

REMOVAL OF VEGETATION AT SEDDON RESERVE (103 GREEN STREET, IVANHOE) - P260/2016 cont’d (f)

The location of tree preservation fencing and other protection measures required to protect and maintain trees beyond the development area but in the vicinity of construction access.

The tree removal approved by this permit must not be commenced until a site works plan, detailing in relation to the proposed tree removal and works associated with the construction of netball courts within the reserve has been submitted to and endorsed by the Responsible Authority. The Plan is to detail: (a)

The size of machinery to be utilised in both construction and the delivery of materials to and from the site;

(b)

The means of access of that machinery to the netball court location, whether regular access is to be required, or machinery is to be stored onsite during construction;

(c)

Details of any surfacing treatment required to provide access by that machinery;

(d)

The location and details of any proposed stockpile of materials, including fill to be removed from the site;

(e)

Arboricultural advice in relation to the necessary tree protection measures to be installed around trees in the vicinity of the proposed access path.

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.

Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority the replacement planting indicated on the endorsed plans must be provided within 12 months of the date of commencement of the tree removal authorised by this permit.

Tree Protection / Landscaping 5.

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. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority, prior to the commencement of works on the site Tree Preservation Zones and associated fencing must be established around Trees 1-4, 9, 16, 33-37, 39-41 and around any trees identified in the Works Plan required by Condition 2. At least 7 days prior to the commencement of works you must contact Council’s Development Planning Unit on 9457 9808 so that an inspection of the Tree Preservation 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 must meet the following requirements:

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 24

REMOVAL OF VEGETATION AT SEDDON RESERVE (103 GREEN STREET, IVANHOE) - P260/2016 cont’d (a) Extent Tree Preservation Zones are to be provided to the extent of the calculated Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) where it occurs within the subject property. 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 (i)

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. There must be no root pruning within the SRZ unless consent is received in writing by the Responsible Authority, and there must be no root pruning within the TPZ for works other than those endorsed by the Responsible Authority.

(ii)

All and any excavations within the TPZ of retained trees must be undertaken by hand or by approved non-destructive techniques suitable in the vicinity of trees, and must only be undertaken by, or directed and supervised by, a suitably qualified arborist for endorsed works or for works subsequently approved by the Responsible Authority.

Protective fencing must consist of chain wire mesh panels held in place with concrete feet. Fencing must comply with Australian Standard AS 4687-2007 Temporary fencing and hoardings.

(ii)

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

(iii)

Canopy and Limb protection must be provided in accordance with the guidelines detailed in AS4970-2009 Protection of Trees on Development Sites.

(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)

(f)

Irrigation The area must be irrigated during the summer months with 10 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). 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;

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 25

4.2

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.2

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

REMOVAL OF VEGETATION AT SEDDON RESERVE (103 GREEN STREET, IVANHOE) - P260/2016 cont’d (ii)

(iii) (iv) (g)

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.

Underground services Any underground service installations transecting a Tree Protection Zone of any retained tree must be bored beneath the entire TPZ to a depth of at least 600mm. Any excavation within the calculated TPZ of a retained tree required for the connection of services must be: (i) Undertaken after written approval is received from the Responsible Authority; and, (ii) Undertaken by hand or by approved non-destructive techniques suitable in the vicinity of trees under the supervision of the project arborist.

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 a Tree Protection Zone, where granted, may be subject to conditions. Such conditions may include a requirement that: • Any further works that are approved are to be supervised by the project arborist, and a written component may be required also; •

All root excavation be carried out by hand digging or with the use of ‘AirExcavation’ techniques; • Canopy and Limb protection is provided in accordance with the guidelines detailed in AS4970-2009 Protection of Trees on Development Sites. Or other conditions, as relevant, to ensure the ongoing health and stability of the subject tree/s. 6.

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.

Time limit 7.

In accordance with section 68 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, this permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies: • The works are not commenced within twelve months of the date of this permit; •

The works are not completed within two years of the date of this permit.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 26

REMOVAL OF VEGETATION AT SEDDON RESERVE (103 GREEN STREET, IVANHOE) - P260/2016 cont’d 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.

Notes 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. Ongoing restrictions Tree Protection Zones Requests for the consent or approval of tree protection measures pursuant to Condition 6 should be directed to Council’s Arborist – Development Planning on 9457 9808. Consent for the conduct of works within the Tree Protection Zone, where granted, may be subject to conditions. Action on/for completion Supervision of works undertaken on Council Assets Council’s Construction Department must supervise all works undertaken on Council assets within private property, Council Reserves, easements, drainage reserves and/or road reserves, including connection of the internal drainage 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.

Planning Permit Application:

P260/2016

Development Planner:

Mrs Jackie Bernoth

Address:

103 Green Street IVANHOE

Proposal:

Vegetation removal (to allow construction of netball courts)

Existing Use/Development:

Public Open Space (Seddon Reserve)

Restrictive covenant:

Nil

Applicant:

Banyule City Council

Notification (Advertising):

Two signs on site

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 27

4.2

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.2

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

REMOVAL OF VEGETATION AT SEDDON RESERVE (103 GREEN STREET, IVANHOE) - P260/2016 cont’d Notices to surrounding properties Objections Received:

Five

Ward:

Olympia

No Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) required: An exemption applies as the Reserve has been utilised as a minor sports and recreation facility since before 28 May 2007. Planning controls:

Control

Permit triggered?

Public Park and Recreation Zone Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO1) Land Subject to Inundation Overlay Clause 52.17: Native Vegetation Policies considered:

No Yes No No

Clause 12.01: Biodiversity Clause 12.04: Significant environments and landscapes Clause 15.01: Cultural Identity and Neighbourhood Character Clause 21.05: Natural Environment

It is proposed to remove twenty-three (23) trees to facilitate the construction of netball courts within the south-eastern corner of Seddon Reserve. The application is submitted with an arborist report that provides data and observations for 41 trees located in the vicinity of the proposed works. Trees to be removed include: •

Five environmental weeds (for which no permit is required),

•

Four non-Victorian natives,

•

Three exotic species, and

•

Ten planted, semi-mature River Red Gums assessed as having low– to medium– retention value.

The majority of the trees nominated for removal are of medium or low retention value, however one English Oak has been identified as being of high retention value. This tree is located centrally within the netball courts’ footprint. 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 - 25 July 2016

Page 28

REMOVAL OF VEGETATION AT SEDDON RESERVE (103 GREEN STREET, IVANHOE) - P260/2016 cont’d BACKGROUND/HISTORY At the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on the 4 August 2014, Council resolved: 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. A report was then prepared and considered by Council at its meeting on 6 October 2014. Following consideration of this report, Council resolved: That the West Ivanhoe Sporting Club (WISC) proposal for two noncushioned rebound acrylic resin surface training netball courts, fencing, soil testing and contingency for the total amount of $176,500 be considered for 2015/16 Budget. During the intervening period Council’s Leisure and Recreation Unit have conducted consultation with residents surrounding the reserve and nearby in Belmont Road and Green Street, including a community drop-in information session in March 2016. LEGAL CONSIDERATION The process for considering a Planning Permit matter and the decision by Council must be in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. In this case compliance with Section 52, 58, 60, 61 and 62 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 is relevant. SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA Seddon Reserve is developed with an oval and associated sporting pavilion, car parking and cricket nets as well as walking paths. As a result the central portion of the site is clear of trees, however the perimeter and in particular the western (Darebin Creek) side of the reserve supports a relatively significant levels of vegetation. The area subject of this application supports a mixture of canopy trees with mowed grass beneath. All of the existing vegetation has been planted for landscape and amenity purposes.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 29

4.2

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.2

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

REMOVAL OF VEGETATION AT SEDDON RESERVE (103 GREEN STREET, IVANHOE) - P260/2016 cont’d

Locality Plan (location of tree removal indicated by *)

The section of the site affected by the proposal sits on a plateau elevated approximately 3-6 m above Livingstone Street.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 30

REMOVAL OF VEGETATION AT SEDDON RESERVE (103 GREEN STREET, IVANHOE) - P260/2016 cont’d

Detailed Locality Plan

An existing high chainmesh fence is located approximately 3.9m to 5.5m north of the property boundary, with a relatively flat section of land of approximately 2m in width directly to the south of the fence with the embankment beyond this. Three dwellings at 93 Livingstone Street abut the eastern boundary of the site in the vicinity of the proposed tree removal. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION The application was advertised by means of erecting a sign on the Green Street frontage and one on the Belmont Road frontage, and posting notices to the owners and occupiers of properties abutting the site as well as opposite in Belmont Road, Green Street and Livingstone Street, and to the Darebin Creek Management Committee. To date five objections have been received as a result. Grounds of objection are summarised as follows: TREE REMOVAL • • •

The proposed tree removal is detrimental to the reserve, informal users of the reserve, and the broader vicinity; The trees contribute to the natural beauty and landscape, and provide sanctuary to birdlife; Concerned that the development will disrupt the ecosystem of local wild birdlife and cause them to relocate to other areas;

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 31

4.2

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.2

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

REMOVAL OF VEGETATION AT SEDDON RESERVE (103 GREEN STREET, IVANHOE) - P260/2016 cont’d •

•

The Arboricultural Report recommends that trees of high retention value be accommodated in the design process and that trees of medium retention value be retained if possible. Tree 20 (English Oak) is identified as of high retention value, whilst there are another 15 medium retention value trees proposed to be removed. Currently there is little vegetation in the Seddon Reserve area on the top level, mostly it is on the creek embankment. It would be inappropriate to see any of this vegetation removed especially with the wildlife which uses the reserve area.

RESERVE – RELATED • •

•

This reserve is not just used by formalised sporting clubs but frequented by the broader community in informal arrangements. The proposed netball courts take up too much area, and residents would be less inclined to object if only one netball court were proposed, or if the existing cricket nets were relocated to elsewhere within Seddon Reserve to facilitate a relocation of the proposed netball courts. The close proximity of the courts to the fence line raises privacy, security, property damage and noise concerns.

TRAFFIC & PARKING • •

Increase in demand for car parking associated with the proposed netball courts; On-street parking is difficult in Belmont Road and the proposal will increase demand without increasing the number of parking spaces provided.

OTHER •

• •

There has been a lack of community engagement, consultation and consideration of the broader community needs in relation to the proposed development, including a lack of consultation with those opposite the site in Livingstone Street. Further consultation is needed to ensure that long term community needs are met and not just the interests of sporting groups or clubs. Residents have a number of questions with respect to how the site was chosen for the netball courts.

SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS One objector has suggested two possible alternatives to the proposal: • •

Construction of a single netball court adjacent to the cricket nets; or Locating an alternative site within the local area which can support the proposed courts (suggestions include Ford Park or Cartledge Reserve).

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 32

REMOVAL OF VEGETATION AT SEDDON RESERVE (103 GREEN STREET, IVANHOE) - P260/2016 cont’d 27 letters of support have also been received, although all but one of these relate solely to the need for and benefits of the construction of netball courts, rather than the removal of vegetation. One supporter outlines their view that: • •

Tree 20 is exotic, of no particular value, and its current size is a result of “inertia by Council”; Council has previously demonstrated that priority can be given to a development that will benefit the community over retention of a tree or trees.

The Darebin Creek Management Committee has advised that it has no objection to the proposal given the distance of the proposal from the Creek. PLANNING CONTROLS A planning permit is required for the removal of Trees 5-8, 10-14, 20, 24-27 and 29-32 pursuant to the Environmental Significance Overlay affecting the site. Additional details are contained in Attachment 1. TECHNICAL CONSIDERATION The key considerations when assessing this application are the suitability of the proposed tree removal, the nature of replacement planting, and the impact of the proposed works on existing trees to be retained. Issues relating to the proposed construction and use of the netball courts cannot be considered, save where these directly relate to trees proposed for removal and retention. TREE REMOVAL Council’s arboricultural consultant has advised that: • • •

One of the trees proposed for removal is of high retention value; 14 are of medium retention value; and Three are of low retention value.

Having regard to the decision guidelines of the Environmental Significance Overlay: •

• • • •

The trees proposed for removal are a small percentage of the trees on the site, and their removal will not result in an inappropriate loss of habitat in the short term. The provision of appropriate replacement planting will ensure that there is no loss of habitat in the medium-long term. The vegetation proposed for removal was planted for amenity purposes and is not rare, and the majority is of medium or low retention value arboriculturally. The vegetation proposed for removal is not necessary for the prevention of landslip or similar. The court site’s location approximately 90m from the Darebin Creek ensures that the wildlife corridor and associated buffer planting along that waterway is not impacted by the proposal. There is space for the planting of replacement vegetation within the southeastern quadrant of the Reserve, including space between the proposed works and both the southern and eastern property boundaries.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 33

4.2

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.2

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

REMOVAL OF VEGETATION AT SEDDON RESERVE (103 GREEN STREET, IVANHOE) - P260/2016 cont’d The implications of possible modifications to the siting of the courts, or a reduction in the size of the proposal such that a single court was constructed have been considered. Relocation of the proposed courts to the north and west is not practical, and would not result in a reduction in tree loss. Reduction in the size of the proposal would enable the retention of four additional trees, being Tree 20 (a high retention value English oak) and Trees 25 - 27 (three medium-retention value, non-indigenous yellow gums). The remaining trees located in and adjacent to the southern section of the proposed footprint are environmental weed species and should be removed regardless. Whilst the Oak is of high retention value arboriculturally, its contribution to the environmental significance of the area is largely restricted to its amenity, rather than habitat, value. It is considered that in light of this there is not significant benefit in reducing the size of the proposed courts, and that appropriate replacement planting can compensate for the additional tree removal required to construct the two courts proposed. WORKS PROPOSED The works proposed, including access to the site by machinery, has the potential to detrimentally affect the health of trees to be retained on the site, including those outside of the consultant arborist’s study area. Tree protection fencing will be required in order to ensure that trees are appropriately protected. The extent of fencing required, however, needs to be determined in light of a Works Plan showing the means of access to the site by heavy machinery and the like, and the nature of any trees within proximity to the path of access. This can be addressed by permit condition. REPLACEMENT PLANTING Replacement planting provided should be indigenous in nature, so as to further improve the contribution of the area to wildlife habitat. Planting should also be designed and located so as to improve the visual amenity of the surrounding properties, including the planting of trees and large shrubs between the proposed courts and the southern and eastern boundaries of the Reserve. CONCLUSION The proposed removal of vegetation is considered to be acceptable in light of the purposes of the Environmental Significance Overlay affecting the site, the nature and significance of the vegetation to be removed, and the potential for replacement planting to improve the contribution of this area to the wildlife corridor extending along the Darebin Creek. Approval is therefore supported.

ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 34

4.3

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.3

HURSTBRIDGE RAIL LINE UPGRADE – LOWER PLENTY ROAD LEVEL CROSSING REMOVAL - CONSULTATION UPDATE

Author:

Bailey Byrnes - Transport Planning Team Leader, City Development

Ward:

Ibbott

Previous Items Council on 27 June 2016 (Item 8.1 - Hurstbridge Line Upgrade – Lower Plenty Road Level Crossing, Rosanna) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Level Crossing Removal Authority (LXRA) is removing 50 level crossings across Melbourne. The level crossing at Lower Plenty Road, Rosanna is part of the program and is scheduled to be removed by 2019. Additionally, the State Government has announced a $140m upgrade of the Hurstbridge rail line, including a 1.2km duplication of the single section of railway between Heidelberg and Rosanna. Both projects will be developed and delivered together. The projects will result in additional services on the Hurstbridge rail line to cater for growth in Melbourne’s north east. Power upgrades and a new bus route between Greensborough and Diamond Creek are also planned. The LXRA has already commenced extensive community consultation on the planning and delivery of the projects via a number of channels including pop-up booths at local shopping strips and the local railway stations. A Hurstbridge Rail Line Upgrade information brochure was mailed to approximately 62,000 properties along the length of the Hurstbridge line. Additionally, an invitation to the community drop-in sessions was included in the mail out to 5,800 properties in Rosanna and Heidelberg. Community drop-in sessions were held in Rosanna on Thursday, 21 July and Saturday, 23 July 2016. At the 27 June 2016 Council Meeting, Council resolved, in part, to write to all local residents within several hundred metres of the railway line seeking comment on the proposed projects. The cost of this mail out is approximately $9,000 and would allow Council to advocate on issues of concern from the community. Opportunities also exist to work in partnership with the LXRA as a central contact hub, with Council providing supporting information and contact points as necessary. There will be opportunities over the next year to distribute information through The Banner, Council’s social media platforms, and an online consultation hub hosted by Council’s website. RECOMMENDATION That Council: a.

Write to local residents giving them a further opportunity to provide comment and feedback to Council on the proposed Lower Plenty Road level crossing removal and duplication of the Hurstbridge rail line between Heidelberg and Rosanna so that Council can advocate on the issues raised by the community.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 35

4.3

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

HURSTBRIDGE RAIL LINE UPGRADE – LOWER PLENTY ROAD LEVEL CROSSING REMOVAL - CONSULTATION UPDATE cont’d b.

Explore opportunities to work in partnership with the Level Crossing Removal Authority (LXRA) as a central contact hub, with Council providing supporting information and contact points as necessary.

Distribute information relating to the Hurstbridge rail line upgrade and level crossing removal project through The Banner, Council’s social media platforms, and an online consultation hub hosted by Council’s website.

CITY PLAN This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction to “support sustainable transport”. BACKGROUND At its meeting on 27 June 2016, Council considered a report on the future level crossing removal on Lower Plenty Road, Rosanna. It was resolved that: “1.

Council welcomes the State Government commitment to allocate $140m in the 2018/19 Budget for duplicating the Hurstbridge Rail line between Heidelberg and Rosanna including the grade separation of Lower Plenty Road and the railway line. However a number of matters need to be clarified: a)

c) d)

h) i)

confirmation that no land acquisition is required for the duplication and grade separation including no impact on adjoining land and proposed developments; the measures to be introduced as part of the works to protect the amenity and construction impacts to nearby properties and the Rosanna Parklands; the form of the grade separation, in particular the alignment and whether the railway line or road will be built under or over (ie. elevated train line); the urban design approach to the new railway station at Rosanna and its relationship between the Rosanna Shopping Centre at Beetham Parade, Lower Plenty Road and the emerging activity at Turnham Avenue. The connection of the activity centre is a critical element and consideration; the impact on bus services in Lower Plenty Road and Turnham Avenue with confirmation there will be no service interruptions during construction and the ongoing provision of enhanced services as part of a new bus interchange following completion of the project. Lower Plenty Road and Turnham Avenue are heavily utilised by various bus services; that all relevant authorities including VicRoads, VicTrack, the Level Crossing Removal Authority and relevant State Government Departments will work with Council and the Local Shopping Centre to reduce and minimise disruption to the businesses; that measures will be introduced to ensure resident access across the railway line and Lower Plenty Road are maintained during construction and into the future including the pedestrian crossing at Davies Street; the extent and length of time that Brown Street and Darebin Street will be closed (if at all) during the duplication; that local residents will be protected from noise impacts during construction;

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 36

HURSTBRIDGE RAIL LINE UPGRADE – LOWER PLENTY ROAD LEVEL CROSSING REMOVAL - CONSULTATION UPDATE cont’d j) k)

ongoing impact on Rosanna Parklands including the ability to retain trees and provide ongoing maintained landscaping and new tree planting; and detail on ongoing soundproofing to provide for noise amenity protection of residents which is designed to minimise graffiti.

Council write to: a) b)

the Premier, Minister for Transport and Major Projects as well as all local Federal and State Members seeking their response to these issues; and local residents within several hundred metres of the railway line, all businesses, local schools and community groups outlining this resolution and seeking their comments on the proposed work. The area to be included is bounded to the west by Waiora Road/Upper Heidelberg Road, to the east by Rosanna Road/Brassey Avenue/Fergusson Street, to the north at Ruthven/Chapman Street and to the south at Burgundy Street.

A report be prepared for Council outlining the costs associated with letters to residents in 2b above;

Council request that the State Government considers the grade separation at Macleod Railway crossing will also be included in this project to limit disruption to the line during construction and remove another dangerous crossing where fatalities have occurred.

Quarterly reports be tabled at Council regarding the level crossing removal and line duplication to the railway line at Rosanna until the completion of the project.”

Items 2a and 4 of the above resolution were actioned on 5 July 2016. As per item 3 above, this report considers the preparation of the letter outlined in Item 2b above. LEGAL CONSIDERATION There are no direct legal implications arising from the recommendation contained in this report. Any private information received from resident feedback will be treated in accordance with the Privacy Act. HUMAN RIGHTS CHARTER Victoria's Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities (the Charter) outlines the basic human rights of all people in Victoria. The Charter requires that governments, local councils and other public authorities comply with the Charter and to consider relevant Charter rights when they make decisions. In developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. It is considered that the subject matter does not raise any human rights issues.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 37

4.3

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.3

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

HURSTBRIDGE RAIL LINE UPGRADE – LOWER PLENTY ROAD LEVEL CROSSING REMOVAL - CONSULTATION UPDATE cont’d CURRENT SITUATION The Level Crossing Removal Authority (LXRA) was established to remove 50 dangerous and congested level crossings across Melbourne. The level crossing at Lower Plenty Road, Rosanna is part of the program and is scheduled to be removed by 2019. Additionally, in the recent Victorian Budget 2016/17, the Government announced a $140m upgrade of the Hurstbridge rail line, including a 1.2km duplication of the single section of railway between Heidelberg and Rosanna. Both projects will be developed and delivered together. The projects will result in additional services on the Hurstbridge rail line to cater for growth in Melbourne’s north east. Power upgrades and a new bus route between Greensborough and Diamond Creek are also planned. The LXRA has already commenced extensive community consultation on the project via a number of channels from letterbox drops, newspaper advertisements, pop-up information booths at Heidelberg and Rosanna Railway Stations to two community information sessions held in Rosanna on Thursday, 21 July and Saturday, 23 July 2016. FUNDING IMPLICATIONS An assessment has been carried out of the costs and resources required to write to local residents, businesses, local schools and community groups within several hundred metres of the level crossing removal project. There are approximately 5,000 interested stakeholders in the nominated area. It is estimated that the total cost of the preparation of the letters distribution list would be approximately $9,000. This includes contractor and staff costs of approximately $5,000 to prepare the letters and analyse responding comments; and outsourcing the printing and distribution of 5,000 letters (including postage) at a cost of $4,000. DISCUSSION As noted, the LXRA has already commenced extensive community consultation on the planning and delivery of the project. The community consultation was conducted via a number of channels. Pop up booths were established between 5 and 20 July 2016, at Heidelberg and Rosanna Railway Stations, and local shopping centres to introduce the LXRA and the project. Postcards encouraging people to register their interest in the project and attend a community drop in session were distributed at the pop up booths. Advertisements promoting the community drop in sessions ran for three weeks in the Heidelberg Leader. Social media posts supported the advertisements. The LXRA produced a Hurstbridge Line information brochure which was mailed to 62,000 properties along the length of the Hurstbridge Rail Line. This mail out included a letter to nearly 5,800 local properties in Heidelberg and Rosanna inviting residents to the community drop in session, as shown in Figure 1.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 38

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.3

HURSTBRIDGE RAIL LINE UPGRADE – LOWER PLENTY ROAD LEVEL CROSSING REMOVAL - CONSULTATION UPDATE cont’d

Figure 1- LXRA letter distribution area The community drop-in sessions were held on Thursday 21 July 2016 between 6pm and 8pm, and on Saturday 23 July 2016 between 10am and 12noon, at the Rosanna Cub Scout Hall. Council attended these sessions. With community consultation on the planning phase of the project complete, the project will move quickly through the design and development stages by December 2016, and into preliminary construction in early 2017. The project is scheduled to be completed by 2019. A Council mail out to residents now, will give Council an opportunity to hear directly from residents and to advocate on their behalf to the LXRA in relation to the key issues raised. It also gives residents an opportunity to talk to Council and for all responses to be summarised and remitted to the LXRA. Opportunities will also exist to work in partnership with the LXRA consultation as a central contact hub, with Council providing supporting information and contact points as necessary. There will be opportunities over the next year to distribute information through The Banner, Council’s social media platforms, and an online consultation hub hosted by Council’s website.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 39

4.3

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

HURSTBRIDGE RAIL LINE UPGRADE – LOWER PLENTY ROAD LEVEL CROSSING REMOVAL - CONSULTATION UPDATE cont’d OFFICER DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 (Act) requires members of Council staff, and persons engaged under contract to provide advice to Council, to disclose any direct or indirect interest in a matter to which the advice relates. Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter. CONCLUSION The Hurstbridge railway line duplication and Lower Plenty Road level crossing removal project has already commenced. Extensive community consultation has been undertaken by the Level Crossing Removal Authority (LXRA) culminating in two community drop-in sessions at Rosanna on Thursday 21 July and Saturday 23 July 2016. Council will conduct a separate mail out to residents of Heidelberg and Rosanna to afford residents an opportunity to provide feedback and comment directly to Council. Council will proactively advocate on behalf of residents to the LXRA. There are opportunities for Council to consult further with the community by working in partnership with the LXRA as the central contact hub with Council providing supporting information and contact points as necessary.

ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 40

4.4

YARRA RIVER PROTECTION DISCUSSION PAPER

Author:

Fae Ballingall - Strategic Planner, City Development

4.4

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Yarra River Protection Ministerial Advisory Committee has released its discussion paper and is seeking feedback from the community on the key issues and opportunities for the river. Importantly, the Discussion Paper proposes a new management model to protect the Yarra River. It will include a unified, community-led vision for the Yarra, the development of a Strategic Plan and new legislation. This is a significant step towards a sustainable, connected and healthy Yarra. A submission has been made to support the Discussion Paper and the continuing work of the Yarra River Ministerial Advisory Committee in carrying out the necessary governance and management reforms. RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1.

Endorse the Submission to the Yarra River Ministerial Advisory Committee to be submitted on 5 August 2016.

Continue working collaboratively with the State Government to further Yarra River protection reforms.

Note that there will be further briefings on the proposed change to the Banyule Planning Scheme.

CITY PLAN This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction to “enhance Banyule’s public and open spaces”. BACKGROUND In December 2015 the Minister for Planning and the then Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water appointed the Yarra River Protection Ministerial Advisory Committee (Yarra MAC) to provide independent advice to the Government on the key issues and opportunities for the river as well as improvements to the governance arrangements. This includes the establishment of a Trust and new legislation. A Discussion Paper (Attachment 1) has been developed to prompt a conversation with the community on how the Yarra River is managed and protected, now and into the future.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 41

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

YARRA RIVER PROTECTION DISCUSSION PAPER cont’d LEGAL CONSIDERATION -

4.4

There are no direct legal implications arising from the recommendation contained in this report. HUMAN RIGHTS CHARTER It is considered that the subject matter does not raise any human rights issues. DISCUSSION The Discussion Paper examines three key aspects of the Yarra River: • • •

Waterway health (stream, riverbanks and vegetation). Community use, access and amenity of the river and its network of parklands and open spaces. The interface of the river with adjacent land uses and its catchment.

Importantly, the Discussion Paper proposes a new management model to protect the Yarra River. It will include a unified, community-led vision for the Yarra, the development of a Strategic Plan and new legislation. A draft submission is attached that gives in-principle support to the proposals outlined in the Discussion Paper. Concurrent to the work of the Yarra MAC, the Minister is progressing planning scheme changes for Councils along the Yarra River corridor. These changes will support consistent decision-making for new developments along the Yarra’s private/public interface. OFFICER DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 (Act) requires members of Council staff, and persons engaged under contract to provide advice to Council, to disclose any direct or indirect interest in a matter to which the advice relates. Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter. CONCLUSION The State Government is undertaking significant policy and governance reforms to better manage and protect the Yarra River and its environs. The Yarra MAC is calling for submissions to the Discussion Paper. This will help inform the Committee’s recommendations to the Minister for Planning. A submission has been prepared that gives Banyule’s support to the proposals outlined in the Discussion Paper.

ATTACHMENTS

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 42

5.1

HUGHES STREET AND DEIRDRE COURT, MONTMORENCY - PROPOSED PERMANENT ROAD CLOSURE

Author:

Walter Yew - Transport Engineer, City Development

Ward:

Beale

Previous Items Council on 3 August 2015 (Item 4.4 - Proposed Road Closure - Hughes Street at Baldwin Avenue, Montmorency) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Council resolved at its meeting on 3 August 2015 to initiate a three month trial by temporarily closing Hughes Street, Montmorency, to address through traffic, hooning behaviour and dust concerns in the area. The trial period has now concluded. The views of residents were gauged through a community survey. The survey results indicate that a majority of property owners and occupiers within Hughes Street and Deirdre Court support the permanent closure of part of the road. Accordingly it is proposed to initiate the process under the Local Government Act to permanently close part of Hughes Street, Montmorency. RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1.

Initiates the process under the Local Government Act to permanently close Hughes Street, Montmorency, south of Deirdre Court.

Place advertisements in the local Leader Newspaper advising of the proposal to close Hughes Street, Montmorency, south of Deirdre Court, seeking any submissions under Schedule 11, Clause 10(1)(c) and Section 223 of the Local Government Act.

Write to VicRoads seeking a report to permanently close Hughes Street, Montmorency, south of Deirdre Court under Schedule 11, Clause 10(1)(c) of the Local Government Act.

Write to Victoria Police, Metropolitan Ambulance Services and Metropolitan Fire Brigade to request consent for the permanent closure.

Notifies directly affected owners and occupiers of properties on Hughes Street, Deirdre Court, Baldwin Street and Sherbourne Road, Montmorency, of this resolution.

Receive a further report summarising submissions to make a decision on the permanent closure of Hughes Street, Montmorency, south of Deirdre Court.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 43

5.1

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

5.1

Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life

HUGHES STREET AND DEIRDRE COURT, MONTMORENCY - PROPOSED PERMANENT ROAD CLOSURE cont’d 7.

Extend the period of the trial closure of Hughes Street, Montmorency, until such time as a decision is made on whether to close the road permanently, and notify the relevant authorities and agencies accordingly.

Relocate the existing road closure infrastructure a further 10 metres south of Deirdre Court.

OFFICER DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 (Act) requires members of Council staff, and persons engaged under contract to provide advice to Council, to disclose any direct or indirect interest in a matter to which the advice relates. Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter. CITY PLAN This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction to “develop and promote safety and resilience in our community”. BACKGROUND A request to seal Hughes Street and Deirdre Court, Montmorency, was received in early 2015. A community meeting was held to seek property owners’ views on the possibility of sealing the roads and closing Hughes Street at Baldwin Avenue. The survey results indicated a majority of property owners did not support the sealing of the roads but did support the closure of Hughes Street. At its meeting on 3 August 2015, Council considered a report on a proposal for a road closure at the intersection of Hughes Street and Baldwin Avenue, Montmorency, and resolved: “That Council: 1.

Initiates a traffic management trial by closing temporarily (for 3 months) Hughes Street, Montmorency, between Deirdre Court and Baldwin Avenue, following: a.

Consultation with property owners and occupiers of properties on Hughes Street, Montmorency, south of Deirdre Court, in regards to the exact location for the temporary road closure. Requesting a report from VicRoads on the proposal to temporarily close Hughes Street at Baldwin Avenue under Schedule 11, Clause 10(2) of the Local Government Act.

Notifies owners and occupiers of affected properties on Hughes Street, Deirdre Court, Baldwin Avenue, and Sherbourne Road, Montmorency of this resolution.

Following the trials, consult and survey local owners/occupiers on the possibility of a permanent closure and its location with the results being reported back to Council at a future meeting.”

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 44

HUGHES STREET AND DEIRDRE COURT, MONTMORENCY - PROPOSED PERMANENT ROAD CLOSURE cont’d Following completion of Item 1 of the resolution, the road closure trial commenced on 10 March 2016. Keys were supplied to Council’s Waste Management and Parks Maintenance Department to allow access for waste collection and maintenance vehicles the full length of Hughes Street on a requirement basis. Figure 1 indicates the location of the road closure.

Figure 1: Proposed Permanent Road Closure Hughes Street, Montmorency, south of Deirdre Court LEGAL CONSIDERATION Council’s powers concerning road closure is defined under The Local Government Act 1989 (LGA), Section 207 and Schedule 11, which allows Council to permanently close any road under its management after considering a report from VicRoads on the proposed closure. Additionally, Council must seek and consider public submissions on the proposal under Section 223 of the LGA. Under Section 223, Council must publish a public notice: • • •

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 45

5.1

Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life

5.1

Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life

HUGHES STREET AND DEIRDRE COURT, MONTMORENCY - PROPOSED PERMANENT ROAD CLOSURE cont’d •

Stating that a person making a submission is entitled to request in the submission that the person wishes to appear in person, or to be represented by a person specified in the submission, at a meeting to be heard in support of the submission.

HUMAN RIGHTS CHARTER Victoria's Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities (the Charter) outlines the basic human rights of all people in Victoria. The Charter requires that governments, local councils and other public authorities comply with the Charter and to consider relevant Charter rights when they make decisions. In developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. It is considered that the subject matter does not raise any human rights issues. COMMUNITY FEEDBACK In accordance with Item 3 of the resolution of 3 August 2015, a consultation survey was sent on 20 June 2016 to all property owners and occupiers of properties on Hughes Street and Deirdre Court. A total of 26 surveys were circulated, with 17 responses received. A total of 12 respondents (71% of the response) supported the proposal to permanently close Hughes Street, Montmorency, south of Deirdre Court by retaining the road closure infrastructure. Five respondents (29%) did not support the proposal. Of those that did not support the proposal, two commercial responses sought the removal of the road closure infrastructure and the reinstatement of previous road conditions, requesting access for customers to their child care business from Baldwin Avenue. Further concerns were raised about access of emergency vehicles and increased traffic on Sherbourne Road. Three residential responses also sought the removal of the road closure stating concerns about road surface conditions, access by emergency vehicles, increased travel time and pedestrian facilities for prams and mobility aids. One resident while not supporting the permanent road closure as proposed, indicated support if the infrastructure were relocated further south on Hughes Street to allow access to their property from Sherbourne Road. As such adjacent property owners and occupiers were approached and have indicated support for the minor relocation. Consequently it is considered reasonable to relocate the road closure infrastructure 10m further south.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 46

HUGHES STREET AND DEIRDRE COURT, MONTMORENCY - PROPOSED PERMANENT ROAD CLOSURE cont’d The feedback received from the community in relation to the permanent road closure on Hughes Street is listed in Table 1. Table 1 – Feedback from consultation survey Feedback Number of times raised Improve the conditions of the road surface, especially at 4 the intersection of Sherbourne Road and Hughes Street. Impact on Child Care Center 2 Replace the steel rail with a garden bed. 1 Relocate the steel rails to the intersection of Baldwin 1 Avenue and Hughes Street and trial it for another three months. Potential risk to residents during an emergency service 1 situation. Increased in travel time. 1 Unsafe pedestrian facilities to cater for people who use 1 mobility aid or use pram. DISCUSSION The construction of a sealed road is not within the Capital Works Program and would likely be subject to a Special Charge Scheme, which is only supported by some residents. Regular maintenance work to fill potholes and maintain the existing Hughes Street and Deirdre Court pavement is ongoing. Consideration was given to a request to replace the lockable steel gate at the closure point with a garden bed. This would require Council’s waste collection trucks reversing out of the Baldwin Avenue end of Hughes Street and is not supported. Given that the majority of respondents support the proposal for part road closure, it is appropriate to initiate the formal process required to permanently close a road under the Local Government Act (1989). Consequently, should Council decide to proceed, a request will to be made to emergency services and VicRoads seeking a report on this proposal for a permanent road closure, and place advertisements in the local Leader Newspaper advising of this proposal, seeking submissions. CONCLUSION After its meeting on 3 August 2015, Council conducted a three-month trial for a road closure on Hughes Street, south of Deirdre Court, Montmorency, to eliminate the concerns raised by property owners and occupiers. The trial period has now concluded. Council’s initial consultation survey have resulted with 14 submissions received, 10 in support of the proposal and four objections received from property owners and occupiers within Hughes Street and Deirdre Court. It is considered that the permanent road closure will not have a negative traffic impact on the surrounding road network and it is appropriate for Council to support this proposal.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 47

5.1

Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life

5.1

Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life

HUGHES STREET AND DEIRDRE COURT, MONTMORENCY - PROPOSED PERMANENT ROAD CLOSURE cont’d Following the majority support from the community survey, a formal process is required to permanently close a road under the Local Government Act. As traffic impact of the closure of the road is considered minimal, Council can initiate the process and seek the wider community, Emergency Services and VicRoads’ views. A report assessing and reviewing submissions from all members of public and government associations will be presented to a future Council meeting for a determination on the permanent road closure.

ATTACHMENTS

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 48

5.2

COMMEMORATIVE NAMING EVENTS

Author:

Michael Hutchison - Projects Coordinator, City Development

Ward:

Olympia

5.2

Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life

Previous Items Council on 9 May 2016 (Item 8.4 - Dedication and launch of new reserve celebrating Margaret Heathorn OAM) Council on 14 June 2016 (Item 8.1 - Dedication and launch of new Reserve celebrating Vin Heffernan OAM) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On the 9 May 2016, Council resolved that officers investigate the possible delivery of a dedication event for the proposed naming of Margaret Heathorn (OAM) Park in Ivanhoe. On 14 June 2016, a separate Notice of Motion sought that officers investigate the delivery of a suitable dedication event for the proposed Vin Heffernan (OAM) Park and nearby streets in Heidelberg Heights. Having now secured in principle agreement from the Office of Geographic Names for the naming proposals, this report seeks to confirm the recommended budget and arrangements to deliver the two separate dedication events. RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1.

Facilitate two naming dedication events associated with new public open space and new street names in Ivanhoe and Heidelberg Heights.

Invite the families of those being dedicated and others who have expressed interest or have engaged with Council during the community consultation phase, as well as nearby neighbouring residents.

Allocate $2,000 from its 2016/17 budget for these two events.

CITY PLAN This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction to “engage meaningfully with our community”. BACKGROUND At its Ordinary meeting of 9 May 2016, following consideration of a Notice of Motion, Council resolved that a report be presented to Council which considers “An appropriate event for the launch of the new park proposed to be located at the former school site at 229 Banksia Street, Ivanhoe, which invites the local surrounding community, family of Margaret Heathorn OAM and home purchasers from the new development.”

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 49

5.2

Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life

COMMEMORATIVE NAMING EVENTS cont’d The Notice of Motion suggested that the new reserve could posthumously commemorate Margaret Heathorn OAM. As reported to Council previously, Mrs Heathorn was a local Ivanhoe identity and a tireless community volunteer who was recognised for her contributions by receiving an Order of Australia Medal. Furthermore, at its Ordinary Meeting of 14 June 2016, Council resolved that a report be presented to Council which “considers the holding of an appropriate event for the launch of the new park proposed to be located at the former school site at 52 Haig Street, Heidelberg Heights.” This preferred reserve name commemorates Vin Heffernan OAM. As previously reported to Council, Mr Heffernan was a Heidelberg City Councillor 1966-84, Mayor 1979-80 and served as the state member for Ivanhoe from 1985 until 1996 and was also Minister for Small Business and Youth Affairs from 1992 until 1996. Mr Heffernan’s community efforts were recognised by receiving an OAM in 1983 for work with youth. Mr Heffernan was also Life Governor of West Heidelberg Community Centre, launched Bernie Geary Youth Scheme 1980, and Founder and Chairperson of Heidelberg Heritage Committee 1981. Street names within the development also recognise several former City of Heidelberg Mayors and Councillors including: • • • • • • • •

Stan Ashely, Councillor 1954-62 and Mayor. Jean Baker OAM, Councillor 1968-92, Mayor 1973-74 and 1982-83. Percy Cleland MBE, Councillor 1964-73, Mayor 1968-69. John Pizzey, Councillor 1972-78, Mayor 1976-77, and Commissioner City of Banyule 1994-97. Bruce Skeggs OAM, Councillor 1985-91, Mayor 1990-91, State Member for Ivanhoe 1973-82. Fredrick Sweeney, Councillor 1954-63, Mayor 1959-60. Clifford Tuttleby, Councillor 1948-51 and Mayor. Harold Weinberg, Councillor 1972-87, Mayor 1980-81.

LEGAL CONSIDERATION As outlined in the ‘Guidelines for Geographic Names 2010’, Council is a naming authority responsible for the development of proposals to name or rename any feature, road or locality within its jurisdiction. The guidelines are a statutory document provided for the purposes of the Geographic Place Names Act 1998. The process to formally name these two features, along with street names within one of the two sites discussed in this report is now well progressed, with the Office of Geographic Names having provided in principle support for Council’s nominated and preferred names. HUMAN RIGHTS CHARTER Victoria's Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities (the Charter) outlines the basic human rights of all people in Victoria. The Charter requires that governments, local councils and other public authorities comply with the Charter and to consider relevant Charter rights when they make decisions.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 50

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

5.2

COMMEMORATIVE NAMING EVENTS contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d In developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. It is considered that the subject matter does not raise any human rights issues. DISCUSSION Having now secured in principle agreement from the Office of Geographic Names, it is now considered appropriate for Council to coordinate the delivery of two dedication events. This will provide an opportunity for Council to formally recognise and celebrate the commemorative naming of new features and roads. It is proposed that the dedication events be held at The Centre Ivanhoe, with the families of those being commemorated invited to attend. Further, it is proposed that other members of the public who have expressed interest or engaged with Council during the community consultation phase and nearby neighbouring residents also be invited. FUNDING IMPLICATIONS The two dedication events are currently unbudgeted. The total cost of delivering both events is estimated to be no more than $2,000 (pending confirmation once acceptances are received). This proposed budget includes catering for morning or afternoon tea, administration, invitations and associated printing and postage. TIMELINES Both dedication events are anticipated to take place early September 2016. OFFICER DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 (Act) requires members of Council staff, and persons engaged under contract to provide advice to Council, to disclose any direct or indirect interest in a matter to which the advice relates. Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter. CONCLUSION Considering the collective significance of contributions made by the individuals being commemorated, the delivery of two separate dedication events is considered appropriate.

ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 51

6.1

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.1

ADOPTION OF SERVICES ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN

Author:

James Kelly - Manager Assets & Infrastructure, Assets & City Services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Council is responsible for the provision of a broad range of community-focussed services. A number of these require infrastructure to facilitate service delivery (e.g. buildings, parks and open space facilities, roads, footpaths, bridges and drains). A National Assessment Framework for Local Government Asset Management and Financial Planning (NAF) has been developed to evaluate progress with implementation of the Local Government Financial Sustainability Nationally Consistent Frameworks (LGPMC Financial Sustainability Frameworks) initiated by the Local Government and Planning Ministers’ Council (LGPMC) and adopted in 2007. The Sustainability Frameworks provide nationally consistent elements for local government to manage its community infrastructure more sustainably through effective asset management and financial planning. Through the LGPMC, the State and Territory Governments have agreed to facilitate implementation of the LGPMC Financial Sustainability Frameworks across the nation. Adoption of Council’s Services Asset Management Plans (SAMP) will provide the means by which Council can demonstrate that it has in place the management vehicle by which its performance can be measured by utilisation of a uniform management plan structure and format. RECOMMENDATION That: 1.

Council adopt the Service Asset Management Plan;

An annual report on the status of the Asset Management Plan be presented to Council.

CITY PLAN This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction to “plan and manage the systems and assets that support Council’s service delivery”. The Services Asset Management Plan (SAMP) provides management and financial input into the following key City Plan objectives:

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 53

6.1

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

ADOPTION OF SERVICES ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN cont’d SUSTAINABLE AMENITY AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT Maintain and enhance the quality of Banyule’s public spaces, buildings and infrastructure for people who live, work, shop, play and move around in our city. USE OUR RESOURCES WISELY Manage the financial and non-financial resources required for the next four years to achieve Council’s strategic objectives. Specific elements of City Plan 2013-2017 relating to service assets include: 3.1.4 Develop, renew and maintain Banyule’s public assets to defined and agreed standards 5.1.4 Continually review service levels, especially in areas where affordable, quality delivery is challenging 5.1.5 Ensure evidence based decision making seeking knowledge from practice, experience and research 5.2.1 Achieve a responsible budget 5.2.3 Develop sound long-term plans for capital works, asset maintenance and financial management 5.6 Plan and manage the systems and assets that support Council’s service delivery BACKGROUND Council is responsible for the provision of a broad range of community-focussed services. A number of these require infrastructure to facilitate service delivery. Examples of essential infrastructure include buildings, parks and open space facilities, roads, footpaths, bridges and drains. To operate effectively and to be able to sustain service delivery into the future, council should ensure that its infrastructure assets and community facilities are maintained at the required level of service. The purpose of the Services Asset Management Plan (SAMP) is to provide long-term management requirements for each asset group to achieve the required levels of service. These requirements include: -

Scope and purpose of the asset group

Function and levels of service

Anticipated future demand on the service and as a consequence the assets used Asset life-cycle management plan including risk management

Strategic financial management of the asset

Asset management responsibilities within the organisation

Relevant council reference documents (e.g. maintenance manuals, reports, studies) Applicable standards, manuals and guidelines

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 54

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.1

ADOPTION OF SERVICES ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN cont’d LEGAL CONSIDERATION A National Assessment Framework for Local Government Asset Management and Financial Planning (NAF) has been developed to evaluate progress with implementation of the Local Government Financial Sustainability Nationally Consistent Frameworks (LGPMC Financial Sustainability Frameworks). The Sustainability Frameworks provide nationally consistent elements for local government to manage its community infrastructure more sustainably through effective asset management and financial planning. The Services Asset Management Plan (SAMP) provides the means by which Banyule City Council can demonstrate that it has in place the management vehicle that meets the requirements of the National Assessment Framework (NAF). HUMAN RIGHTS CHARTER Victoria's Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities (the Charter) outlines the basic human rights of all people in Victoria. The Charter requires that governments, local councils and other public authorities comply with Charter and to consider relevant Charter rights when they make decisions. In developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. The proposed recommendation does not raise any human rights issues. CURRENT SITUATION Council has in place a number of Service Objectives and Quality & Cost Standards for the provision of various services which includes infrastructure maintenance. While these are effective management operational tools, they need updating to provide for strategic management into the future in the way required by the National Assessment Framework (NAF) with an asset management plan. The proposed Services Asset Management Plan (SAMP) does incorporate these Service Objectives and Quality & Cost Standards by including them as reference documents. CONSULTATION Council’s Services Asset Management Plan (SAMP) has been prepared by a consultant in close co-operation and consultation with Council’s officers involved with day-to-day management of each asset group. The consultant has been involved with the preparation of such plans across a number of councils in Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 55

6.1

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

ADOPTION OF SERVICES ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN cont’d DISCUSSION STRUCTURE OF THE SERVICES ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN (SAMP): The prime guidance used for development of this Services Asset Management Plan (SAMP) is the International Infrastructure Management Manual (IIMM). This Manual represents the best modern practice across the globe. It has been developed jointly by the NZ Asset Management Steering Group and the Institute of Public Works Engineering of Australia. This manual is highly recognised around the world as a leading Infrastructure Management Manual for public works authorities such as municipal councils. The Manual provides practitioners with the necessary tools, resources and case studies to demonstrate how to apply and put into practice, the elements of good infrastructure asset management as set out in the ISO standard for asset management. The Manual, while not mandating the precise nature of asset management plans, sets out an example of the format and structure of an asset management plan. This format has been adopted across Australia by State and Federal Governments in order to provide consistency of information being provided by local government as to the state of their assets. Council’s Services Asset Management Plan (SAMP) follows this format. It is largely generic although data sets, management requirements, levels of service and financial needs are specific for Banyule. The Plan has been broken into several parts, of which only Part ‘A’ will be included as attachments, due to the size of this plan. Part ‘A’ represents General Information. All the parts are listed below:        

Part ‘A’ - General Information associated with managing all asset groups Part ‘B’ - Road Network Plan Part ‘C’ - Pathways Plan Part ‘D’ - Bridges Plan Part ‘E’ - Stormwater Drainage Plan Part ‘F’ - Open Space Assets Plan Part ‘G’ - Open Space Pathways Plan Part ‘H’ – Building Facilities

In summary, Banyule City Council’s Services Asset Management Plan provides the framework to deliver optimum operational performance of Council’s infrastructure assets in a cost effective manner. The Plan aims to provide a more formalised and transparent approach to asset management. It provides mechanisms to clearly define its asset refurbishment and asset maintenance practices and to mitigate risk. STRATEGIC FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT: The SAMP provides advice to Council on the financial requirements for long-term sustainability of each asset group. This information is to be used for the development of Council’s Long-Term Financial Plan and Strategic Resource Plan.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 56

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.1

ADOPTION OF SERVICES ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN cont’d A key aspect of strategic financial management is the establishment of the predicted long-term financial needs for ongoing operations, maintenance and renewal expenditures for retaining the assets at the required levels of service. This determined by means of the best available information. It is not a precise indicator but is the best means currently available to predict future funding needs. It provides an understanding of the impact of any funding ‘gap’ for operations, maintenance and renewals and a plan to manage that gap where it exists. The SAMP needs to be reviewed at least annually to ensure that management practices and predicted funding needs are in accord with reality. Council may, for whatever reason, have cause in its annual budget to vary its funding commitments to an asset group. This will impact the group and may result in changes which will have to be factored into an updated Plan. This in turn may well have strategic financial implications. A typical example is the deferring of capital renewal of asset components. This is likely to result in an increase in maintenance funding needs as the aging asset deteriorates further, yet is expected to continue to provide a required level of service. To not do so, is to create a risk management issue. Deferring a capital renewal has a consequential impact of increasing maintenance costs in the recurrent (non-capital) budget. The SAMP needs to reflect any such impacts in the annual review subsequent to the annual budget deliberations. OFFICER DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 (Act) requires members of Council staff, and persons engaged under contract to provide advice to Council, to disclose any direct or indirect interest in a matter to which the advice relates. There is no conflict of interest by either council officers or the consultant related to the development of the Services Asset Management Plan. CONCLUSION Banyule City Council’s Services Asset Management Plan (SAMP) provides the first comprehensive management tool to Council for each infrastructure asset group involved in council’s community service framework. It is a flexible document designed around Council’s ability to fund its services. As the services change in nature, the SAMP must be updated to reflect the changes, particularly any impacts on financial implications.

ATTACHMENTS No.

Title

Services Asset Management Plan Part 'A' - General Information

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 253

Page 57

6.2

REAPPOINTMENT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Author: Services

Gina Burden - Manager Governance & Communication, Corporate

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Banyule CEO Employment Matters Committee, comprising all Councillors and an independent Chair, met and requested that the statutory process commence to reappoint the existing Chief Executive Officer (CEO). Council resolved to commence this process at its meeting on the 14 June 2016 as required by the Local Government Act 1989 which included a public notification process. The required public notices were placed in the 21 and 22 June 2016 editions of the Heidelberg and Diamond Valley Newspapers. A public notice was also published on Council’s website on the 21 June 2016. The purpose of this report is to confirm Council’s intention to reappoint Simon McMillan to the position of Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Banyule City Council when his current contract of employment expires on 14 December 2016. RECOMMENDATION That: 1.

In accordance with the public notice published on Council’s website and in the Heidelberg Leader Newspaper on 21 June 2016, and the Diamond Valley Leader Newspaper on 22 June 2016, and in pursuant to section 94(4) of the Local Government Act 1989, Council reappoints Simon McMillan as Council’s Chief Executive Officer for a period of five (5) years in accordance with the contract of employment effective from 15 December 2016.

The common seal be affixed to the contract of employment due to commence from 15 December 2016.

CITY PLAN This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction to “enable good governance and accountability with minimal risk”. BACKGROUND As part of the statutory process to reappoint the CEO, Council at its meeting on 14 June 2016 adopted the following resolution: ‘That public notice in the Heidelberg and Diamond Valley Leader Newspapers be given that, at the Council Meeting on 25 July 2016, a resolution will be made that Simon McMillan be reappointed as Council’s Chief Executive Officer from 15 December 2016.’

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 58

6.2

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

REAPPOINTMENT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d Accordingly, the required notice was placed in the 21 and 22 June 2016 editions of the Heidelberg and Diamond Valley Newspapers. The CEO Employment Matters Committee have negotiated the terms with the CEO in relation to his reappointment. The agreed terms have been specified in the final contract to be authorised by Council. LEGAL CONSIDERATION In accordance with Section 94(3) and (4) of the Act: 1.

A Council may only appoint a person to be its Chief Executive Officer after it has invited applications for the position in a notice in a newspaper circulating generally throughout Victoria and has considered all applications received by it that comply with the conditions specified in the notice.

This does not apply if: (a) in the 6 months immediately before the person's contract as Chief Executive Officer is due to expire, the Council passes a resolution to reappoint that person as its Chief Executive Officer; and (b) at least 14 days before the resolution is passed, public notice was given of the intention to put the resolution; and (c) the public notice containedâ&#x20AC;&#x201D; (i) a statement that the passing of the resolution would result in the reappointment of the Chief Executive Officer without the position being advertised; and (ii) any other details required by the regulations.

Section 94(4A) subsection 6 requires: If a Council passes a resolution to reappoint a person as its Chief Executive Officer without advertising the position, the Council must make details of the person's proposed total remuneration as Chief Executive Officer under the new contract available for public inspection within 14 days after the passing of the resolution. The details of the total remuneration will be available for inspection at the Ivanhoe Service Centre. The action taken by Banyule City Council in reappointing Simon McMillan to the position of CEO following the expiration of his current contract has been undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the Act. HUMAN RIGHTS CHARTER It is considered that the subject matter does not raise any human rights issues. OFFICER DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 (Act) requires members of Council staff, and persons engaged under contract to provide advice to Council, to disclose any direct or indirect interest in a matter to which the advice relates. Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter. ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 59

6.2

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.3

ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS

Author:

Ellen Kavanagh - Governance Officer, Corporate Services

6.3

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:

27 June 2016

Type of Meeting:

Multicultural Advisory Committee

Matters Considered:

Conflict of Interest:

1. Representation on VMC Regional Advisory Council 2. Northland Faith room 3. Preparation for the Census 4. Multicultural Arts Projects for 2016-17 5. Fact Sheets in Other Languages on Website 6. Multicultural Plan 2016-17 7. Emerging Advocacy Issues/ Other Business Steven Briffa Mark Di Pasquale Craig Langdon Tom Melican Allison Beckwith – Director Community Programs Theonie Tacticos – Coordinator Community and Social Planning India Mortlock – Community & Social Planner Caitlin Armstrong – Arts Officer Rosemary Crosthwaite, George Giuliani, Albert Fatileh, Uma Vijay, Ryoko Williams, Hussein Haraco, Maxine Matthews and Gillian Hirst Nil

Date of Assembly:

4 July 2016

Councillors Present:

Staff Present:

Others Present: Committee Members

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 60

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

Type of Meeting:

Councillor Briefing

Matters Considered:

Councillors Present:

Staff Present:

6.3

ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS cont’d

Kalparrin Gardens/Ford Park Reserve Draft Masterplan 2. Olympic Park Masterplan 3. Heidelberg Central Streetscape Concept Plan 4. Transport focus Group 5. Public Open Space Plan 6. Asset Management Plan 7. Community Satisfaction Survey Steven Briffa Mark Di Pasquale Rick Garotti Craig Langdon Tom Melican Jenny Mulholland Simon McMillan – Chief Executive Officer Scott Walker – Director City Development James Kelly – Manager Assets & Infrastructure Peter Benazic – Manager Parks & Gardens Lisa Raywood – Manager Health & Aged Services Darren Bennett – Manager Leisure, Recreation & Culture Services Jeff Parkes – Open Space Planning Co-Ordinator Susan Hecker – Open Space Officer Brett Jose – Open Space Planning Project Officer Lucia Brennan – Recreation Planner Joseph Tabacco – Manager Property & Economic Development Daniel Kollmorgen – Manager Transport, Sustainability and Municipal Laws Bailey Burns – Transport Planning Team Leader David Bailey – Engineering Services Coordinator

Others Present:

Kylie Jordan – Hansen Partnership

Conflict of Interest:

Nil

Date of Assembly:

11 July 2016

Type of Meeting:

Councillor Briefing

Matters Considered:

2.1 Child, Youth and Family Plan 2.2 Draft Banyule Tennis Strategy 3.1 Public Open Space Plan 3.2 Greening Banyule 3.3 Appointment of Banyule Environment Advisory Committee (BEAC) 2016 4.1 North East Link - Quarterly Update 4.2 Construction of four dwellings at 14 & 14A Hodgson Street, Heidelberg P89/2015

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 61

6.3

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS cont’d

Others Present:

4.3 Olympic Park Draft Master Plan 4.4 Somers Avenue, Macleod - Review of Paid Parking 4.5 Managing Construction Activity associated with Large Development Sites 4.6 Kalparrin Gardens Master Plan 4.7 Ford Park Master Plan 4.8 Transport Advocacy 6.1 Items for Noting 6.2 Rating Strategy 2016/2017 6.3 Assembly of Councillors 7.1 Sealing of Documents 8.1 The importance of Darebin Creek for the LaTrobe national Employment Cluster 8.2 Bill Posting in Activity Centres Mark Di Pasquale Rick Garotti Craig Langdon Tom Melican Jenny Mulholland Wayne Phillips Simon McMillan – Chief Executive Officer Scott Walker – Director City Development Marc Giglio – Director Corporate Services Gina Burden – Manager Governance & Communication Emily Outlaw – Council Governance Liaison Officer James Kelly – Manager Assets & Infrastructure Peter Benazic – Manager Parks & Gardens Jeff Parkes – Open Space Planning Co-Ordinator Lisa Raywood – Manager Health & Aged Services Daniel Kollmorgen – Manager Transport, Sustainability and Municipal Laws Darren Bennett – Manager Leisure, Recreation & Culture Services Nil

Conflict of Interest:

Nil

Councillors Present:

Staff Present:

RECOMMENDATION That the Assembly of Councillors report be received.

ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 62

6.4

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

ITEMS FOR NOTING

Authors: Gina Burden - Manager Governance & Communication, Corporate Services; & David Bailey - Engineering Co-Ordinator, City Development

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

Municipal Association of Victoria - Achievements for 2015-16.

The response from the Hon. Bruce Atkinson MLC to the Mayor’s letter regarding safety on Rosanna Road consistent with Council’s resolution of 14 June 2016.

The following Minutes or Reports are presented for noting: 1.

Report

MAV Achievements for 2015-16

Officer:

Gina Burden, Manager Governance and Communication The Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) has written to Council regarding the 2016-17 membership renewal. Included was a detailed summary of the MAV’s achievements over the past 12 months and the benefits of MAV membership.

Brief explanation:

The MAV have formally requested that this information be tabled at a Council meeting, so the benefits of Council’s past and continued membership can be formally noted by Council.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page 63

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

ITEMS FOR NOTING cont’d 2.

Report

6.4

Officer: Brief explanation:

Response from the Hon. Bruce Atkinson MLC dated 28 June regarding safety on Rosanna Road. David Bailey Council at its meeting 14 June 2016 resolved the following: Resolution (CO2016/1) That Council: 1.

Write to VicRoads: a) expressing the Banyule community’s urgent concerns about the safety of Rosanna Road and requesting that VicRoads takes immediate action to address the safety issues that have been identified in the SafeSystemSolution report dated 14 March 2016 titled “Rosanna Road, Heidelberg Road Safety Assessment”; and b) expressing disappointment that the SafeSystemSolution report on Rosanna Road safety issues was not provided to Council prior the request of Council to endorse the Road as an Over Dimensional (OD) route, despite having the report at the time of making the request of Council.

Call on VicRoads to: a) provide a 50% contribution for a Crossing supervisor as a matter of urgency at Rosanna and Banyule Road, with Council contributing the balance; and b) require all trucks to be restricted to the centre lane only.

Write to local Members of State Parliament requesting their support to advocate to the State Government and VicRoads for immediate action to address the safety issues in Rosanna Road.

Letters were sent to VicRoads and Local Members of State Parliament on 22 June 2016. Council has recently received a response from the Hon. Bruce Atkinson MLC, a copy of which is attached.

ATTACHMENTS No.

Title

MAV Highlights Report 2015-16

Response from Bruce Atkinson MLC

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 25 July 2016

Page

Page 64

ATTACHMENTS

2.1

Sporting Reserve User Guide Review Attachment 1 Attachment 2 Attachment 3

2.2

Age-friendly Victoria Declaration Attachment 1 Attachment 2

4.1

Attachment 2

Attachment 2 Attachment 3 Attachment 4

Hughes Street, Montmorency - Road Closure Location Proposal - Invitation to Resident ................................................... 236 Hughes Street, Montmorency - Delay in installation Steel Rails - Update on Project............................................................... 239 Hughes Street and Deirdre Court, Montmorency - Proposed Road Closure Trial - VicRoads Consent Letter .............................. 240 Hughes Street and Deirdre Court, Montmorency - Permanent Closure Proposal - Initial Consultation Survey ............................... 250

Adoption of Services Asset Management Plan Attachment 1

6.4

Protecting the Yarra River - Discussion Paper............................... 157 Banyule Council Submission ........................................................ 235

Hughes Street and Deirdre Court, Montmorency - Proposed Permanent Road Closure Attachment 1

6.1

103 Green Street IVANHOE - Attachment 1 - Background information - P260/2016 pt1 .......................................................... 149 103 Green Street - Attachment 2 - Advertised plan ....................... 155

Yarra River Protection Discussion Paper Attachment 1 Attachment 2

5.1

Road Safety Audit ......................................................................... 136

Removal of vegetation at Seddon Reserve (103 Green Street, Ivanhoe) P260/2016 Attachment 1

4.4

Attachment 2: Victoria Declaration - Statement of Support ............ 134 Attachment 1: Victoria Declaration between State and MAV.......... 135

Rosanna Road and Banyule Road, Rosanna - Road Safety Audit Attachment 1

4.2

Draft Allocation Policy 2017-2020.................................................... 66 Draft Terms and Conditions of Use 2017-2020................................ 80 Summary of Proposed Changes July 2016.................................... 128

Services Asset Management Plan Part 'A' - General Information .................................................................................... 253

Items for Noting Attachment 1 Attachment 2

MAV Highlights Report 2015-16 .................................................... 289 Response from Bruce Atkinson MLC ............................................. 301

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 65

Item: 2.1

Attachment 1: Draft Allocation Policy 2017-2020

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 66

Item: 2.1

Attachment 1: Draft Allocation Policy 2017-2020

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 67

Item: 2.1

Attachment 1: Draft Allocation Policy 2017-2020

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 68

Item: 2.1

Attachment 1: Draft Allocation Policy 2017-2020

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 69

Item: 2.1

Attachment 1: Draft Allocation Policy 2017-2020

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 70

Item: 2.1

Attachment 1: Draft Allocation Policy 2017-2020

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 71

Item: 2.1

Attachment 1: Draft Allocation Policy 2017-2020

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 72

Item: 2.1

Attachment 1: Draft Allocation Policy 2017-2020

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 73

Item: 2.1

Attachment 1: Draft Allocation Policy 2017-2020

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 74

Item: 2.1

Attachment 1: Draft Allocation Policy 2017-2020

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 75

Item: 2.1

Attachment 1: Draft Allocation Policy 2017-2020

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 76

Item: 2.1

Attachment 1: Draft Allocation Policy 2017-2020

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 77

Item: 2.1

Attachment 1: Draft Allocation Policy 2017-2020

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 78

Item: 2.1

Attachment 1: Draft Allocation Policy 2017-2020

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 79

Attachment 2: Draft Terms and Conditions of Use 2017-2020

Attachment 2

2.1

Item: 2.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 80

2.1

Attachment 2: Draft Terms and Conditions of Use 2017-2020

Attachment 2

Item: 2.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 81

Attachment 2: Draft Terms and Conditions of Use 2017-2020

Attachment 2

2.1

Item: 2.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 82

2.1

Attachment 2: Draft Terms and Conditions of Use 2017-2020

Attachment 2

Item: 2.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 83

Attachment 2: Draft Terms and Conditions of Use 2017-2020

Attachment 2

2.1

Item: 2.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 84

2.1

Attachment 2: Draft Terms and Conditions of Use 2017-2020

Attachment 2

Item: 2.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 85

Attachment 2: Draft Terms and Conditions of Use 2017-2020

Attachment 2

2.1

Item: 2.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 86

2.1

Attachment 2: Draft Terms and Conditions of Use 2017-2020

Attachment 2

Item: 2.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 87

Attachment 2: Draft Terms and Conditions of Use 2017-2020

Attachment 2

2.1

Item: 2.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 88

2.1

Attachment 2: Draft Terms and Conditions of Use 2017-2020

Attachment 2

Item: 2.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 89

Attachment 2: Draft Terms and Conditions of Use 2017-2020

Attachment 2

2.1

Item: 2.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 90

2.1

Attachment 2: Draft Terms and Conditions of Use 2017-2020

Attachment 2

Item: 2.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 91

Attachment 2: Draft Terms and Conditions of Use 2017-2020

Attachment 2

2.1

Item: 2.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 92

2.1

Attachment 2: Draft Terms and Conditions of Use 2017-2020

Attachment 2

Item: 2.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 93

Attachment 2: Draft Terms and Conditions of Use 2017-2020

Attachment 2

2.1

Item: 2.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 94

2.1

Attachment 2: Draft Terms and Conditions of Use 2017-2020

Attachment 2

Item: 2.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 95

Attachment 2: Draft Terms and Conditions of Use 2017-2020

Attachment 2

2.1

Item: 2.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 96

2.1

Attachment 2: Draft Terms and Conditions of Use 2017-2020

Attachment 2

Item: 2.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 97

Attachment 2: Draft Terms and Conditions of Use 2017-2020

Attachment 2

2.1

Item: 2.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 98

2.1

Attachment 2: Draft Terms and Conditions of Use 2017-2020

Attachment 2

Item: 2.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 99

Attachment 2: Draft Terms and Conditions of Use 2017-2020

Attachment 2

2.1

Item: 2.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 100

2.1

Attachment 2: Draft Terms and Conditions of Use 2017-2020

Attachment 2

Item: 2.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 101

Attachment 2: Draft Terms and Conditions of Use 2017-2020

Attachment 2

2.1

Item: 2.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 102

2.1

Attachment 2: Draft Terms and Conditions of Use 2017-2020

Attachment 2

Item: 2.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 103

Attachment 2: Draft Terms and Conditions of Use 2017-2020

Attachment 2

2.1

Item: 2.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 104

2.1

Attachment 2: Draft Terms and Conditions of Use 2017-2020

Attachment 2

Item: 2.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 105

Attachment 2: Draft Terms and Conditions of Use 2017-2020

Attachment 2

2.1

Item: 2.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 106

2.1

Attachment 2: Draft Terms and Conditions of Use 2017-2020

Attachment 2

Item: 2.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 107

Attachment 2: Draft Terms and Conditions of Use 2017-2020

Attachment 2

2.1

Item: 2.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 108

2.1

Attachment 2: Draft Terms and Conditions of Use 2017-2020

Attachment 2

Item: 2.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 109

Attachment 2: Draft Terms and Conditions of Use 2017-2020

Attachment 2

2.1

Item: 2.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 110

2.1

Attachment 2: Draft Terms and Conditions of Use 2017-2020

Attachment 2

Item: 2.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 111

Attachment 2: Draft Terms and Conditions of Use 2017-2020

Attachment 2

2.1

Item: 2.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 112

2.1

Attachment 2: Draft Terms and Conditions of Use 2017-2020

Attachment 2

Item: 2.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 113

Attachment 2: Draft Terms and Conditions of Use 2017-2020

Attachment 2

2.1

Item: 2.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 114

2.1

Attachment 2: Draft Terms and Conditions of Use 2017-2020

Attachment 2

Item: 2.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 115

Attachment 2: Draft Terms and Conditions of Use 2017-2020

Attachment 2

2.1

Item: 2.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 116

2.1

Attachment 2: Draft Terms and Conditions of Use 2017-2020

Attachment 2

Item: 2.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 117

Attachment 2: Draft Terms and Conditions of Use 2017-2020

Attachment 2

2.1

Item: 2.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 118

2.1

Attachment 2: Draft Terms and Conditions of Use 2017-2020

Attachment 2

Item: 2.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 119

Attachment 2: Draft Terms and Conditions of Use 2017-2020

Attachment 2

2.1

Item: 2.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 120

2.1

Attachment 2: Draft Terms and Conditions of Use 2017-2020

Attachment 2

Item: 2.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 121

Attachment 2: Draft Terms and Conditions of Use 2017-2020

Attachment 2

2.1

Item: 2.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 122

2.1

Attachment 2: Draft Terms and Conditions of Use 2017-2020

Attachment 2

Item: 2.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 123

Attachment 2: Draft Terms and Conditions of Use 2017-2020

Attachment 2

2.1

Item: 2.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 124

2.1

Attachment 2: Draft Terms and Conditions of Use 2017-2020

Attachment 2

Item: 2.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 125

Attachment 2: Draft Terms and Conditions of Use 2017-2020

Attachment 2

2.1

Item: 2.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 126

2.1

Attachment 2: Draft Terms and Conditions of Use 2017-2020

Attachment 2

Item: 2.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 127

Attachment 3: Summary of Proposed Changes July 2016

Attachment 1 3

2.1 4.2

Item: 2.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 128

2.1 4.2

Attachment 3: Summary of Proposed Changes July 2016

Attachment 1 3

Item: 2.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 129

Attachment 3: Summary of Proposed Changes July 2016

Attachment 1 3

2.1 4.2

Item: 2.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 130

2.1 4.2

Attachment 3: Summary of Proposed Changes July 2016

Attachment 1 3

Item: 2.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 131

Attachment 3: Summary of Proposed Changes July 2016

Attachment 1 3

2.1 4.2

Item: 2.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 132

2.1 4.2

Attachment 3: Summary of Proposed Changes July 2016

Attachment 1 3

Item: 2.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 133

Attachment 1: Attachment 2: Victoria Declaration - Statement of Support

Attachment 1

2.2

Item: 2.2

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 134

2.2

Attachment 2: Attachment 1: Victoria Declaration between State and MAV

Attachment 2

Item: 2.2

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 135

Attachment 1

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 136

Attachment 1: Road Safety Audit

4.1

Attachment 1: Road Safety Audit

Attachment 1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 137

Attachment 1

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 138

Attachment 1: Road Safety Audit

4.1

Attachment 1: Road Safety Audit

Attachment 1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 139

Attachment 1

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 140

Attachment 1: Road Safety Audit

4.1

Attachment 1: Road Safety Audit

Attachment 1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 141

Attachment 1

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 142

Attachment 1: Road Safety Audit

4.1

Attachment 1: Road Safety Audit

Attachment 1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 143

Attachment 1

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 144

Attachment 1: Road Safety Audit

4.1

Attachment 1: Road Safety Audit

Attachment 1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 145

Attachment 1

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 146

Attachment 1: Road Safety Audit

4.1

Attachment 1: Road Safety Audit

Attachment 1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 147

Attachment 1

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 148

Attachment 1: Road Safety Audit

Item: 4.2

Attachment 1: 103 Green Street IVANHOE - Attachment 1 - Background information P260/2016 pt1

103 Green Street IVANHOE

Attachment 1

PROPOSAL IN DETAIL The arboricultural report supplied with the application assesses the trees in the vicinity of the proposed works as follows: Tree # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 *19 20 *21 *22 *23 24 25 26 27 *28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

Height Spread DBH (m) (m) (cm)

Species (Common Name) Melaleuca linariifolia (Snow in Summer) Quercus palustris (Pin Oak) Eucalyptus camaldulensis (River Red Gum) Eucalyptus camaldulensis (River Red Gum) Eucalyptus camaldulensis (River Red Gum) Eucalyptus camaldulensis (River Red Gum) Eucalyptus camaldulensis (River Red Gum) Fraxinus ‘Raywoodi’ (Claret Ash) Eucalyptus camaldulensis (River Red Gum) Eucalyptus camaldulensis (River Red Gum) Eucalyptus camaldulensis (River Red Gum) Eucalyptus camaldulensis (River Red Gum) Eucalyptus camaldulensis (River Red Gum) Quercus palustris (Pin Oak) Prunus cerasifera ‘Nigra’ (Purple Leaved Cherry Plum) Melaleuca linariifolia (Snow in Summer) Prunus cerasifera ‘Nigra’ (Purple Leaved Cherry Plum) Photinea serrulata (Chinese Hawthorn) Fraxinus angustifolia (Desert Ash) Quercus robur (English Oak) Fraxinus angustifolia (Desert Ash) Fraxinus angustifolia (Desert Ash) Fraxinus angustifolia (Desert Ash) Eucalyptus camaldulensis (River Red Gum) Eucalyptus leucoxylon subsp. megalocarpa (Large Fruited Yellow Gum) Eucalyptus leucoxylon subsp. megalocarpa (Large Fruited Yellow Gum) Eucalyptus leucoxylon subsp. megalocarpa (Large Fruited Yellow Gum) Fraxinus angustifolia (Desert Ash) Eucalyptus camaldulensis (River Red Gum) Eucalyptus leucoxylon subsp. megalocarpa (Large Fruited Yellow Gum) Eucalyptus camaldulensis (River Red Gum) Cedrus atlantica (Atlas Cedar) Eucalyptus camaldulensis (River Red Gum) Quercus robur (English Oak) Eucalyptus camaldulensis (River Red Gum) Eucalyptus camaldulensis (River Red Gum) Quercus robur (English Oak) Fraxinus angustifolia (Desert Ash) Eucalyptus camaldulensis (River Red Gum) Eucalyptus camaldulensis (River Red Gum) Quercus robur (English Oak)

Retention Rating

SRZ (m)

TPZ (m)

5 8 8 11 6 12 7 7 9 11 11 12 7 5 5 4 5 6 5 10 8 6 6 6

5 5 6 5 4 6 5 5 4 5 6 5 5 6 4 5 4 7 3 12 8 6 6 4

46 18 29 32 22 34 18 20 16 28 32 26 27 17 19 42 19 30 13 56 35 22 19 14

Medium Low Medium Medium Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Low Medium Medium Medium Low High Low Low Low Low

2.6 1.8 2.1 2.2 1.9 2.4 1.9 1.8 1.9 2.2 2.3 2.1 2.0 1.7 2.1 2.6 2.1 2.4 1.8 2.7 2.3 2.0 1.9 1.8

5.5 2.2 3.5 3.8 2.6 4.1 2.2 2.4 2.0 3.4 3.8 3.1 3.2 2.0 2.2 5.0 2.2 3.7 2 6.7 4.2 2.6 2.3 2.0

Medium

1.5

2.0

Medium

2.0

2.9

Medium

1.7

2.0

8 10

9 5

34 23

Low Medium

2.3 2.0

4.1 2.8

Medium

1.7

2.0

8 9 10 8 13 9 9 8 8 8 10

5 5 4 6 6 3 9 5 3 5 9

19 20 18 39 30 15 42 20 12 21 45

Medium Medium Medium Low Low Medium High Low Medium Medium Medium

1.8 1.8 1.8 2.3 2.2 2.0 2.4 1.9 1.6 2.0 2.5

2.3 2.4 2.2 4.7 3.6 2.0 5.0 2.4 2.0 2.5 5.4

Trees marked grey are proposed to be removed, those with an * shown next to the tree number do not require planning approval due to their weed status. The proposed netball court location is such that a setback of between 9.4m and 10.1m would be maintained between any court fencing and the eastern boundary of the reserve. The courts would be located directly adjacent to the existing chainmesh fence near the southern boundary of the

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 149

Item: 4.2

Attachment 1: 103 Green Street IVANHOE - Attachment 1 - Background information P260/2016 pt1

reserve, providing a setback of between approximately 3.9m and 5.5m between the courts and the southern property boundary. PLANNING CONTROLS IN DETAIL PUBLIC PARK AND RECREATION ZONE The purposes of the Public Park and Recreation Zone are: •

To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.

•

To recognise areas for public recreation and open space.

•

To protect and conserve areas of significance where appropriate.

•

To provide for commercial uses where appropriate.

No permit is required for the proposed tree removal or works associated with the netball courts and pathway is required pursuant to the Zone provisions. ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE OVERLAY (ESO1) Schedule 1 to the Overlay outlines that it seeks: •

To protect areas along watercourses from development and loss of vegetation that may damage the streamside environment as a visual, conservation, ecological and recreation resource.

•

To enhance and encourage the conservation and maintenance of the streamside environment as a conservation, ecological and recreation resource.

•

To address the threatening processes associated with widespread habitat loss and degradation that has occurred in North East Melbourne.

•

To conserve water quality and watercourse capacity to enable appropriate beneficial land use and water-based activities to be undertaken.

•

To encourage the retention and enhancement of a continuous corridor of indigenous vegetation along river and creek banks in order to provide corridors and habitat for the movement of wildlife.

•

To protect the watercourse and adjoining parkland and its flora and fauna from the effects of polluted waters conveyed by the stormwater system or other means.

•

To protect and enhance sites with archaeological or scientific significance.

•

To encourage development consistent with any approved concept plan for the area.

•

To ensure that development and management of land is compatible with the natural environmental character and landscaped qualities of the watercourse and its surrounds.

A planning permit is required to remove, lop or destroy vegetation pursuant to the Overlay. Exceptions include the removal of: •

Native vegetation which has been planted for garden or horticultural purposes and which is less than 5 metres high and has a single trunk circumference of less than 0.5 metres at a height of 1 metre above ground level.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 150

Item: 4.2

Attachment 1: 103 Green Street IVANHOE - Attachment 1 - Background information P260/2016 pt1

•

Exotic vegetation which is less than 5 metres in height and has a trunk circumference of less than 0.5 metres at a height of 1 metre above ground level.

•

Vegetation identified as environmental weed species in Banyule Weed Management Strategy 2006.

•

Dead vegetation, unless the dead vegetation is a habitat tree containing hollows.

A planning permit is required for the proposed removal of Trees 5-8, 10-14, 20, 24-27 and 29-32 pursuant to the Overlay. Decision guidelines include: •

The role of native vegetation in conserving flora and fauna.

•

The need to retain native or other vegetation if it is rare, supports rare species of flora or fauna or forms part of a wildlife corridor.

•

The need to retain vegetation which prevents or limits adverse effects on ground water recharge.

•

The need to retain vegetation: o

Where ground slopes exceed 20 percent.

Within 30 metres of a watercourse or wetland.

On land where the soil or subsoil may become unstable if cleared.

On land subject to or which may contribute to soil erosion, slippage or salinisation.

In areas where the removal, destruction or lopping of vegetation could adversely affect the integrity or long term preservation of an identified site of scientific, nature conservation or cultural significance.

Which is of heritage or cultural significance.

•

Whether the application includes a land management plan or works program.

•

Whether provision is made or is to be made to establish and maintain native vegetation elsewhere on the land.

•

The Middle Yarra River Concept Plan - Dights Falls to Burke Road, August, 1990; the Middle Yarra Concept Plan - Burke Road to Watsons Creek, July 1991; the Lower Plenty River Concept Plan, October 1994; the Lower Darebin Creek Concept Plan, March 1995; or any other approved concept plan, as relevant.

•

Any report on the value or otherwise of the specified vegetation including:

•

An Inventory of Sites of Environmental Significance in the City of Banyule and Adjoining Areas, Banyule City Council, September 1995,

Sites of Faunal and Habitat Significance in North East Melbourne, Cam Beardsell, 1997,

Lower Plenty River Concept Plan Vegetation Report 1991,

Banyule Weed Management Strategy 2006, and

Wildlife Corridor Program, Banyule City Council, 2000.

The conservation and enhancement of vegetation in the area.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 151

Item: 4.2

Attachment 1: 103 Green Street IVANHOE - Attachment 1 - Background information P260/2016 pt1

•

The benefits of retaining a buffer strip of vegetation within specified distances of watercourses, roads and property boundaries.

•

The benefits of requiring planting, replanting or other treatment of any part of the land.

•

Any proposed landscape plan or agreement to replace areas of vegetation on the site.

•

Whether the native or exotic vegetation makes a significant contribution to the visual amenity or landscape qualities of the streamside environment.

LAND SUBJECT TO INUNDATION OVERLAY Whilst this Overlay applies to the section of the site which is closest to the Darebin Creek, the area where works are currently proposed is not affected by the Overlay. CLAUSE 52.17: NATIVE VEGETATION

No planning approval is required for the proposed tree removal pursuant to Clause 52.17, as all of the trees to be removed were planted for aesthetic and amenity purposes. BACKGROUND/HISTORY The most recent planning application for the land was a request to amend Planning Permit TP7388 in 2012. The amendment sought approval for an increase the hours of activities, meetings and functions at the premises and to enable the service of liquor. This application was refused on 27 February 2013. REFERRAL COMMENTS DEVELOPMENT PLANNING ARBORIST Council’s Development Planning Arborist has advised that with respect to tree removal: The application proposes the removal of 23 trees from within the site in the vicinity of the proposed netball courts. Of these: •

10 trees are semi-mature indigenous river red gums that are planted specimens. These are all assessed as having low to medium retention value;

•

4 are non-indigenous, Australian native species. These are all assessed as having medium retention value;

•

3 are exotic species; two are assessed as having medium retention value and one is assessed as having high retention value; and

•

5 are weed species. The proposed removal of these trees is supported.

Advice with respect to those trees indicated as being retained, advice given is that: The application assesses 18 trees in the vicinity of the proposed netball courts. Of these: •

8 trees are semi-mature indigenous river red gums that are planted specimens. These are all assessed as having medium retention value;

•

2 are non-indigenous, Australian native species. These are all assessed as having medium retention value;

•

4 are exotic species; two are assessed as having low retention value, one is assessed as having medium retention value, and one is assessed as having high retention value; and,

•

3 are weed species. These trees should be removed.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 152

Item: 4.2

Attachment 1: 103 Green Street IVANHOE - Attachment 1 - Background information P260/2016 pt1

The arborist notes that there has been no assessment of trees located between the proposed court site and the reserve entrances in the vicinity of which protection measures may be required for construction access. With respect to the provisions of the Environmental Significance Overlay, the arborist advises that: Aside from the weed species identified for removal, the remaining trees are all protected by the ESO1. It is accepted that the proposed siting of the netball courts in the south east corner of the reserve is the only feasible location within the site given the heavily treed areas elsewhere around the football ground and cricket nets. In this respect, the siting of the proposed courts limits the vegetation impacts as comparatively few trees are impacted, and these are scattered formal plantings. Assessed against the overlay’s environmental objectives it is considered that siting new netball courts in the south east corner of the reserve (and the subsequent vegetation loss): •

Reduces as much as possible any impacts on the watercourse (Darebin Creek) and thereby maintains it as a visual, conservation, ecological and recreation resource;

•

Does not significantly impact the ecological corridor; and

•

Does not represent a significant loss of habitat.

Assessed against the overlay’s decision guidelines (vegetation), the proposed tree removal represents a relatively low conflict as: •

None of the vegetation is within 30 metres of the watercourse and the vegetation proposed for removal does not make a significant contribution to the visual amenity or landscape qualities of the streamside environment;

•

The vegetation proposed for removal is located on level ground (not on a slope);

•

The vegetation proposed for removal is not rare or threatened and is not of heritage or cultural significance;

•

Removing the vegetation is unlikely to cause erosion, slippage, or subsoil instability; and;

•

There is a provision to establish and maintain native vegetation elsewhere on the land.

•

Replacement planting can – where necessary – provide a buffer strip of vegetation within specified distances of watercourses, roads and property boundaries.

Finally, the arborist notes that the construction of only one court (i.e. the northernmost proposed court) would enable the retention of four additional trees. These are Tree #20 (a high retention value English oak) and Trees #25 - #27 (three medium-retention value, non-indigenous yellow gums). The remaining trees located in and adjacent to the southern section of the proposed footprint are environmental weed species and should be removed regardless.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 153

4.2

Attachment 2: 103 Green Street - Attachment 2 - Advertised plan

Attachment 2

Item: 4.2

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 25 JULY 2016 Page 155

4.4