Banyule City Council Agenda 27 June 2016 by Banyule City Council

Ordinary Meeting of Council Council Chambers, Service Centre 275 Upper Heidelberg Road, Ivanhoe 27 June 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 14 June 2016 Disclosure of Interests 1. Petitions 1.1 Petition regarding the Residential Parking Permit Scheme .....................................3 REPORTS: 2. People – Community Strengthening and Support Nil 3. Planet – Environmental Sustainability Nil 4. Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment 4.1 Analysis of Proposed Traffic and Car Parking Initiatives around Loyola College, Watsonia .......................................................................................7 4.2 Managing Construction Activity associated with Large Development Sites................................................................................................17 4.3 44 Turnham Avenue, Rosanna - Proposed Supermarket (P1260/15)............................................................................................................27

AGENDA (Cont’d) 4.4 4.5

Use and development of land at 29 Howard Street and 2-6 Stubley Court, Greensborough, for a Car Park ..................................................................54 Banyule Surveillance Policy ..................................................................................64

5. Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life Nil 6. Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely 6.1 Somers Avenue, Macleod - Review of paid parking system ..................................69 6.2 Kindergartens - Proposed Leases.........................................................................76 6.3 Rear 7A Curzon Street, Ivanhoe - Proposed licence of Council land.......................................................................................................................81 6.4 Items for Noting ....................................................................................................86 6.5 Assembly of Councillors........................................................................................89 6.6 Submission to the Minister for Planning in relation to the proposed Planning and Environment (Fees) Regulations and Subdivision (Fees) Regulations ...............................................................................................94 7. Sealing of Documents 7.1 Sealing of Documents.........................................................................................101 8. Notices of Motion 8.1 Hurstbridge Line Upgrade – Lower Plenty Road Level Crossing, Rosanna .............................................................................................................103 8.2 Access to Anthony Beale Reserve ......................................................................106 8.3 Banyule Horse Riders .........................................................................................107 8.4 Road and drainage improvements of Bonds Road, Lower Plenty .......................108 8.5 Garage Sale Trail................................................................................................109 8.6 Tree Removal Process on Road Reserves .........................................................110 8.7 Tribute to Eric Rosario ........................................................................................111 8.8 Bell Street Mall - CCTV Upgrade ........................................................................112 9. General Business 10. Urgent Business Closure of Meeting

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 2

1.1

PETITION REGARDING THE RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT SCHEME

Author:

Bailey Byrnes - Transport Planning Team Leader, City Development

Ward:

All

1.1

Petitions

Previous Items Council on 9 May 2016 (Item 4.1 - Residential Parking Permit Policy 2016-2020) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A petition with 67 signatures has been received in relation to the Residential Parking Permit Scheme and the implementation of parking restrictions in residential streets. The petition was received on 25 May 2016 after the adoption of the Residential Parking Permit Policy 2016-2020 on 9 May 2016. The petition prayer is as follows: “Residents of Banyule request that Banyule City Council and its Transport Planning Staff: 1. 2.

3. 4.

Retain the relative proximity to the relevant residential address for residential parking permits Use very small street based zones for parking permits (recognising that some parking will still be allowed throughout all zones depending on the time-limits that apply and that coded zones can still be used – if street names on permits are an issue for stick-on permits) Improve consultation with residents over parking permits by holding local Q and A meetings in advance of any proposed permit scheme Consider a greater variety of solutions to residential parking overlay, by possible application of more varied different time limits and exclusion times, which place less inconvenience on residents and visitors but still solve the problems that occur at peak periods.”

The recently adopted Residential Parking Permit Policy 2016-2020 reflected community desire for smaller parking permit areas, and introduced conditions requiring permits to only be used to visit the residence of issue. Consultation approaches will be considered as part of a future parking restriction framework currently in development. RECOMMENDATION That Council receives and notes the petition.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 3

1.1

Petitions

PETITION REGARDING THE RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT SCHEME contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d DISCUSSION The Banyule Resident Parking Permit Policy 2016-2020 was adopted by Council on 9 May 2016. The adopted policy introduced a parking permit area system, with permit holders being allowed to park within a relevant permit area. The size of the permit areas were refined and reduced in size following community feedback during the consultation period. The policy also introduced a proximity condition, requiring permits only be used to attend the residence identified in the permit application, and not to be used to visit any other property or for any other means, even if it is within the permit area specified. This was in response to concerns raised by the community regarding the potential for misuse of parking permits around key destinations such as activity centres and train stations. Parking in residential areas and surrounding activity centres is guided by the Banyule Integrated Transport Plan 2015-2035 and the Banyule Activity Centre Car Parking Policy and Strategy. These provide direction and an overall framework for the consideration of parking restrictions in residential areas. In relation to item 4 of the petition prayer, while a greater variety of options could be considered when investigating parking options in residential streets a consistent approach is used in terms of the type and duration of restrictions from one street to the next. While each location and situation can be different, a consistent approach leads to better compliance by road users and is easier to enforce. Presenting residents with a greater variety of options can present challenges in obtaining a majority agreement from affected properties in the introduction of parking restrictions. When a number of options are presented, the majority response may be in favour of parking restrictions; however there is often no clear consensus on the type of restrictions to be installed. As such, only one or two types of restrictions are presented during the consultation process. Respondents are welcomed and encouraged to provide comments to proposed changes to parking restrictions during the consultation phase. Where situations require a more tailored approach, feedback obtained through the consultation process can guide and influence the parking restrictions or measures that may be introduced. Where feedback on a particular matter is consistently raised, for example in relation to the duration of the parking restrictions, the final proposal can be altered to align with these suggestions. Issues relating to consultation will be considered as in the future formalisation the parking restriction process. This will provide greater clarity for the community on where parking restrictions may be considered and the consultation procedure. It is anticipated this will be presented to Council for consideration and adoption later in the year.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 4

PETITION REGARDING THE RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT SCHEME contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d CONCLUSION A petition with 67 signatures has been received on 25 May 2016 in relation to the Residential Parking Permit Scheme and the implementation of parking restrictions in residential streets. Council adopted the new Residential Parking Permit Policy 2016-2020 on 9 May 2016. The adopted policy reflected community concerns received during the consultation process, and addresses a number of matters raised in the petition. Consultation approaches will be considered as part of a future parking restriction framework currently in development.

ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 5

1.1

Petitions

4.1

ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED TRAFFIC AND CAR PARKING INITIATIVES AROUND LOYOLA COLLEGE, WATSONIA

Author: Daniel Kollmorgen - Manager Transport, Sustainability and Municipal Laws, City Development Ward:

Grimshaw

Previous Items Council on 17 March 2014 (Item 8.4 - Investigation - Traffic Challenges Bungay Street, Watsonia) Council on 21 July 2014 (Item 4.1 - Bungay Street, Watsonia - Traffic Investigation) Council on 23 March 2015 (Item 4.2 - Review of Traffic around Loyola College, Watsonia) Council on 8 February 2016 (Item 4.2 - Traffic around Loyola College, Watsonia) Council on 18 April 2016 (Item 8.4 - Traffic and car parking package of initiatives in the vicinity of Loyola College, Watsonia) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Over the last two years, Council has consulted with residents and modified parking arrangements around Loyola College, Watsonia, in order to manage traffic flow and parking demand in the area. The proposed development of the college, including the Performance Arts Centre which is under construction, has added to residents’ concerns about the use of the college and additional access/parking pressures. On 18 April 2016, Council resolved to ask for the preparation of a report considering additional actions to alleviate the traffic and parking issues close to Loyola College. The actions for consideration included the installation of ‘hockey stick’ line marking, the provision of a brochure to inform residents on the process to report instances of illegally parked vehicles, and the review of the installation of parking restrictions in Loyola Court and Regis Court, Watsonia. Previous consultation on turning movement bans at the intersections of Bungay Street and Watsonia Road and Bungay Street and Princess Street have not been supported by the majority of community respondents, so it is proposed that these initiatives not be pursued. This report responds to the Resolution of 18 April 2016.I RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1.

At this time, does not modify the access arrangements from Watsonia Road into Bungay Street, or from Princes Street into High Street, Watsonia.

Installs ‘hockey stick’ line marking at the start of permissible parking areas close to intersections around Loyola College as a means of educating drivers.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 7

4.1

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.1

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED TRAFFIC AND CAR PARKING INITIATIVES AROUND LOYOLA COLLEGE, WATSONIA cont’d 3.

In order to inform residents on the process to report illegally parked vehicles: a.

Produce a brochure to be delivered in areas where illegal parking is recurrent; and

Include appropriate details in the Banner and on Council’s website on how residents can report illegally parked vehicles.

Investigate parking occupancy levels in Loyola Court, Regis Court and Castlereagh Place, during the third school term in 2016, and consult with residents in Loyola Court, Regis Court and Castlereagh Place, Watsonia on the installation of timed parking restrictions. Depending on the outcome of survey results for each of the streets a meeting may be required to discuss the installation of restrictions.

Continue to maintain a register of complaints that are received regarding traffic and parking issues surrounding Loyola College in preparation for the further report back to Council in late 2017.

Notifies Loyola College and previously consulted residents around Loyola College of this Resolution. 7.

OFFICER DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 (Act) requires members of Council staff, and persons engaged under contract to provide advice to Council, to disclose any direct or indirect interest in a matter to which the advice relates. Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter. CITY PLAN This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction to “maintain and improve Banyule as a great place to live”. HUMAN RIGHTS CHARTER Victoria's Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities (the Charter) outlines the basic human rights of all people in Victoria. The Charter requires that governments, local councils and other public authorities comply with Charter and to consider relevant Charter rights when they make decisions. In developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. It is considered that the subject matter does not raise any human rights issues.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 8

ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED TRAFFIC AND CAR PARKING INITIATIVES AROUND LOYOLA COLLEGE, WATSONIA cont’d LEGAL CONSIDERATION Council’s powers over roads are defined under Schedule 11 of the Local Government Act (1989), which allows for the management of parking. In addition, the Road Safety Road Rules (2009) establish rules to be observed by road users in Victoria, including restrictions on stopping and parking relevant to the behaviour of motorists around Loyola College: • • • • •

Stopping in or near an intersection; Stopping on or near a children’s crossing; Double parking; Stopping near a fire hydrant; and Obstructing access to and from a driveway.

BACKGROUND Council has previously considered options to manage the traffic and parking challenges around Loyola College, Watsonia (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Location of Loyola College, Watsonia

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 9

4.1

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.1

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED TRAFFIC AND CAR PARKING INITIATIVES AROUND LOYOLA COLLEGE, WATSONIA cont’d Over the last two years, consultation on parking restrictions have taken place with local residents and Loyola College to gather feedback on the nature and severity of the parking and traffic problems, and to understand suggestions to address the issues. At its meeting on 23 March 2015, Council considered a report reviewing the operation of traffic around the College, and resolved: “That Council: 1.

5. 6.

Notes that the trial of the following parking restrictions has been completed and that they will remain in place: a. No Stopping restrictions (8.00 – 9.00am and 2.30 – 4.00pm School Days) on the south side of Bungay Street and the east side of Kenmare Street (between Bungay Street and Princes Street); b. Two minute parking (8.00 – 9.00am and 2.30 – 4.00pm School Days) on the north side of Bungay Street along the Loyola College frontage; Notify residents and install No Stopping restrictions (8.00 – 9.00am and 2.30 – 4.00pm School Days) on the west side of High Street, between Bungay Street and Princess Street; Investigate parking occupancy levels and consult with residents in Loyola Court and Regis Court Watsonia on the possible installation of time parking restrictions; Consult with Loyola College, local residents, and the Victoria Police about a proposed trial to: a. Restrict traffic access from Watsonia Road into Bungay Street (8.00 – 9.00am and 2.30 – 4.00pm School Days). b. Prohibit access from Princes Street into High Street. Notes that Municipal Laws Officers regularly enforce the road rules around Loyola College. Receive a further report on the traffic operations of streets surrounding Loyola College six months after the operation of the package of traffic management interventions outlined in resolutions 1 to 5.”

As per the Resolution of 23 March 2015: • • • •

Additional ‘No Stopping’ restrictions were installed on High Street, between Bungay Street and Princes Street, following notification to residents; Parking occupancy levels were investigated on Loyola Court and Regis Court; Residents of Loyola Court and Regis Court were consulted on the possible installation of timed parking restrictions; The proposals to restrict access from Watsonia Road into Bungay Street and to prohibit access from Princess Street into High Street were referred to Loyola College, local residents and the Victoria Police.

A report summarising the results of the consultation processes related to the installation of parking restrictions and turn bans was presented to Council on 8 February 2016. The item was deferred, and consequently no formal decision has been made in regards to these proposals.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 10

ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED TRAFFIC AND CAR PARKING INITIATIVES AROUND LOYOLA COLLEGE, WATSONIA cont’d Further to the above, Council considered a Notice of Motion at its meeting on 18 April 2016 and resolved, in part, that: “1.

A report is prepared which considers the following traffic and parking ''package" in the area around Loyola College that builds on current traffic and parking management arrangements: a)

Rolls-out on-street line markings (“hockey sticks”) in appropriate areas, based on officer assessment, that show motorists where to park their cars so that parked cars do not impede resident access to their drive-ways.

Provides a brochure, or appropriate details, on how residents can report to Council instances where parked cars are restricting drive-way access and/or in breach of local parking restrictions. This brochure should include appropriate Council contact details (number/email) as well as details on what information residents should provide to support Council enforcement efforts.

Reconsiders the introduction of parking restrictions in Loyola Court and Regis Court to deter parking by Loyola College students in these courts. This should involve consultation with the residents in these courts including a consultation forum with the Ward Councillor at the Watsonia Library.

Maintenance of a register of all resident complaints that are received regarding traffic and parking issues by Council in the area around Loyola College over a 12-month period to track the success of this package as well as previous traffic and parking interventions that have been delivered by Council.

Report back to Council in late 2017 on traffic and parking in the area around Loyola College. This report should include details on the dates and outcomes of the local enforcement ''blitzes".”

This report responds to the above Resolutions. PARKING RESTRICTIONS IN LOYOLA COURT AND REGIS COURT The parking occupancy levels for Loyola Court and Regis Court were assessed in May 2015. It was observed that the average rate of occupancy was 15% on both streets. In line with the occupancy rate and Council’s resolution from 23 March 2015, residents were consulted in regard to the installation of four hour parking restrictions on one side of the street.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 11

4.1

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.1

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED TRAFFIC AND CAR PARKING INITIATIVES AROUND LOYOLA COLLEGE, WATSONIA cont’d Table 1 summarises the results of the consultation in relation to the parking restriction proposals for Loyola Court and Regis Court. Table 1. Results of consultation on proposals to install timed parking restrictions on Loyola Court and Regis Court, Watsonia Installation of 4P restrictions Installation of 4P restrictions Proposal on Loyola Court, Watsonia on Regis Court, Watsonia Response Rate 75% 31% Number of Percentage of Number of Percentage of respondents respondents respondents respondents Support 6 50% 3 60% Don't Support 4 33% 2 40% Other/Unsure 2 17% 0 0% TOTAL 12 100% 5 100% Loyola Court Letters were sent to all 16 properties in Loyola Court, Watsonia, and 12 responses were received. Half of the respondents supported the installation of 4-hour parking restrictions in the court. Nonetheless, some residents’ comments indicated that they would prefer: • • •

the modification of the proposal in terms of the duration of the parking restrictions (1-hour or 2-hour restrictions instead of 4-hour restrictions); the installation of restrictions to operate on both sides of the road; and to be exempted from paying for parking permits.

Regis Court Letters were sent to all 16 properties in Regis Court, Watsonia, and five responses were received. While the majority of respondents supported the installation of restrictions in the street, the response rate is low indicating that most of the residents in the court may not consider that parking issues are of sufficient concern to warrant responding to the survey. In addition, three respondents raised concerns in relation to the cost of parking permits. Given the low parking occupancy rate on the roads and the varied views on the proposal, it is considered that at this time, no parking restrictions should be installed at Loyola Court and Regis Court, Watsonia. It is considered that parking occupancy levels for Regis Court and Loyola Court should be reassessed during the third school term in 2016, and consultation with residents in Loyola Court and Regis Court on the installation of timed parking restrictions occur at that time. CONSULTATION IN REGARD TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TURN BANS Letters were sent to 273 properties around Loyola College in April 2015 to determine the level of support from residents for restricted access from Watsonia Road into Bungay Street (8am to 9am, and 2:30pm to 4pm, on School Days) and permanent prohibited access from Princes Street into High Street.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 12

ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED TRAFFIC AND CAR PARKING INITIATIVES AROUND LOYOLA COLLEGE, WATSONIA cont’d A total of 79 responses were received. Table 2 summarises the results of the consultation in relation to access into Bungay Street at Watsonia Road, and into High Street from Princes Street. None of the proposals received support from a majority of respondents to the survey. Table 2. Results of consultation on proposals to modify access into Bungay Street and High Street, Watsonia Restrict access from Watsonia Prohibit access into High Proposal Rd into Bungay Street Street Response Rate 29% 29% Number of Percentage of Number of Percentage of respondents respondents respondents respondents Support 38 48% 27 35% Don't Support 29 37% 31 40% Other/Unsure 12 15% 20 26% TOTAL 79 100% 78 100% It is considered that the access arrangements from Watsonia Road into Bungay Street, and from Princes Street into High Street, should not be modified. PERFORMING ARTS CENTRE PROPOSAL IMPACT Planning permission was granted to Loyola College on 20 January 2015 for a purpose built Performing Arts Centre and associated car parking and vegetation removal. Works for the construction of the Performance Arts Centre started in September 2015, and in early 2016, the College requested modifications to some of the conditions in the permit. Surrounding residents were consulted on the impact of the works to the Performing Arts Centre. Meetings with the community around the school were held to discuss the issues in the area, providing an opportunity to raise their concerns. COMMUNITY CONCERNS A register of community concerns about traffic and parking around Loyola College is currently being maintained. Analysis of the information reveals that in 2015, a total of 49 requests relating to traffic and car parking concerns were logged with Council. Table 3 indicates the types of requests by street. Instances of illegally parked vehicles are registered when a person reports an illegally parked vehicle according to the Road Safety Road Rules. Reports on ‘school precinct traffic’ and ‘parking control review’ relate to concerns about the traffic conditions in and around a school, and changes to parking restrictions, respectively.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 13

4.1

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.1

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED TRAFFIC AND CAR PARKING INITIATIVES AROUND LOYOLA COLLEGE, WATSONIA cont’d As indicated in Table 3, most (43 out of 49) of the concerns from residents in the area relate to ‘illegally parked vehicles’. Accordingly, the parking enforcement activity around Loyola College was increased and will be maintained at a high level. Table 3. Customer Requests around Loyola College, Watsonia, 2015

Street

Illegally Parked Vehicles

School Precinct Traffic

Parking Control Review

TOTAL

11 6 6 2 0 0 0 3 0 2 5 4 0 2 0 0 2 43

1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 4

13 7 6 2 1 0 0 3 0 2 5 4 0 4 0 0 2 49

Bungay St Castlereagh Pl Gleeson Dr Grimshaw St High St Hillboro Ct Kenmare St Ladd St Loyola Ct McKellar St Morwell Ave Nell St W Nina Ct Princes St Regis Ct Watsonia Ct Yemaya Ct TOTAL

Recent correspondence from residents of Castlereagh Place Watsonia indicates traffic and parking congestion also occurs due to school pick up and drop off. While parking enforcement will be increased in this location, a survey of residents would also be appropriate to see if there is an appetite to alter parking restrictions to address the problem. ‘HOCKEY STICK’ LINE MARKING ‘Hockey stick’ line marking (Figure 2) is a non-standard treatment commonly used to provide drivers with an indication of the space in which parking a vehicle is acceptable.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 14

ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED TRAFFIC AND CAR PARKING INITIATIVES AROUND LOYOLA COLLEGE, WATSONIA cont’d

Figure 2: ‘Hockey Stick’ Line Marking Example The installation of ‘hockey stick’ line marking is used, for example, to improve access to properties with old and sub-standard crossovers (for example, less than 3 metres wide, at a bend or at a crest), or in very narrow streets by allowing additional manoeuvring space. In locations where drivers block access to and from driveways, against the Victorian Road Rules, ‘hockey sticks’ are unlikely to reduce the frequency of vehicles parking illegally. Consequently, a roll out of ‘hockey stick’ line marking around Loyola College is not considered beneficial in addressing blocked driveway concerns and in fact can lead to frustration as residents have a heightened expectation of compliance where they have been used. Increased enforcement and awareness of the Victorian Road Rules are considered more appropriate means to reduce the incidence of vehicles illegally parked across driveways. However, the installation of ‘hockey sticks’ to mark the start of permissible parking areas close to intersections can be considered as a means of educating drivers. PROVISION OF BROCHURE INDICATING PROCESS TO REPORT ILLEGALLY PARKED VEHICLES The cost of designing, printing and distributing brochures to approximately 300 properties around Loyola College is estimated at $2,000. In order to provide this information to all Banyule residents, including information in the Banyule Banner on the process of reporting illegally parked vehicles is also proposed at no additional cost.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 15

4.1

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.1

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED TRAFFIC AND CAR PARKING INITIATIVES AROUND LOYOLA COLLEGE, WATSONIA cont’d CONCLUSION Following Council’s resolutions of 23 March 2015 and 18 April 2016, different consultation processes and analysis on proposed traffic and car parking initiatives around Loyola College, Watsonia, have been undertaken. The initiatives included the implementation of turn bans, the installation of parking restrictions in Loyola Court and Regis Court, the installation of ‘hockey stick’ line marking, and a proposal to develop a brochure to inform residents on the process to report instances of illegally parked vehicles. Residents did not support for the introduction of turn bans or additional parking restrictions in the area, therefore the implementation of these measures is not recommended. It is worth noting that the majority of concerns related to traffic and parking in the area received in 2015 were associated with illegally parked vehicles. While ‘hockey stick’ line markings are a non-standard, non-enforceable treatment, they can, in some cases, help inform the community to park legally. In order to inform residents on the process to report illegally parked vehicles, it is appropriate that Council produce a brochure to be delivered in areas where illegal parking is recurrent, and include appropriate details in the Banyule Banner on how residents can report illegally parked vehicles. In relation to the installation of parking restrictions in Loyola Court and Regis Court, it is appropriate that parking occupancy levels in Loyola court and Regis Court are assessed during the third school term in 2016, and that a consultation process is developed with residents in Loyola Court and Regis Court on the installation of timed parking restrictions. ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 16

4.2

MANAGING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY ASSOCIATED WITH LARGE DEVELOPMENT SITES

Author:

Scott Walker - Director City Development, City Development

Previous Items Council on 2 December 2013 (Item 4.3 - Options Available to Council to Address Development Sites with Issues) Council on 23 March 2015 (Item 6.7 - Adoption of Proposed General Local Law No. 1 (2015)) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Development within Banyule has been growing over recent years with a significant increase in larger development sites resulting in amenity impacts on residential and commercial areas. Construction activity impacts include noise, mud, dust, parking of construction vehicles and plant and equipment located on public land. The Development Planning, Engineering, Municipal Laws, Building and Asset Protection Units of Council are all involved in the approvals and construction monitoring process. Many of the systems and processes have been in place for some time and were not set up to deal with the amount and scale of development that is now taking place across the municipality. In order to provide the level of protection that the community expects, a review of the processes and systems is needed to ensure compliance with the appropriate legislation and requirements. Council’s General Local Law contains many relevant amenity clauses that can be used as permit requirements for asset protection. Construction Management Plans are an important tool that can also be used at the Planning Permit stage, however, they are best enforced through the Local Law and other associated legislation. Additional resources are required to assist with establishing an effective system for construction activity permits, approvals and monitoring associated with developments. Such a system should include changes in delegation to staff, the implementation of streamlined application processes, and the use of “in field” technology. It is expected that the increased costs to establish and run the new system can be covered through permit and approval fees and enforcement activities. The revised system is expected to improve stakeholder management, provide enhanced levels of customer service and clearer roles for those involved.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 17

4.2

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.2

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

MANAGING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY ASSOCIATED WITH LARGE DEVELOPMENT SITES cont’d RECOMMENDATION That the process and system for undertaking the issuing of construction activity permits, approvals and monitoring associated with development in Banyule is reviewed and enhanced to ensure that amenity impacts are appropriately managed. The changes should be in accordance with the following principles and parameters: i.

Processes are streamlined, including the use of technology to improve transactions between developers and Council, timely feedback to stakeholders and improved customer service levels;

ii.

A clear enforcement framework is developed which supports the issuing of infringements for breaches of the Local Law and other relevant legislation;

iii. Processes, systems and resource are aligned to ensure that the various roles within the organisation are clear and unambiguous in terms of responsibility; iv. Delegations are broadened to enable a range of legislation and enforcement tools to be used by staff involved; v.

Fees associated with approvals are increased to improve the quality of applications, reduce unnecessary activity and recover costs associated with additional resources;

vi. A cost neutral or positive net return to Council is achieved taking into consideration additional income and additional resource costs expected. A report outlining the new system including process changes and associated fees and costs is to be brought back to Council by the end of 2016. CITY PLAN This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction to “enhance Banyule’s public and open spaces”. BACKGROUND At its meeting on 9 May 2016, Council considered a Notice of Motion (CO2016/152) on managing amenity impacts and construction activity for large development sites and resolved as follows: “That a report be prepared which reviews the management of amenity impacts, car parking and construction activity for large development sites. The review should consider:

• • • •

Construction management plans and when they should be used; Construction activity which impacts on Council assets and the functioning of roads, footpaths, car parks and other public spaces; Construction vehicle and worker car parking impacts; Resourcing required to better manage construction activity within the municipality.”

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 18

MANAGING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY ASSOCIATED WITH LARGE DEVELOPMENT SITES cont’d Council previously considered a report on a related issue on 2 December 2013 looking at options available to Council to address development sites with issues (CO2013/1). At the time Council resolved as follows: That Council: 1.

Pursues opportunities to better manage building sites and unsightly properties as part of the Local Law Review currently underway and a review and updating of the associated Building Site Code of Practice.

Identify and pursue opportunities to educate the community on the issues associated with development sites and the role of Council and other agencies through the media and Banyule Banner, direct mail to real estate agents and managing agents and the preparation of an information booklet and pamphlet to be made available on Council’s website and customer service centres.

Focused enforcement of the Local Law on key building site issues with the resources available within the Local Law Team and particularly following the review of the Local Law and Building Site Code of Practice and increased education.

Request the Municipal Association of Victoria through the State Council meeting to advocate for State wide legislation to better manage and control the amenity of development sites and move a Notice of Motion at next years State Conference.

Preparation and implementation of Planning and Building Enforcement Policy and further consideration of options to improve Statutory Planning enforcement

Continued Building enforcement in line with recent service improvements to enforce Building Requirements.

Ongoing updates of the Local Planning Policy Framework and planning requirements to support and encourage the redevelopment of parts of the municipality in line with the Strategic Direction being pursued and identified in the Housing Strategy/framework and Activity Centre Plans. This will include the use of the new residential zones.

Consideration of options for direct development support through an enhanced Economic Development and project support service which may include additional resources to be considered as part of future budgets.

Further refinement and streamlining of the development planning approvals process to facilitate timely redevelopment outcomes in line with Council’s Strategies identified in the Local Planning Policy Framework.

All of the actions arising from the 2 December 2013 resolution have been pursued. The primary action has been the extensive review of the Local Law. A new General Local Law No. 1 was adopted by Council on 23 March 2015. Local Laws are adopted to protect public health, safety, or amenity and are designed to ensure that the actions of an individual or group do not have a negative or undesirable impact on the rest of the community. However, they cannot duplicate, overlap, conflict with or be inconsistent with existing Federal or State legislation. There were a number of changes to the local law in 2015 as it relates to building sites with significant changes relating to the Asset Protection processes, permits and infringements.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 19

4.2

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.2

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

MANAGING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY ASSOCIATED WITH LARGE DEVELOPMENT SITES cont’d Since 2013 development within the municipality has continued at a rapid pace with a large number of significant development sites under construction and causing amenity impacts on existing residential and commercial areas. LEGAL CONSIDERATION There are a number of relevant legal considerations when considering permits and enforcement associated with development sites. Ensuring that the appropriate legislation is used to address the particular concern and that Council does not go beyond its powers is essential. Whilst Council’s Local Law No.1 can be amended and provides flexibility for Council to address specific issues it must not duplicate, overlap or be inconsistent with other State or Federal legislation. It is also important that Council ensures that it has provided sufficient delegation to staff to act on its behalf and designated the appropriate authority to staff to 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 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 Council plays an important role in setting the strategic direction and guidelines for development, approving developments and then monitoring construction activities and the subsequent development outcomes. However, the development process does not always run smoothly. Construction activities often impact on the amenity of an area and there are times when development sites become unsightly or create amenity impacts on the surrounding area due to construction activity. The impacts can include noise, mud or dust, damage to Council assets, occupation of Council land and public spaces and equipment, plant and construction vehicles occupying surrounding streets amongst other issues. Over recent years there has also been a significant increase in development activity associated with larger multi-level developments, often within constrained locations in activity centres or built up areas. These larger developments in constrained locations magnify the amenity impacts, particularly where there are multiple developments underway concurrently. Banyule (like many middle ring municipalities) is slowly coming to grips with the fact that the city is coming to the suburbs. The size and scale of development traditionally reserved for the city and inner suburban municipalities such as Yarra, Port Phillip, Boroondara and Stonnington are becoming more common as the land within inner suburbs becomes less available, more expensive or otherwise less viable for development.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 20

MANAGING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY ASSOCIATED WITH LARGE DEVELOPMENT SITES cont’d The issues associated with large development sites are not unique to Banyule. It is an issue common to many municipalities, but the issue has varying degrees of detrimental impact on a community depending on the location and surrounding character of an area. Council Departments Dealing with Development Sites There are a number of Council Departments or service units that have a role in the development and land use management process, some more directly than others. The State Government and its associated agencies such as the Department of Land, Water, Environment and Planning (DLWEP) and the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) also play an important role. In summary, Council Service units have the following key roles: Strategic Planning

Setting the broad land use direction and planning framework including Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) and local policies, rules and guidelines for the municipality in accordance with the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) and Planning and Environment Act 1987 (P&E Act).

Economic Development

Encouraging positive development, employment and investment within the municipality which is consistent with the City Plan and local planning policy direction.

Development Planning

Managing the overall development and land use approvals and subsequent enforcement in accordance with the LPPF and local rules prepared by Strategic Planning and the SPPF and P&E Act established by the State Government.

Building (Banyule BPI)

Managing building approvals, if appointed as the relevant building surveyor, and enforcement of building approvals issued in the municipality primarily in relation to structural integrity and safety of buildings and subsequent to relevant planning approvals.

Engineering Services

Providing technical advice on the appropriate standards and approval of design in relation to car parking, roads and drains (including drains which will become Council assets) to support the approval processes of Development Planning and Building. There is also direct input to the approval of traffic management plans for construction activity.

Local Laws

Ensuring that construction and building activity is well managed in accordance with Council’s Local Law to minimise amenity impacts on the community.

Asset Protection

Granting approvals for works and occupation of Council land and the inspection and protection of Council’s assets.

Environmental Health

To respond to and manage health related issues from sustained land use activities such as domestic noise, offensive odours, asbestos management, vermin or other health issues in accordance with State legislation.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 21

4.2

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.2

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

MANAGING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY ASSOCIATED WITH LARGE DEVELOPMENT SITES cont’d A more detailed examination of the role of each Department involved in the management of development is included as Attachment 1. TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND DISCUSSION Responsibility for monitoring and managing construction sites As outlined above there are multiple agencies, stakeholders and Council units that have responsibility for managing building activities on development sites. The overlapping nature of these responsibilities as well as the gaps between those responsibilities at times result in poor construction practices and amenity impacts on the community. These issues are compounded for larger building sites which are now much more common in Banyule as a result of the increase in larger scale developments over recent years. The resourcing levels required to monitor and enforce building activity has also not increased in proportion to the change. Some of the key issues that have been identified include: •

The lack of notification of the Asset Protection Unit before a development commences.

•

Confusion created where Construction Management Plans are sometimes required for planning permits (but not always);

•

Inconsistencies between Construction Management Plans and the Local Law;

•

Overlapping responsibility between Council Units (Planning, Building, Local Laws and Asset Protection) depending on the type of development and whether a Construction Management Plan has been prepared;

•

Gaps in responsibility between Council Units (i.e. some developments not triggering consideration of construction management issues or asset protection);

•

Inadequate guidance to developers on their obligations and Council requirements in relation to construction management;

•

Insufficient fees for approving construction activities which impact on Council land, assets and residential and commercial amenity;

•

Limited resources to adequately monitor development sites during construction and respond to issues and concerns when they arise;

•

Low number of infringements issued for breaches of approved Construction Management Plans and the Local Law despite a large number of complaints and apparent non-compliance in many situations;

•

High rate of undetected damage to Council assets and subsequent requirement for Council to undertake repairs and reinstatement.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 22

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.2

MANAGING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY ASSOCIATED WITH LARGE DEVELOPMENT SITES cont’d Construction Management Plans Construction Management Plans (CMP) are discussed in detail in Attachment 2. It is recognised that a CMP provides a valuable tool to focus the mind of the developer on the implications of their proposed construction activity on surrounding residents and infrastructure. However, the imposition of the requirement for a CMP as a condition of a planning permit provides the inference and unrealistic expectation that any breach of the CMP will be pursued under the planning function. A planning permit should contain conditions that are reasonably able to be enforced by the Development Planning Unit under the provisions of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, rather than conditions that are enforced under other legislation. It is therefore more appropriate to impose stand-alone conditions on planning permits where construction has a direct impact on a planning-related issue, and to seek a CMP separately for consideration and enforcement primarily by Council’s Municipal Laws Unit, but with reference to the Environmental Health Unit, Building Unit and Building and Civil Works Unit as appropriate. A suitable permit note or initiating condition can be included on a planning permit for larger developments where a CMP is required. Approvals for Occupation of Council land Council has obligations under the Local Government Act 1989 and Road Management Act 2004 to ensure all activities upon roads within the municipality are the subject of surveillance audits to ensure Compliance with the Road Management Act and other associated legislation. The types of activities that come under this obligation are outlined in Attachment 3 but include cranes, concrete pumps, hoardings, scaffolding, work areas and zones and temporary vehicle crossing. Delegations and authority Given the number of Council staff involved in development site enforcement activities there is a spread across the different positions with regard to delegations and authority to undertake enforcement. At times this can be separated out into individual “silo’s” which can result in a narrow focus when sites are inspected by individual officers. There should be a wider use of delegations which provide scope, but not necessarily the responsibility, to undertake enforcement using the range of legislation and enforcement tools available. For example, the Municipal Laws Officers should be empowered to enforce under the Planning and Environment Act and vice versa. his does not necessarily mean that the Municipal Laws Officers would subsequently be responsible for enforcement of planning matters, but there may be times where providing that power is of benefit, particularly for construction activity management and enforcement.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 23

4.2

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

MANAGING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY ASSOCIATED WITH LARGE DEVELOPMENT SITES cont’d Processes and systems The current systems and processes associated with development site enforcement are adhoc and not fully linked. There needs to be a streamlined application process for approvals which can be linked with the Construction Management Plan process described earlier in this report. This can be provided online so that it can be incorporated with Councils corporate systems including the records management system and then subsequently accessed using mobile technology by officers “in the field”. This will improve the access to information for staff and improve the level of enforceability and customer service levels to not only developers but the general public who regularly raise concerns with regard to development activity. Resources and effective controls Whilst there are available process improvements which should be considered and implemented, there is also a direct relationship between the resourcing available to monitor development sites and compliance issues. Additional enforcement resources will enable enhanced monitoring of development sites. There is merit in one or more additional officers to issue approvals and monitor construction sites. The addition of Local Laws / Permits Inspector role(s) is intended to meet the following objectives and outcomes: • •

• • •

Ensure compliance with the requirement to obtain permits for activities on roads and Council Land; Undertake inspection of activities upon Roads and Council Land to ensure Permits conditions are implemented and Construction Management Plans are complied with. Key issues to be monitored include public safety, traffic management arrangements, and damage to Council assets; Ensure all additional requirements such as Road Opening Consents, Regulation 604 Public protection measures are in place and Asset Protection Permits have been obtained; Increase proactive compliance activities around building sites and other private civil works occurring within the Municipality; Meet public expectations to ensure building works are occurring with minimal impact on Amenity.

Whether the position(s) is best located in the Municipal Laws or Assets Unit and the ongoing relationship between the units with regard to monitoring construction sites will need to be established. Fees and potential income The fee structure for permits and approvals should be reviewed to ensure that the fees being charged at a minimum cover the administrative cost of the service. Occupation fees should also take account of the impact on amenity and disruption. In addition, increased enforcement will enable more infringements to be issued to developers in breach. Whilst this will bring additional revenue it will also send a message to developers that Banyule Council takes the management of construction sites seriously and expects compliance.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 24

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.2

MANAGING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY ASSOCIATED WITH LARGE DEVELOPMENT SITES cont’d FUNDING IMPLICATIONS Whilst additional resources will be required to establish an effective system for issuing construction activity permits, approvals and monitoring associated with developments under construction, it is expected that the increased costs will be covered by additional revenue. TIMELINES A revised system will take up to 6 months to establish new processes, update relevant documentation and information and appoint appropriate staff. Enhanced monitoring of construction sites can be gradually introduced and a fully operational revised monitoring system could be established by the end of the year. A report can be brought to Council at this time outlining the changes to be undertaken. 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 Development within Banyule has been growing over recent years with a significant increase in larger development sites resulting in amenity impacts on residential and commercial areas. Construction activity impacts include noise, mud, dust, parking of construction vehicles and plant and equipment located on public land. The Development Planning, Engineering, Municipal Laws, Building and Asset Protection Units of Council are all involved in the approvals and construction monitoring process. Many of the systems and processes have been in place for some time and were not set up to deal with the amount and scale of development that is now taking place across the municipality. Therefore, in order to provide the level of protection that the community expects, a review of the processes and systems is needed to ensure compliance with the appropriate legislation and requirements. Council’s revised Local Law contains many relevant amenity clauses that can be used as permit requirements for asset protection. Construction Management Plans are an important tool that can also be used at the Planning Permit stage, however, they are best enforced through the Local Law and other associated legislation. Additional resources are required to assist with establishing an effective system for construction activity permits, approvals and monitoring associated with developments. Such a system should include changes in delegation to staff, the implementation of streamlined application processes, and the use of “in field” technology. It is expected that the increased costs to establish and run the new system can be covered by additional revenue primarily achieved through permit and approval fees and enforcement activities. The revised system is expected to improve stakeholder management, provide enhanced levels of customer service and clearer roles for those involved.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 25

4.2

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

MANAGING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY ASSOCIATED WITH LARGE DEVELOPMENT SITES cont’d ATTACHMENTS No.

Title

Managing Development in Banyule

114

Occupation of Council Land

117

Construction Management Plans

118

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page

Page 26

4.3

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

4.3

44 TURNHAM AVENUE, ROSANNA PROPOSED SUPERMARKET (P1260/15)

Author:

Andy Wilson - Development Planning Team Leader, City Development

Ward:

Ibbott

Previous Items Council on 18 June 2012 (Item 1.1 - Heidelberg Theatre Company - objection to process for sale of Council land in Rosanna) Council on 18 November 2013 (Item 5.1 - Proposed Sale of Rosanna Service Centre Office Site) Council on 16 December 2013 (Item 4.5 - 44 Turnham Avenue Rosanna) Council on 18 April 2016 (Item 6.2 - 72 Turnham Avenue Rosanna - Widening of proposed accessway) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Having been assessed against the relevant planning policy, an application for the use and development of a Woolworths Supermarket with undercroft car parking at 44 Turnham Avenue, Rosanna together with a reduction in onsite car parking and removal of one tree is considered appropriate. Advertised by way of two signs being erected on the site, along with letters and flyers being circulated to nearby residents and stakeholders, drawing attention to the application, at the time of writing this report, a total of 129 objections were received. It is considered that the application should be supported subject to conditions that improve the amenity of surrounding residents and the Heidelberg Theatre Company, as well as provide for appropriate tree protection measures for retained trees on site, and nearby on adjoining properties. It is also considered necessary for Council to finalise plans for the provision of car parking and pedestrian access works, confirm timing of those works and prepare a streetscape plan for Turnham Avenue addressing car parking, landscaping, pedestrian access and identification of the Heidelberg Theatre.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 27

4.3

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

44 TURNHAM AVENUE, ROSANNA - PROPOSED SUPERMARKET (P1260/15) cont’d RECOMMENDATION Part 1 – Planning Application That Council having complied with Section 52, 58, 60, 61 and 62 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, resolves that a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit be issued in respect of Application No. P1260/2015 for Use and Development of the land for the construction of a supermarket, liquor license (packaged liquor), reduction in car parking and associated vegetation removal at 44 Turnham Avenue ROSANNA and adjoining road reserve, subject to the following conditions: Plans 1.

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

Trees 38, 39 and 41 at 72 Turnham Avenue marked as retained;

A streetscape improvement plan to the satisfaction of Council for Turnham Avenue for an equivalent area of streetscape as shown on the streetscape concept plan submitted with the application but amended to include the area in front of the Heidelberg Theatre and to be consistent with the overall streetscape plan prepared by Council for Turnham Avenue;

Provision of a feature wall and identification signage for the Heidelberg Theatre Company along the southern wall of the supermarket adjoining the entrance to 36 Turnham Avenue;

Provision of appropriately specified acoustic fencing to the eastern and southern boundaries where they abut 53 and 55 Grove Road and 36 Turnham Avenue so as to minimise noise disturbance as a result of deliveries to the site;

The bicycle parking hoops within the rear car park relocated to the undercroft/basement car park;

A shower clearly marked to use as part of staff end of trip cycling facilities;

Construction techniques as recommended by the project arborist and outlined in the tree management plan as required by condition 15, to minimise impacts to trees 23, 24, 25, 26, 29 and 30.

All sustainable design features as outlined in the submitted Sustainable Management Plan. Where features cannot be visually shown, include a notes table providing details of the requirements (i.e. energy and water efficiency ratings for heating/cooling systems and plumbing fittings and fixtures);

Installation of additional line marking and signage making clear the proposed unidirectional flow of traffic north of the Trolley Store;

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 28

44 TURNHAM AVENUE, ROSANNA - PROPOSED SUPERMARKET (P1260/15) contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d j.

Extend the footpath width north of the Trolley Store to reduce the width of the trafficable space to 3 metres.

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

The connection to the Council nominated legal point of discharge;

(ii)

The specified flood level for the property.

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

Prior to the occupation of the permitted use and development, a car parking management plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plan must outline how on site car parking will be made available for public use at all times and how pedestrian access will be available through the site at all times.

The use and 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 development permitted by this permit must not be commenced until:-

The tree protection measures required by Condition 15 and 16 are installed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

The necessary approvals and associated fee for the removal of the existing street trees (tree 2 and 7), which are shown on the plans to be removed, must be obtained and paid to the Responsible Authority (Banyule Tree Care Department).

Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority the use permitted by this permit must not be commenced until:a.

Streetscape improvement works shown on the streetscape improvement plan are completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

A feature wall and identification signage for the Heidelberg Theatre Company along the southern wall of the supermarket adjoining the entrance to 36 Turnham Avenue is provided;

Acoustic fencing along the southern boundary abutting the Heidelberg Theatre Company and along the eastern boundary abutting the rear of 53 and 55 Grove Road, Rosanna is provided.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 29

4.3

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

4.3

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

44 TURNHAM AVENUE, ROSANNA - PROPOSED SUPERMARKET (P1260/15) cont’d Amenity 6.

The use or development permitted by this permit must not, in the opinion of the Responsible Authority, adversely affect the amenity of the locality by reason of the processes carried on; the transportation of materials, goods or commodities to or from the subject land; the appearance of any buildings, works or materials; the emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit, or oil; the presence of vermin, or otherwise.

In respect of commerce, industry and trade development and/or use, noise emissions from the subject land must comply with State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce Industry and Trade) No. N-1. In all other cases noise emissions from the subject land must comply with Environmental Protection (Residential Noise) Regulations 2008 and/or Environmental Protection Authority Noise Control Guidelines TG 302/92, whichever is deemed to be appropriate by the Responsible Authority.

Noise emissions from any equipment required for refrigeration, air-conditioning, heating, ventilation and the like must comply with State environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade) No N-1 and/or Environment Protection (Residential Noise) Regulations 2008 and/or Environmental Protection Authority Noise Control Guidelines TG 302/92, whichever is deemed to be appropriate by the Responsible Authority.

The surface of the subject land must be treated and maintained so as to prevent the loss of amenity to the neighbourhood through the emission of dust and the discharge of stormwater drainage to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Hours of operation 10.

11.

Except with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, the use permitted by this permit may only operate between the following times: •

Supermarket 7am – Midnight daily

•

Packaged Liquor – 9am – 9pm daily

Deliveries to the subject land must only occur between the following times: •

7am – 10pm weekdays

•

7am – 7pm Saturday and Sunday

Urban Design 12.

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

Car parking/Access 13.

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

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 30

44 TURNHAM AVENUE, ROSANNA - PROPOSED SUPERMARKET (P1260/15) cont’d 14.

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

15.

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

Tree Protection/Management Plan 16.

The development permitted by this permit must not be commenced until a satisfactory Tree Management Plan is submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Such plan must be prepared by a person suitably qualified or experienced in arboriculture, must be prepared in accordance with Section 5, AS4970 – Protection of Trees on Development Sites, and shall include: (a)

A plan and corresponding detail identifying location of each tree (those to be retained on site and nearby trees on adjoining properties), their species, tree preservation zones and ground protection (tree protection plan) and other relevant identifying information.

(b)

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

(c)

Following completion of the development: (i) Maintenance requirements for the trees. (ii) Ongoing tree protection requirements. (iii) Other relevant recommendations.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 31

4.3

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.3

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

44 TURNHAM AVENUE, ROSANNA - PROPOSED SUPERMARKET (P1260/15) cont’d Tree protection 17.

Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority, prior to the commencement of works (including demolition) on the site Tree Preservation Zones must be established around Trees 23, 24, 25, 26, 29 and 30. You must contact Council’s Development Planning Unit on 9457 9808 once the Tree Preservation Fencing is erected so that an inspection of the fencing can be carried out. Once installed and inspected the Tree Preservation Zones must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, and meet the following requirements: (a)

Extent Tree Preservation Zones are to be provided to the extent of the calculated Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) where it occurs within the subject property of all trees indicated as being retained on the endorsed plan. The fencing can be realigned and suitable ground protection provided to allow the approved construction therein only to the satisfaction of the project arborist and only when approved by the Responsible Authority. The fencing can be realigned and suitable ground protection provided to allow any construction approved within a TPZ only in accordance with endorsed plans.

(b)

(c)

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 for endorsed works or for works subsequently approved by the Responsible Authority.

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

(d)

Fencing (i)

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. (usu. Multi-storey developments)

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 32

44 TURNHAM AVENUE, ROSANNA - PROPOSED SUPERMARKET (P1260/15) cont’d (e)

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

(f)

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

(g)

Access to Tree Preservation Zone (i)

(ii)

(iii) (iv)

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

NOTE: Requests for consent of the Responsible Authority (City of Banyule) pursuant to this Condition should be directed to Council’s Arborist – Development Planning on 9457 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 underground service installations within the Tree Protection Zone be bored to a depth of 1.5 metres; • All root excavation be carried out by hand digging or with the use of ‘AirExcavation’ techniques; • Roots required to be cut are to be severed by saw cutting and undertaken by a qualified arborist. Or other conditions, as relevant, to ensure the ongoing health and stability of the subject tree/s. Time Limits 18.

The use is not commenced within four years of the date of this permit; or The use is discontinued for a period of two years.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 33

4.3

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.3

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

44 TURNHAM AVENUE, ROSANNA - PROPOSED SUPERMARKET (P1260/15) 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.

PERMIT NOTES A.

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

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

Building over Easements No structure, including sheds and water tanks shall be built over any easement on the subject land except with the consent of the relevant Responsible Authority.

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

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

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 34

44 TURNHAM AVENUE, ROSANNA - PROPOSED SUPERMARKET (P1260/15) cont’d Part 2 – Library car parking, streetscape plan and theatre identification That Council: i.

Finalise plans for the provision of car parking and pedestrian access associated with the Rosanna Library and confirm timing for implementation having regard to the redevelopment of the Rosanna Service Centre site at the appropriate time.

ii.

A streetscape concept plan is prepared for Turnham Avenue from Lower Plenty Road through to Station Street which provides for a future high quality streetscape taking account of the pedestrian environment, incorporates appropriate pedestrian crossing points, landscaping, on street car parking, bus zones and disabled car parking. The plan needs to take into consideration the proposed plan for the level crossing removal and new Rosanna Station.

iii. A proposal is developed for identification signage and landscaping works in the front setback and streetscape in front of the Heidelberg Theatre for implementation as part of the streetscape improvement works in Turnham Avenue.

Planning Permit Application:

P1260/15

Development Planner:

Andy Wilson

Address:

44 Turnham Avenue ROSANNA

Proposal:

Use and Development of the land for the construction of a supermarket, liquor license (packaged liquor) and reduction in car parking

Existing Use/Development:

Office

Applicant:

Woolworths

Zoning:

Commercial 1 Zone, Mixed Use Zone

Overlays:

Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO5) to part of the site

Notification (Advertising):

Sign on site and notice to surrounding properties

Objections Received:

129

Ward:

Ibbott

It is proposed to demolish the existing office building and construct a part two storey supermarket with basement car parking. The proposal to use the land for a supermarket does not require permission under the Commercial 1 Zone (where the supermarket will be constructed), however a portion of the site is zoned Mixed Use Zone where permission is required for the use of the land for a supermarket (the land where the car park will be constructed). The proposal also includes a liquor license for packaged liquor. The supermarket will be used during the hours of 7am to 12am daily. Packaged liquor is proposed to be sold during the hours of 9am and midnight.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 35

4.3

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.3

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

44 TURNHAM AVENUE, ROSANNA - PROPOSED SUPERMARKET (P1260/15) cont’d The new undercroft/basement car park will include 64 car parking spaces in addition to the 22 existing at grade spaces at the rear of the site, giving a total of 86 on site car parking spaces. The 12 car parking spaces abutting the rear of the library do not form part of this application as they are located on the land at 72 Turnham Avenue (Rosanna Library site). It is proposed to remove a number of trees from the site and adjoining land at 72 Turnham Avenue (Library). Tree 2 is the only tree proposed to be removed which requires a permit and is located within the Turnham Avenue road reserve as is tree 7. Table 2 below describes the retention value of trees on site and at 72 Turnham Avenue that are proposed to be removed and retained: Tree

Name

Height

Eucalyptus sideroxylon Eucalyptus camaldulensis Eucalyptus camaldulensis Eucalyptus camaldulensis Eucalyptus leucoxylon Grevillea robusta Eucalyptus camaldulensis Casuarina cunninghamiana Casuarina cunninghamiana Casuarina cunninghamiana Quercus robur Eucalyptus melliodora Populus nigra ‘Italica’ Eucalyptus camaldulensis

Retention value High

3 4 5 7 11 13 16 17 18 29 30 33 59

Location

Protected?

Retained?

Yes

Very High

Road Reserve On site

High

On site

High

On site

Moderate

High

Road Reserve Library

High

On site

High

On site

High

On site

High

On site

14 16

Very High High

On site

No No

Yes Yes

High

On site

High

Library

Table 1

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 36

44 TURNHAM AVENUE, ROSANNA - PROPOSED SUPERMARKET (P1260/15) cont’d In addition, three trees have been identified to the rear of the land at 72 Turnham Avenue (Library site) which will not be impacted by the proposal although two of them are marked for removal. The plans should be amended to reflect their retention. These trees are outlined in table 2 below: Tree

Name

Common name

Height

Eucalyptus camaldulensis Angophora costata Corymbia citriodora

River Red Gum

Retention value High

Sydney Apple Gum Lemon Scented Gum

13 21

High High

39 41

Table 2 For a full copy of the advertised plans see Attachment 3. OFFICER DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 requires members of Council staff, and persons engaged under contract to provide advice to Council, to disclose any direct or indirect interest in a matter to which the advice relates. Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter. BACKGROUND/HISTORY The planning application has been lodged by Woolworths, who have entered into a contract to purchase the land from Council under their property division Fabcot Pty Ltd. The subject site currently contains the Rosanna Council Service Centre and administrative offices. This has been a temporary arrangement since the inception of Banyule Council more than 20 years ago with the Council expressing its intent to relocate to a consolidated office at Greensborough for some time. In order to facilitate the move and subsequent sale of the Rosanna Site, Council undertook a number of key steps which included: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Rezoning of the land to Commercial 1 Zone and Mixed Use Zone; Undertaking an Expression of Interest process for the sale of the land; Subdivision of the land and establishment of easements; Public Notice of Council’s Intention to sell the land and commitment to sell; Committing to undertake car parking and pedestrian access works in the vicinity of the library and Heidelberg Theatre as part of the sale of the land; Commencement of the new offices to accommodate Council staff at One Flintoff, Greensborough.

Each of these steps provides context to the current proposal and is discussed below.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 37

4.3

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.3

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

44 TURNHAM AVENUE, ROSANNA - PROPOSED SUPERMARKET (P1260/15) cont’d REZONING OF THE LAND TO COMMERCIAL 1 AND MIXED USE ZONE (AMENDMENT C76) The Council land at Turnham Avenue and Douglas Street was rezoned in 2012 following the completion of Amendment C76 to the Banyule Planning Scheme. The Amendment underwent a complete and thorough consultation and exhibition process which included submissions from the Rosanna library, Heidelberg Theatre Company and surrounding residents and a detailed assessment and report by an independent planning panel. The Planning Panel evaluated the submissions and recommended support for the rezoning of the land. Some of the key issues considered by the Planning Panel included: • • • • • • • •

Whether the Amendment was premature; Future use of the site for community and cultural facilities; Justification for accommodating business uses; Future development and potential impacts on neighbourhood character; The loss of car parking; Drainage; Public access; and Whether the zones proposed are appropriate;

The planning panel ultimately supported the rezoning of the land to Business 1 (Subsequently Commercial 1) for the Turnham Avenue component and Mixed Use Zone for the Douglas Street component indicating that the issues raised by the submitters were not relevant concerns, were not of sufficient concern to prevent the rezoning or would be dealt with at a further stage by Council and in the detailed assessment of a future development proposal for the land. There are a number of key comments of note in the panel report which are relevant. These include the following: “The Panel accepts there has been strategic planning work undertaken which enables the evaluation of the appropriate zoning to capitalise on the potential of this strategically significant parcel of land…. The focus of the Panel’s consideration is on the planning merits of the Amendment, including whether the Amendment Site is suitable for the purposes envisaged by the zones proposed….. Remedial works arising from the future development or sale of the Amendment Site may be necessary and could include: • Consideration of the need for Council customer service arrangements in Rosanna; • Works to ensure parking for the library and theatre is maintained and • Measures to maintain access to the theatre for people with disabilities…. While the retail core will continue to be to the west of the railway line, the proposed rezoning of the Amendment Site to B1Z [Business 1 Zone] would facilitate retail development, particularly at ground level, to compliment the retail core and community uses in the immediate area. The Panel is satisfied that this zoning would contribute to the ongoing economic development of the activity centre….

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 38

44 TURNHAM AVENUE, ROSANNA - PROPOSED SUPERMARKET (P1260/15) cont’d The built form along Turnham Avenue and Douglas Street has been low scale but change has begun, with a three storey building at 76-80 Turnham Avenue. The Panel agrees with Council’s submission that the permit process can deal with the range of development issues applicable to this site…. The Panel notes that surveys indicate that parking pressures are primarily an issue during working hours; the Douglas Street car park is currently reserved for authorised Council vehicles; and the Council offices also generate demand for on street parking which will no longer apply when that use relocates. It is also recognised that Council is investigating parking improvements on the library site and these works will be important to library operations…. The Panel is satisfied that the regulatory framework applicable to the land will enable Melbourne Water to ensure drainage issues are appropriately addressed….. The Panel agrees with Council that the public access concerns raised are primarily matters for the subdivision process and/or is a property law issue that is beyond the scope of this Panel’s consideration.” Subsequent to the rezoning to Business 1 Zone, the State Government rezoned the land to Commercial 1 Zone as part of VC100 which reformed existing zones across Victoria in 2013. All Business 1 zoned land in the municipality was translated to Commercial 1 Zone as part of this process. EXPRESSION OF INTEREST PROCESS FOR LAND SALE In early 2012 Council commenced the process to seek Expressions of Interest for the sale and development of the Rosanna Service Centre site in accordance with the provisions of the Banyule Planning Scheme. Following a subsequent shortlisting process and extended contract negotiations, Council agreed to sell the site to Fabcot Pty Ltd subject to a number of conditions including Council vacating the premises and moving its administrative offices Greensborough. As part of the sale the purchaser was advised that they would be responsible for submitting a planning permit application for the development of the land and that Council must then independently consider and assess the application in its role as the responsible authority under the Banyule Planning Scheme and pursuant to the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The purchaser was also advised that this would involve public notice of the application and a report being prepared and submitted by the Planning Department to Council for consideration. The contract of sale also makes it clear that nothing in the contract shall fetter or restrict the power or discretion of Council as the responsible authority under the Planning Scheme or in any other statutory role. SUBDIVISION OF THE LAND AND ESTABLISHMENT OF EASEMENTS As part of the process to enable to land to be sold, a land surveyor was engaged to prepare a draft plan of subdivision and submit a planning application for the subdivision of the land.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 39

4.3

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.3

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

44 TURNHAM AVENUE, ROSANNA - PROPOSED SUPERMARKET (P1260/15) cont’d Planning Permit P1033/2013 was issued on 3 April 2014 for a Three Lot Subdivision (Consolidation of Titles and Realignment of Boundaries). This followed a public notice process, receipt of objections and a Council decision to issues a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit at its meeting on 16 December 2013. There was a subsequent Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal objector appeal that was ultimately withdrawn. The permit enabled the consolidation of ten existing titles which incorporated the Rosanna library site and the subdivision of the land to create three lots (Lot 1 containing the existing Rosanna Library, Lot 2 containing the existing car park off Douglas Street and Lot 3 containing the existing Rosanna Service Centre together with car parking fronting Turnham Avenue). This then enabled Council to sell the service centre and associated car park whilst retaining the Rosanna library on a separate title. PUBLIC NOTICE OF COUNCIL’S INTENTION TO SELL LAND In order to give effect to the sale of the land, Council was required to give notice of its intention to sell, hear any submissions received in respect of such notice and resolve to sell the land pursuant to sections 189 and 223 of the Local Government Act 1989. Only after this occurred could Council sign the contract of sale. A report on the public notice process was considered by Council on 18 November 2013. The report considered submissions received which included the Heidelberg Theatre Company and local residents and raised the following main issues: • • • • • • •

Increased Traffic; Loss of car parking; Loss of community facilities; Loss of public access to the Land and over the Melbourne Water drainage reserve land; Lack of consultation regarding development of the proposed Integrated Transport Strategy; Requirement of Structure Planning for Rosanna; and Inadequate future planning/consultation with the community.

Council subsequently resolved to sell the land, finalise contract negotiations with the prospective purchaser and advise submitters. As part of the planning permit application for the supermarket, the applicant has sought to acquire an additional 90m2 (approx.) of land at the rear of 72 Turnham Avenue (library site) to allow for improved vehicle access to the proposed undercroft parking and access for delivery vehicles to the loading bays at the rear of the proposed development. Council considered a report in relation to the sale of this land to Fabcot Pty Ltd at the Council Meeting on 18 April 2016, but deferred the report to reconsider the request following the outcome of the current planning application for the supermarket.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 40

44 TURNHAM AVENUE, ROSANNA - PROPOSED SUPERMARKET (P1260/15) cont’d LIBRARY CAR PARKING AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS WORKS The development of the site for a supermarket or any other land use will require Council to undertake alterations to car parking arrangements and suitable site works to enable the Rosanna library to be retained and continue to function in its current form. Council considered a petition report on 18 June 2012 regarding the Rosanna library and Heidelberg Theatre sites which specifically raised concern with the sale of the land and the potential impact on the loss of car parking. In response to these concerns a concept plan was prepared and forwarded to the Heidelberg Theatre Company showing the proposed changes in the vicinity of the library. The ‘Rosanna library site remodelling works’ concept plan is included at Attachment 2. In regard to car parking, the plan shows: •

• •

Remedial works to the Library to reconfigure the undercroft car park for improved vehicle movement and safety, and improved pedestrian access between the undercroft car park and Library entrance which will set aside approximately 25 public car spaces. Provision of DDA compliant on street car spaces in the vicinity of the Library (in Douglas Street) and Heidelberg Theatre Company (in Turnham Avenue, adjacent to the Theatre). Changed time limits for on street car parking on Turnham Avenue to benefit Library users and other visitors to the area.

Depending on the outcome of the planning permit application and confirmation that the development is proceeding, a final design will be prepared with the necessary works being programmed for implementation. NEW OFFICES TO ACCOMMODATE STAFF AT ONE FLINTOFF, GREENSBOROUGH ADCO Constructions is currently building new Banyule Council staff accommodation and community facilities on top of WaterMarc in Greensborough. Work started in October 2015 and is expected to finish in December 2016, ready for staff to move in to and community to access from January 2017. The investment in new staff accommodation and community facilities is anticipated to bring economic benefits, long-term productivity and financial savings. The project was foreshadowed in 2007 with Council’s release of the Greensborough Project, a plan to revitalise and influence future planning and development of the Greensborough Activity Centre. The new staff accommodation will bring together 320 Council staff from three office locations - Ivanhoe, Rosanna and Greensborough. Council will retain customer service points in Ivanhoe and Rosanna, ensuring easy access for people across Banyule. Council meetings will continue to be held at Ivanhoe in the heritage listed town hall building. Final arrangements for the customer service point at Rosanna will be confirmed prior to the move to Greensborough.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 41

4.3

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.3

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

44 TURNHAM AVENUE, ROSANNA - PROPOSED SUPERMARKET (P1260/15) cont’d ROSANNA STATION LEVEL CROSSING REMOVAL AND TRACK DUPLICATION TO HEIDELBERG The State Government has recently committed to upgrading the Hurstbridge Railway line with specific projects impacting directly on Rosanna Station and the Rosanna Activity Centre. The Hurstbridge line upgrade will include: • • • •

Duplication of the single-track section of rail line between Heidelberg and Rosanna, removing a significant bottleneck, with associated power and signalling work; The duplication works will be coordinated with the Grange Road, Alphington and Lower Plenty Road, Rosanna level crossing removals; Redesigning the timetables for the Hurstbridge and South Morang lines to achieve additional services and improved reliability on both lines; Building a new train station at Rosanna.

The State Government has advised that a contract will be awarded in 2017 and construction works will start shortly thereafter, with completion by 2019. Community consultation will take place from mid-2016 regarding the removal of the level crossing on Lower Plenty Road. The Level Crossing Removal Authority (LXRA) will manage the delivery of the project. LXRA will be working closely with Public Transport Victoria, local councils, key stakeholders in the area and the local community to deliver this project. 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 The subject site is currently occupied by a part three storey building used as an office of Banyule City Council. It is sited on the eastern side of the Hurstbridge rail line, opposite the Rosanna Railway Station and is abutted by the Rosanna Library to the north and Heidelberg Theatre Company to the south. The site has two frontages, one to Turnham Avenue and one to Douglas Parade. The site contains a car park to the north east of the office building with access from Douglas Parade and a car park to the west with access from Turnham Avenue. These car parks are currently used by staff and customers of Banyule City Council. A small portion of the subject site to be developed is owned by Melbourne Water and part of a larger parcel known as 32 Station Road Rosanna. This is located along the eastern boundary in the southern portion of the site. It is 3.5 metres wide, approximately 47 metres long and 161m2 in area.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 42

44 TURNHAM AVENUE, ROSANNA - PROPOSED SUPERMARKET (P1260/15) cont’d

Figure 1: Locality Plan PUBLIC NOTIFICATION The proposal was advertised by way of notices to nearby surrounding properties in the locality and two signs on site – one on Turnham Avenue and one on Douglas Street. A community update was also widely distributed in the vicinity of the site and made available on Council’s website which outlined details about the project and the planning application. To date 129 objections have been received. Issues raised by objectors include: • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Traffic and pedestrian safety. Traffic congestion. Loss of car parking. Neighbourhood character (construction to the front boundary). Vegetation removal and environmental impacts. Inappropriate location for a supermarket: o Disconnection from the Rosanna Village; o Impact on existing library and Heidelberg Theatre. Sale of liquor. Loss of a Banyule Council Customer Service point in Rosanna. Increased crime and vandalism. Council has a conflict of interest and is seeking to maximise financial return and not considering the best outcome for the Rosanna community. Concern the library will be sold in the future as well. Loss of access through the Melbourne Water easement. The proposal is not consistent with Banyule’s age friendly focus.

CONSULTATION A meeting was had with representatives of the Heidelberg Theatre Company to discuss the specific concerns they have with the proposal including access to parking and impact on the character of Turnham Avenue given the proposed removal of vegetation and construction to the front boundary.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 43

4.3

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.3

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

44 TURNHAM AVENUE, ROSANNA - PROPOSED SUPERMARKET (P1260/15) cont’d It was accepted that it is reasonable to treat the shared boundary with some acoustic fencing measures to minimise the potential noise disturbance as a result of deliveries to the supermarket. This can be included as a condition of any approval granted. The use of a car parking management plan was also discussed which could outline how parking could be made available to patrons of the Heidelberg Theatre Company. This can be requested as a condition of any approval granted. In addition, opportunities to improve the appearance of the boundary wall with the theatre entrance and improved identification of the theatre were explored. REFERRAL COMMENTS Transport Engineering The Transport Engineering Unit has indicated that they support the proposed reduction in onsite car parking requirements based on the empirical assessment of car parking and available short term car parking in surrounding streets. There is also no concerns raised with the resulting traffic impacts. However, it is recommended that conditions to improve the safety of the under-croft car park including installation of additional line marking and signage making clear the proposed unidirectional flow of traffic north of the Trolley Store and extending the footpath width north of the Trolley Store to reduce the width of the trafficable space to 3 metres is provided. It is also recommended the relocation of the bicycle parking spaces at the rear of the site to be positioned within the under-croft car park for increased security. Traffic and car parking issues are discussed in more detail in the report. Arborist The design proposes the removal of Trees #2, #7, #38, #39, #40, #41, and #59 from adjoining property. The development impact on Tree #59 – a red gum with very high retention value – is severe, and it is accepted that design modifications to the structure of the built form would be necessary to retain it could be excessive. Trees #2 and #7 are both street trees, and have high and moderate retention value respectively. The justification for the removal of these trees is less clear. Thereafter it is accepted that Tree #40 has low retention value, and observations of tree #38 are that it has limited future potential given its form, even though it is assessed as a high retention value tree. The arborist report details that improved design detail and further investigation is required (page 17 and 18) to categorically determine the development impacts on the following trees located on adjacent property: Trees #23, #24 and #25: The site levels and materials proposed to facilitate construction of a new trafficable surface capable of supporting larger vehicles; and, The canopy pruning required to enable clearances for larger vehicles. Trees #26, #29 and #30: Detail is required in this area relating to the clarification of site levels, materials and any landscaping treatments for new surfaces and/or car park alignments.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 44

44 TURNHAM AVENUE, ROSANNA - PROPOSED SUPERMARKET (P1260/15) cont’d Further clarification is required in relation to the protection of these trees. PLANNING CONTROLS The site is located partly within the Commercial 1 Zone and partly within the Mixed Use Zone, within which the Neighbourhood Character Policy does not apply. Details of the relevant planning controls and State and Local Policy requirements are contained in Attachment 1 of this report. Table 3 summarises the relevant planning controls including which trigger the need for planning permission Control

Permit triggered?

Commercial One Zone – Schedule 1 Mixed Use Zone Vegetation Protection Overlay Clause 52.06: Car parking Clause 52.07: Loading and Unloading of Vehicles Clause 52.17: Native Vegetation Clause 52.34: Bicycle Facilities Table 3

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No

TECHNICAL CONSIDERATION STATE AND LOCAL POLICY FRAMEWORK Based on an assessment of the plans and reports accompanying the application it is considered that the proposal responds well to the State and Local Planning Policy Framework within the Banyule Planning Scheme and will meet the planning objectives established for a neighbourhood activity centre such as Rosanna. The proposed buildings and works for the purpose of creating a new retail land use will help to establish an overall stronger commercial centre. The development will also result in improved overall vitality and viability of the town centre and help to make it a more self-sustaining destination for multiple purpose trips, where visitors will be encouraged to use alternatives to the private car, including the train, bus, cycling or walking, which will become increasingly important modes of transport into the future. ZONING PROVISIONS AND PROPOSED LAND USE The rezoning of the land to Business 1 Zone (and subsequently Commercial 1 Zone) was undertaken without a specific land use in mind but rather to facilitate a range of retail, commercial and residential opportunities. The redevelopment of the site for a multi-level mixed use development including retail and residential would be ideal but is not specifically sought by a Structure Plan or Strategic Plan for this activity centre. The proposal for a supermarket is supported by the zoning of the land and in fact is an “as of right” land use which does not require formal approval in the Commercial 1 Zone.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 45

4.3

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.3

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

44 TURNHAM AVENUE, ROSANNA - PROPOSED SUPERMARKET (P1260/15) cont’d It is noted that the proposal is for a “mini” Woolworths at 2700 square metres (2135 square metres of net retail floor space) which is approximately two thirds the size of a standard full line supermarket which is typically more than 3600 square metres. This smaller size is suitable for a neighbourhood activity centre such as Rosanna with a desire by Woolworths to attract local residents, existing commuters and other visitors to the centre such as those attending the library next door. This then supports additional expenditure within the centre which is currently lost to other locations. There has also been concern raised by many objectors about the impact of an additional supermarket on the existing IGA located at the western end of the shopping centre. Whilst the land use does not require a permit and concerns about competition is not a relevant consideration, it is also noted that the stimulus of a new retail premises can bring benefits to a Neighbourhood Centre such as Rosanna. There is an opportunity now for the IGA to be revitalised and continue to offer a service to local residents. There are many examples of an existing supermarket coexisting and in fact thriving when competition is brought in to the marketplace. SALE OF LIQUOR The sale of liquor is a particular aspect of concern for some objectors. Given that social problems associated with alcohol sales are not prevalent in the Rosanna area despite there being two bottle shops already within the Rosanna Activity Centre it is not expected that the additional bottle-shop will exacerbate concerns. However, a restriction on the times that alcohol can be sold from the premises so that times are limited to those typical of shopping centre bottle shop closing times (i.e. 9pm) is reasonable to avoid attracting youth using nearby public transport in this quieter part of the activity centre. BUILT FORM, URBAN DESIGN AND STREETSCAPE The relationship of the built form of the building with the streetscape is an important consideration. The building occupies a substantial portion of the Commercial 1 part of the site and is brought forward all the way to the frontage on Turnham Avenue. The building design maximises the available space and topography by incorporating basement car parking coming in off the lower grade in Douglas Street and then ground floor retail space fronting Turnham Avenue but positioned off the drainage easements at the rear. A first floor office area is then accommodated above the lift area to the southern end of the building where the main entrance off Turnham Avenue is provided to take full advantage of footpath levels. There are no trees proposed to be retained along the Turnham Avenue frontage of the site. This is a specific aspect of the proposal that has been raised as a concern by many objectors given the extent of vegetation in the area. However, the land has been rezoned for commercial purposes without a vegetation protection overlay requiring the retention of existing vegetation. The maximising of a development footprint on commercial land is typically expected and the provision of development to the extent of boundaries is common to avoid ineffective and often poorly maintained landscaping setbacks. For this particular proposal the basement car parking prevents the provision of practical landscaping setbacks at the Turnham Avenue ground level and would be considered wasted space if provided.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 46

44 TURNHAM AVENUE, ROSANNA - PROPOSED SUPERMARKET (P1260/15) contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d The building is well designed with use of glazing, steel, timber and stone cladding finishes to give the building a contemporary appearance but with a localised softer characteristic which suits the Rosanna environment. The building will sit prominently in the streetscape but is appropriate as a new building which continues the change expected in this street facilitated by the rezoning. As noted by the Planning Panel that considered the rezoning, change has already started, with the office and retail building located on the north east corner of Turnham Avenue and Douglas Street that building also having no setback. It is expected that further change may occur in the future as the Rosanna library is one day upgraded and opportunities to remodel the front of the Heidelberg Theatre site arise. Further along Turnham Avenue, the redevelopment of residential properties is likely given the proximity to the activity centre and nearby public transport. The Heidelberg Theatre is located on Council land and adjoins the subject site to the south along Turnham Avenue. Whilst the theatre site has a narrow frontage and small setback it currently enjoys exposure and presence in the streetscape due to the open Council car park on the subject site. This will be interrupted by the zero lot lined redevelopment proposed and therefore objectors associated with the theatre have suggested that a setback should be provided which continues to provide exposure to the theatre. Taking into consideration the desire for redevelopment facilitated by the commercial zoning of the subject site and the suitability of the building design, it is considered that a setback to provide exposure to the side boundary of the theatre is an unreasonable and unnecessary amendment which would undermine the design concept of the proposed development. However, the new southern wall of the supermarket proposed on the northern boundary of the theatre site should be designed to provide featuring and signage which identifies the theatre for those travelling north along Turnham Avenue where current exposure and identification is minimal. Improved signage within the front setback of the theatre and potentially within the streetscape immediately in front of the theatre should also be provided to improve the presence of the site for those travelling south along Turnham Avenue. The other significant change to Turnham Avenue is the level crossing removal at Lower Plenty Road and construction of a new Rosanna Railway Station. Whilst it is yet to be known whether the rail line will be constructed over or under Lower Plenty Road, the impact on the Turnham Avenue streetscape environment directly opposite the subject site will be substantial. Council has already identified the need for careful planning and a suitable urban design approach for the new station so that both the western and eastern parts of the activity centre can be tied together and support the expanded retail functions. The potential for commercial components to the new station redevelopment on railway land adjoining Turnham Avenue could also be looked at.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 47

4.3

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

4.3

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

44 TURNHAM AVENUE, ROSANNA - PROPOSED SUPERMARKET (P1260/15) cont’d The Supermarket proposal has put forward a specific outcome for the future streetscape in front of the site as part of the application which includes removal of street trees, a new pedestrian crossing and reconfigured car parking. This plan was established before the State Government commitments to the new Rosanna Station and without fully incorporating Council plans for car parking reconfiguration. The proposed removal of street trees is understandable given the difficulties with their retention as part of a redeveloped site and the desire to establish a renewed streetscape. However, it is not appropriate to ‘lock in’ a new streetscape now as part of the current application. A new streetscape plan should be prepared to the satisfaction of Council prior to commencement of the development (or other agreed timeframe) which considers the following: •

The final design for the level crossing removal and new station including pedestrian and car parking access points from Turnham Avenue, bus interchange changes and potential for any commercial development fronting Turnham Avenue;

•

Proposed Council on street car parking changes including disabled car parking near to the Heidelberg Theatre;

•

Improvements to the frontage of the Heidelberg Theatre and adjoining streetscape to enhance identification of the site;

•

The most appropriate locations for pedestrian crossing points along Turnham Avenue and bike parking hoops within the street.

Council has allocated funds in its 2016/17 budget to prepare streetscape concept plans for the entire activity centre, creating a vision for revitalisation and improved integration between the eastern and western sections of the centre, currently divided by the rail line. The preparation of the concept plans provides an opportunity to achieve an integrated urban design aesthetic, further strengthening the activity centre. Given that the earliest date that the Rosanna Service Centre site will be vacated is early January 2017, and the streetscape works are not likely to be undertaken by the developer or Council until the redevelopment is nearing completion, there is ample time to resolve the above issues and establish the most appropriate streetscape plan. LANDSCAPING AND TREES TO THE REAR Landscaping, including a large oak tree are prominent features of the site to the rear car park where the site transitions to the residential properties in Douglas Street and Grove Road. Most of these trees will be retained or replaced with new landscaping. The large oak tree will be retained and should be suitably protected during the construction phase of the development. Likewise, trees to the rear of residential properties in Grove Road which abut the rear easement and loading bay area should also be protected during construction with the design of the roadway over the critical root zone of the trees needing careful attention to ensure their long term retention. Suitable conditions can be included on any approval granted.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 48

44 TURNHAM AVENUE, ROSANNA - PROPOSED SUPERMARKET (P1260/15) cont’d Some trees to the rear of the library may require removal to accommodate access changes to the library undercroft car park. This doesn’t form part of the current application but will need to be considered by Council in finalising the plan for the future library car park. Where possible, trees will be retained and future landscaping provided whilst still providing for the maximum possible car parking attributable to the library. The initial concept plan prepared by Council, shows retention of key trees but the loss of at least one substantial tree where the new access driveway from the library undercroft car park is proposed. CAR PARKING (CLAUSE 52.06) A car parking assessment has been submitted with the application by the applicant which has been reviewed by Council’s Transport Engineering Team. The assessment identifies that the proposed development consists of 2,702 m2 of supermarket (retail) floor area. The supermarket use is listed within Table 52.06 of the Banyule Planning Scheme. Under the Scheme, a rate of 5 car parking spaces for each 100m2 is required. Based on the requirements of Clause 52.06, the statutory car parking assessment for the development is 135 spaces. The plans submitted with the application indicate a total of 86 car parking spaces on site. Accordingly, the applicant has requested a reduction of 49 car parking spaces from the statutory rate. The car parking assessment prepared by Cardno on behalf of the applicant indicates that supermarkets in locations with similar conditions generate a maximum car parking demand of 3.6 spaces for every 100m2. Taking into account the empirical rate, the maximum demand for car parking spaces for this development would be 97 spaces, resulting in an effective shortfall of 11 spaces. It is considered that the surrounding road network has enough on-street car parking capacity to accommodate the demand in times of high usage. In addition, the following key points are noted: •

There is excellent access to public transport with the railway station opposite and bus interchange in Turnham Avenue;

•

An expectation of multi-purpose trips with some people already in or parked near the activity centre also visiting the supermarket such as commuters heading home, those visiting the library or at cafes or other shops west of the railway;

•

The site has good pedestrian access from the surrounding residential areas particularly with an expected well integrated new railway station and level crossing removal and a high quality streetscape;

•

There will be far less demand on car parking in the surrounding area once the Council Offices are relocated to Greensborough;

•

The expected peak times for visits to the supermarket are expected in the evening and weekends when demand on nearby accessible car parking including on street car parking and within the railway station is lower;

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 49

4.3

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.3

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

44 TURNHAM AVENUE, ROSANNA - PROPOSED SUPERMARKET (P1260/15) cont’d •

Parking for approximately 25 cars is being set aside for the Rosanna Library within the land owned and controlled by Council which is in addition to the parking allocated to the supermarket.

On the basis of the above, a reduction in the provision of car parking spaces from the statutory rate is considered appropriate. Council’s Transport Engineering Team has also advised that the car park has been suitably designed in accordance with Australian Standards but seek specific conditions to ensure minor improvements to the layout are made. With regards to public access to the supermarket car park, it is considered reasonable to require a car parking management plan which will clearly demonstrate how the spaces on site will be made available for public use at all times and how pedestrians can move through the site, particularly during events at the Heidelberg Theatre. It is noted that the spaces abutting the library remain on the library site and will be available at all times for public use. A pedestrian path is proposed to provide access to these car parking spaces to and from the supermarket as well as access to Turnham Avenue via a pedestrian walkway between the supermarket and the Library. TRAFFIC AND LOADING Council’s latest available traffic data indicates the following daily traffic volumes for residential streets in the area: • • •

Douglas Street: 434 vehicles per day; Turnham Avenue: 2444 vehicles per day; Station Road: 2126 vehicles per day.

The applicants traffic assessment indicates that the proposal could load the network with additional vehicles that can be accommodated within the surrounding street network given existing volumes. The corresponding reduction in vehicle movements associated with the relocation of Council’s offices also means that the additional vehicles will be comfortably absorbed within the street network. In addition, given that the site is well positioned and located to expect a lower demand on car parking than a typical supermarket located away from an activity centre there will be a corresponding lower impact on traffic in the surrounding network. The proposal’s documents also indicate the use of a 12.5 metre long truck for deliveries to the supermarket, with loading proposed to occur between 7am and 10pm on weekdays, and between 7am and 7pm on weekends. The preferred route for trucks to access the site is via Lower Plenty Road, into Turnham Avenue, to Douglas Street. This will minimise the number of heavy vehicles in the local network. It is noted that the existing design of the intersection of Turnham Avenue and Douglas Street does not allow for trucks to turn right from Turnham Avenue into Douglas Street which reinforces the preferred route. As part of any streetscape changes to Turnham Avenue in the future the street design should not enable right turns from Turnham Avenue into Douglas Street.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 50

44 TURNHAM AVENUE, ROSANNA - PROPOSED SUPERMARKET (P1260/15) cont’d There have been specific concerns raised in relation to noise associated with truck movements and loading. It is proposed that deliveries and use of the loading bay will be up to 10pm weekdays and 7pm weekends. Whilst these times are reasonable, acoustic fencing should be provided between the loading area and adjoining residential properties and in particular the Heidelberg Theatre which has its stage area towards the rear of the building near the loading bay. On the basis of the traffic assessment undertaken and review by Council’s Transport Engineering Team it is considered that the proposal is acceptable from a traffic perspective. BICYCLE PARKING Based on the requirements of Clause 52.34, the proposal requires 9 bicycle spaces to be provided, 4 spaces for employees and 5 for visitors. The proposal has included 5 bicycle parking hoops to the rear of the site which can accommodate 10 bicycles, and 4 additional hoops to the front, near the entrance which can accommodate 8 spaces. This comfortably satisfies and exceeds the requirement for bicycle parking on site. The bicycle spaces on the footpath are well located to serve customers who cycle to the supermarket. However, the spaces at the rear of the site, which may be used by staff, are not well located and it is considered that the proposal should be amended to incorporate the bicycle parking spaces within the under-croft parking area. There appears to be sufficient room to accommodate this and therefore a condition of any approval granted can require this. A shower for ‘end of trip’ use should also be provided. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE DESIGN The application has been assessed against the components of environmentally sustainable design including energy performance, water resources, indoor environment quality, stormwater management, transport, waste management and urban ecology and is found to be compliant. The applicant has submitted a Sustainable Management Plan which includes a Built Environment Sustainability Scorecard, demonstrating the proposal achieves industry best practice with regards to sustainable design. OTHER ISSUES RAISED BY OBJECTORS Loss of on street and disabled parking The submitted application plans indicate the construction of streetscape improvement works within Turnham Avenue, including the construction of a new pedestrian crossing. This would result in the loss of some at grade parking spaces in Turnham Avenue. However, the benefit of streetscape improvement works is considered to outweigh the loss of on street parking. It is noted that three disabled parking spaces are proposed within the undercroft car park associated with the supermarket. A streetscape plan for all of Turnham Avenue should be prepared by Council which incorporates on street car parking, disabled car parking and pedestrian access points.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 51

4.3

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.3

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

44 TURNHAM AVENUE, ROSANNA - PROPOSED SUPERMARKET (P1260/15) cont’d Access through Melbourne Water easement from Grove Road to Douglas Street remaining? The plans do not indicate that access through the site along the Melbourne Water easement will be restricted. Will the library site be sold in the future? There are no current plans to sell the library site. Any plan to sell Council land would need to go through the usual public notification process defined under Section 189 and 223 of the Local Government Act 1989 and would involve extensive consultation with the community. Council is motivated to maximise return rather than get the best outcome for the Rosanna community. The land has been rezoned to Commercial 1 Zone and Mixed Use Zone to enhance the economic viability of the Rosanna shopping centre. The application before Council is consistent with this zoning. This proposal is not consistent with Council’s ‘age friendly’ focus It is not clear what aspect of the proposal fails to be age friendly. Suitable provision has been made for people with limited mobility who arrive by car and a level entry is proposed for access from Turnham Avenue. Loss of customer service centre at Rosanna Council proposes to retain a customer service presence in Rosanna. The detail of exactly how this will be provided has not yet been determined. Loss of community use to commercial The land has been rezoned for commercial purposes and the proposal is consistent with this. Pedestrian safety The proposed supermarket is not expected to compromise pedestrian safety. It is acknowledged that the frequency of vehicle trips to the site will increase as a result of the supermarket, however, with vehicle access limited to Douglas Street, the impact on pedestrian safety is considered to be minimal. Increased crime and vandalism It is unclear how the proposed supermarket will result in increased crime and vandalism in the locality.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 52

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

4.3

44 TURNHAM AVENUE, ROSANNA - PROPOSED SUPERMARKET (P1260/15) contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d CONCLUSION The proposed supermarket has been assessed against the relevant planning policy and is considered to be an appropriate outcome for the site. Specific conditions should be included on any approval granted, specifically relating to the protection of amenity for adjoining properties including the Heidelberg Theatre Company as well as protection of trees retained on site and on adjoining properties.

ATTACHMENTS No.

Title

Planning Policy

123

Rosanna Library car park and footpath remodelling concept plan

132

Plans

133

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page

Page 53

4.4

USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF LAND AT 29 HOWARD STREET AND 2-6 STUBLEY COURT, GREENSBOROUGH, FOR A CAR PARK

Author:

Jackie Bernoth - Development Planner, City Development

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application seeks approval to remove a total of 30 trees to facilitate the development of car parks at 29 Howard Street and 2-6 Stubley Court, Greensborough. Council is the land owner and permit applicant. The applications have undergone public notification and no objections have been received. The applications will allow for the construction of additional car parking facilities to service the Greensborough Principal Activity Centre and appropriately balance this provision with the retention and planting of trees. It is considered that the application should be approved. RECOMMENDATION That Council having complied with Section 52, 58, 60, 61 and 62 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, resolves to issue a Planning Permit in respect of Application No. P253/2016 for tree removal associated with the development of two Local Government car parks at 29 Howard Street and 2-6 Stubley Court GREENSBOROUGH subject to the following conditions: Plans 1

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

Relocation of the parking space to the east of Tree 14 to the west by approximately 10m;

(b)

Removal of Trees 2 and 13;

(c)

The provision of an additional tree in place of Tree 2, with the species to correspond to the remaining trees to be provided along the Stubley Court frontage;

General 2.

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.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 54

4.4

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

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.4

USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF LAND AT 29 HOWARD STREET AND 2-6 STUBLEY COURT, GREENSBOROUGH, FOR A CAR PARK cont’d Works Prior to Commencement 3.

Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority the tree removal permitted by this permit must not be commenced until the tree protection measures required by Condition 6 are installed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Works Prior to Occupation 4.

Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority the replacement planting indicated on the endorsed plans must be provided prior to commencement of use of the car park.

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 (including demolition) on the site Tree Preservation Zones must be established around Tree 14. You must contact Council’s Development Planning Unit on 9457 9808 once the Tree Preservation Fencing is erected so that an inspection of the fencing can be carried out. Once installed and inspected the Tree Preservation Zones must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, and meet the following requirements: (a)

Extent Tree Preservation Zones are to be provided to the extent of the 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. The fencing can be realigned and suitable ground protection provided to allow any construction approved within a TPZ only to the satisfaction of the project arborist and only when approved by the Responsible Authority.

(b)

Management of works (i)

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 55

4.4

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF LAND AT 29 HOWARD STREET AND 2-6 STUBLEY COURT, GREENSBOROUGH, FOR A CAR PARK cont’d (ii)

(c)

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

(d)

(e)

Fencing (i)

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.

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

(f)

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

(g)

Access to Tree Preservation Zone (i)

(ii)

(iii) (iv)

NOTE: Requests for consent of the Responsible Authority (City of Banyule) pursuant to this Condition should be directed to Council’s Arborist – Development Planning on 9457 9808. Consent for the conduct of further works within the Tree Protection Zone, where granted, may be subject to conditions. Such conditions may include a requirement that: •

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

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 56

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.4

USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF LAND AT 29 HOWARD STREET AND 2-6 STUBLEY COURT, GREENSBOROUGH, FOR A CAR PARK cont’d •

All root excavation be carried out by hand digging or with the use of ‘AirExcavation’ techniques; • Roots required to be cut are to be severed by saw cutting and undertaken by a qualified arborist. Or other conditions, as relevant, to ensure the ongoing health and stability of the subject tree/s. 7.

All tree pruning is to be carried out by a trained and competent arborist who has a thorough knowledge of tree physiology and pruning methods. Pruning must be carried out in accordance with Australian Standard AS4373 Pruning of Amenity Trees. Tree pruning is to be restricted to the removal of no greater than 15% of the total live canopy of individual trees.

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 9.

In accordance with section 68 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, this permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies: • The development is not commenced within two years of the date of this permit; • The development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit. In accordance with section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing: (a)

Before the permit expires, or

(b)

Within six months afterwards, or

(c)

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

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. Additional approvals required No Signs Without Consent Except where no permit is required under the provisions of the Banyule Planning Scheme, no advertising signs may be constructed or displayed without a permit.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 57

4.4

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF LAND AT 29 HOWARD STREET AND 2-6 STUBLEY COURT, GREENSBOROUGH, FOR A CAR PARK cont’d Building over Easements No structure (including but not limited to sheds, retaining walls, eaves, water tanks, paving and landings) shall be built over any easement on the subject land except with the consent of the relevant Responsible Authority. Access to Council Reserve No permission can be granted either temporary or otherwise by Council and/or its employees with respect to access to the adjacent Council owned land (including the road reserve) for any purposes relating to the proposal (e.g. parking of surplus vehicles, delivery of materials etc.), without application being made for the requisite permit (i.e. Local Law Permit). Permit Personal This permit allows the removal of vegetation associated with the development of the land as a car park by the Banyule City Council. If the land ceases to be owned or operated by the Banyule City Council a planning permit may be required to continue to utilise the land for the purposes of a car park. 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. Such conditions may include a requirement that: •

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

•

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

•

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

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

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 58

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.4

USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF LAND AT 29 HOWARD STREET AND 2-6 STUBLEY COURT, GREENSBOROUGH, FOR A CAR PARK cont’d Planning Permit Application:

P253/2016

Development Planner:

Mrs Jackie Bernoth

Address:

29 Howard Street GREENSBOROUGH & 2-6 Stubley Court GREENSBOROUGH

Proposal:

Tree removal associated with the development of two Local Government car parks

Existing Use/Development:

Each property is currently developed with a single dwelling, with that at 2-4 Stubley Court previously utilised as a medical centre.

Restrictive covenant:

Nil

Applicant:

Banyule City Council

Notification (Advertising):

Four signs on site Notices to surrounding properties

Objections Received:

Nil

Ward:

Bakewell

Cultural Heritage Management No Plan (CHMP) required: Planning controls:

Control

Permit triggered?

Activity Centre Zone (ACZ1) Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO5) – Stubley Court properties only Policies considered:

No Yes

Clause 12: Environmental and Landscape Values Clause 21.05: Natural Environment Clause 21.08: Local Places

The proposal incorporates: 29 HOWARD STREET The removal of the existing vegetation on the land and provision of a car park which will connect with the existing Henry Street/Howard Street car park, with no direct access to Howard Street. The land will accommodate 24 parking spaces, plus part of three spaces which will extend over the title boundaries into the existing car park. The proposal will increase the number of parking spaces provided in this location by 18, as a result of modifications required to existing line marking proposed so as to facilitate access to the proposed car park.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 59

4.4

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF LAND AT 29 HOWARD STREET AND 2-6 STUBLEY COURT, GREENSBOROUGH, FOR A CAR PARK cont’d 2-6 STUBLEY COURT The removal of seventeen trees and large shrubs (ie. retention of Trees 2, 13 and 14 and removal of the remainder), and construction of a car park accommodating 48 cars. Access will be provided by one double-width and one single-width crossover to Stubley Court, with the single-width crossing indicated as being for exit only. The proposal incorporates the following minimum setbacks to the existing trees to be retained: Tree 2: Tree 13: Tree 14:

1.3m 3.5m 2.4m

OFFICER DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 requires members of Council staff, and persons engaged under contract to provide advice to Council, to disclose any direct or indirect interest in a matter to which the advice relates. Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter. BACKGROUND/HISTORY Council purchased the properties in order to provide additional car parking for the Greensborough Activity Centre, with the intent initially being to maximise parking provision, with removal of all existing vegetation anticipated. The properties were referred to Council twice in 2015. At its meeting on 21 September 2015, Council resolved that: A report be presented to Council on options for additional off-street car parking facilities at 29 Howard Street and, 2-4 and 6 Stubley Court Greensborough. A report outlining a preferred car parking layout for the sites was considered at the Council meeting held on 9 November 2015. The report provides the following background: The Greensborough Structure Plan, adopted in 2003, promoted significant growth within the Greensborough Activity centre, including conception of the “Greensborough Project” and the wider strategic redevelopment of the Greensborough Activity Centre. Over time, Council has delivered on various components of the vision, and has recently approved the next stage of development, the construction of Council’s offices above WaterMarc. A Car Parking Management Plan (CPMP) has been developed for Greensborough to better understand the impact of the new Council offices, the commercial office above WaterMarc, and other changes occurring in the Greensborough area. The CPMP considered the management of Council's broader car parking resources, and identified the possible provision of additional car parking on Council owned land within the Activity Centre.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 60

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.4

USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF LAND AT 29 HOWARD STREET AND 2-6 STUBLEY COURT, GREENSBOROUGH, FOR A CAR PARK cont’d Council has obtained 29 Howard Street and 2-4 and 6 Stubley Court to provide additional car parking as the Greensborough Activity Centre grows. The additional spaces at 29 Howard Street and 2-4 and 6 Stubley Court will cater for the increased parking demand across the Greensborough Activity Centre and provide additional car parking. The construction of these additional spaces is to be funded through Council’s reserves. In the longer term, the management of parking across the Greensborough Activity Centre will be guided by the future Greensborough Parking Plan. As a key initiative of the Activity Centre Car Parking Policy and Strategy, the Greensborough Parking Plan will identify car parking needs and issues within the Greensborough Activity Centre, and set out a framework on how to address these concerns. This work is expected to commence in the next few years. Following consideration of this report, Council resolved to: Construct additional parking spaces at 2-4 and 6 Stubley Court, and 29 Howard Street, Greensborough, and the alterations to the existing Henry Street Off Street Car Park, with the estimated construction costs of $590,000 to be funded from reserves. SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

Locality Plan The existing Henry Street public car park abuts the northern and western boundaries of the property at 29 Howard Street, with a single residential neighbour to the south. The site is currently occupied by a single storey dwelling. The properties at 2-4 and 6 Stubley Court are currently occupied by detached single storey dwellings, with that at 2-4 Stubley Court most recently having been used as a medical centre. The public car park at 30 Howard Street abuts the western boundary of these properties, with a single storey dwelling located to the south. All vehicular access to these properties is currently from Stubley Court.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 61

4.4

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF LAND AT 29 HOWARD STREET AND 2-6 STUBLEY COURT, GREENSBOROUGH, FOR A CAR PARK cont’d PUBLIC NOTIFICATION The application was advertised by means of erecting a sign on each street frontage, and posting notices to the owners and occupiers of properties surrounding each of the proposed sites. To date no objections have been received as a result. PLANNING CONTROLS A planning permit is required for: the removal of Trees 3, 5, 6, 8, 10-12, 15 and 20 from the land at 2-6 Stubley Court. It is noted that whilst the application underwent public notification for ‘use and development’ of the land as a Car Park, Clause 4.1 to Schedule 1 of the Activity Centre Zone outlines that in fact a planning permit is not required to use the land for such a purpose, provided that this is conducted by or on behalf of Council. Additional details are contained in Attachment 1. TECHNICAL CONSIDERATION The key considerations when assessing this application are the suitability of the proposed tree removal on the Stubley Court properties, and the impact of the proposed works on existing trees to be retained. Council’s arboricultural consultant has provided the following advice in relation to the trees which are protected by the Vegetation Protection Overlay: Tree # 3 5 6 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 20

Species (Common Name) Quercus palustris (Pin Oak) Fraxinus excelsior 'Aurea' (Golden Ash) Quercus palustris (Pin Oak) Eucalyptus bicostata (Eurabbie) Corymbia maculata (Spotted Gum) Eucalyptus camaldulensis (River Red Gum) Eucalyptus camaldulensis (River Red Gum) Ailanthus altissima (Tree of Heaven) Corymbia maculata (Spotted Gum) Grevillia robusta (Silky Oak) Ailanthus altissima (Tree of Heaven)

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

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

Retention Rating

SRZ (m)

TPZ (m)

High

2.5

6.0

Low

2.5

6.0

High

2.7

7.2

110

High

3.4

13.2

High

2.3

4.8

Poor

2.3

4.8

Poor

2.5

5.9

2.1

3.8

High

2.8

8.4

Medium

2.6

7.0

Remove (weed)

2.5

6.0

Remove (weed)

Page 62

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.4

USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF LAND AT 29 HOWARD STREET AND 2-6 STUBLEY COURT, GREENSBOROUGH, FOR A CAR PARK cont’d It is noted that Trees 2 and 13 are indicated as being retained on the site, although their removal is recommended by the arborist. Further, the proposed parking spaces are located within the Structural Root Zone of Tree 14, indicating that some refinement of the proposed parking layout is required in order to maximise the retention of substantial vegetation on the site and contribute to the treed character of the area. Plans submitted with the application include landscape plans for both properties, with three Yellow Box or similar proposed to be planted along the Stubley Court frontage, one in the Howard Street frontage, and two within the Henry Street car park close to the Howard Street property. It is considered that the proposed tree removal is acceptable in light of: •

The relatively low retention value of a number of trees;

•

The demand for car parking within the area;

•

The site’s location at the interface with the core of the Activity Centre; and the

•

Ability to both retain a significant tree within the Grimshaw Street setback of the Stubley Court properties and provide planting to soften the car park as viewed from Stubley Court,

However, minor modifications to the car park design are required to ensure the ongoing health of Tree 14. These will require the removal of Tree 13, which has been identified as being of poor suitability for retention. Similarly, it is considered that an integrated approach to landscaping of the Stubley Court frontage, is appropriate, and that accordingly Tree 2 should be removed and replaced with a Yellow Box or similar as detailed for the remainder of this frontage. CONCLUSION The proposed development of the properties at 29 Howard Street and 2-6 Stubley Court, Greensborough for car parks by Council will expand the amount of parking available within the Greensborough Activity Centre, as was Council’s intention in purchasing the properties. The proposed removal of vegetation is considered to be acceptable in light of the sites’ location and the ability to retain a high retention value tree and provide additional planting. Approval is therefore supported.

ATTACHMENTS No.

Title

Attachment 1 - Background information

149

Attachment 2 - Advertised plans

152

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page

Page 63

4.5

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

BANYULE SURVEILLANCE POLICY

Author: Giovanna Savini - Manager Youth & Family Services, Community Programs

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Council owns and manages a number of cameras in public spaces for surveillance purposes and works closely with Victoria Police as requested to assist with their investigations. Departments across Council have developed their own procedures around the management of the cameras and have responded to new requests within the scope of their own areas. Recent experiences across council in responding to requests for investigations into camera installation in ‘hot spot’ areas has highlighted the urgent requirement for a consistent approach across Council, in particular the need for common criteria that applies transparency and clarity in decision making processes. In addition, State Government has introduced the requirement for a Surveillance Policy to be in place before funding of cameras can be granted to local government and other organisations. The draft Banyule Surveillance Policy has been developed under a structure consisting of a cross council key stakeholder working group, with public consultation proposed to be undertaken in July 2016. Responses to the draft will help inform a final Banyule Surveillance Policy. The final document will provide clear direction for future decision making processes in relation to requests for cameras in the community. The policy is an important step forward to ensuring a consistent and coordinated effort across Council to strengthen Council’s response to issues relating to community safety and perceptions of safety by the community whilst protecting legislative requirements of privacy of residents. RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1.

Approve the draft Banyule Surveillance Policy for consultation for a four (4) week period.

Receive a further report to consider feedback and submissions received during the consultation period and adopt the final Banyule Surveillance Policy.

CITY PLAN This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction to “develop and promote safety and resilience in our community”.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 64

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.5

BANYULE SURVEILLANCE POLICY cont’d BACKGROUND Council owns and manages a number of cameras in public spaces for surveillance purposes and works closely with Victoria Police as required from time to time in response to their investigations. A number of business units are responsible for surveillance equipment. Each business unit has developed its own procedures around the management of the cameras and has responded to community requests for cameras in hot spot areas within the scope of their business unit. Recent experiences of council officers in responding to requests for investigations into camera installation in ‘hot spot’ areas has highlighted the urgent requirement for a consistent approach across Council, in particular the need for common criteria that applies transparency and clarity in decision making processes. In addition, State Government has introduced the requirement for a Surveillance Policy to be in place before funding of cameras can be granted to local government and other organisations. A cross-Council management group was established, convened to oversee all aspects of the development of the policy. The participating business units included; Community Safety, Leisure and Culture, Leisure facilities, Open Space Planning, Local Laws, Operations/Waste Management, Capital Projects, Assets and infrastructure, Human Resources and IT. Consultants Safe Security Systems were further engaged in late 2015 to undertake an audit of all Council owned surveillance systems across Banyule. The report outlined the technical specifications and status of relevant systems and included recommendations for maintenance and or upgrade of systems. Subsequently a central database of all relevant surveillance cameras has been established to be maintained collectively by each business unit. Overview of the Banyule Surveillance Policy The Banyule Surveillance Policy has been developed to: • • •

strengthen the coordination and encourage greater consistency across all business units in the operation and management of cameras in public spaces; inform future decision making processes in response to requests for cameras in ‘hot spot’ areas; and comply with state government requirements in relation to future funding applications for cameras.

The Policy applies to all Council-owned systems installed in public places that have the purpose of surveillance. It does not apply to surveillance systems used by Council where public access is restricted. It also does not apply where surveillance is for Council’s own assets. However any incidental footage captured that is requested through a formal channel, e.g. Victoria Police, is included in the scope. The policy will assist Council to manage legislative requirements such as privacy and provide direction where Council considers the installation of new systems.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 65

4.5

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

BANYULE SURVEILLANCE POLICY cont’d The objectives of the policy are: • • • •

To ensure Council systems are compliant with relevant legislation and other laws; To ensure that systems are installed for a lawful and proper purpose; To ensure that management of records/footage is appropriate, including in relation to use, retention, security, privacy, access, disclosure, storage and disposal; and To ensure there is appropriate and ongoing monitoring and evaluation of existing systems.

The policy also outlines the requirement for Standard Operating Procedures for each site, which covers technical data, maintenance, authorised officers, security and access of data and incident response. LEGAL CONSIDERATION Council surveillance systems must operate and be managed in accordance with all relevant Commonwealth and State legislation, including; Privacy & Data Protection Act 2014, Public Records Act 1973, Private Security Act 2004, Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (the Charter), Freedom of Information Act 1982, and Evidence Act 2008 HUMAN RIGHTS CHARTER Victoria's Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities (the Charter) outlines the basic human rights of all people in Victoria. The Charter requires that governments, local councils and other public authorities comply with Charter and to consider relevant Charter rights when they make decisions. In developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. It is considered that the subject matter does raise human rights issues. The Charter makes it unlawful for public authorities to act in a way that is incompatible with human rights listed in the Charter, including the right not to have privacy arbitrarily interfered with. The Charter requires any interference (such as through surveillance, recorded or unrecorded) to be demonstrably justifiable. Banyule City Council is committed to ensuring the right to privacy of individuals is respected and honoured. This Banyule Surveillance Policy is intended to ensure the privacy of individuals undertaking lawful activity is protected and to govern the manner in which data collected through the operation of surveillance systems are maintained. CONSULTATION Consultation will commence with the public release of the draft Banyule Surveillance Policy. The consultation program has been developed in consideration of the consultation completed to date.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 66

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.5

BANYULE SURVEILLANCE POLICY cont’d Residents and community will be invited to provide feedback on the draft document over a four week period, through:   

The Banyule Website, including links to the draft Banyule Surveillance Policy and the feedback summary paper; Copies of the draft Banyule Surveillance Policy being available at Council’s customer service centres and libraries; Presentations to relevant networks and associations.

The draft Banyule Surveillance Policy will be available for consultation for a four (4) week period, until at least Monday 18 July 2016. The feedback will assist in the preparation of a final Banyule Surveillance Policy for future Council adoption. It is expected that this document will be considered by Council on 22 August 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 The Banyule Surveillance Policy will provide clear direction for future decision making processes in relation to requests for cameras in the community. The policy is an important step forward to ensuring a consistent and coordinated effort across Council to strengthen Council’s response to issues relating to community safety and perceptions of safety by the community whilst protecting legislative requirements of privacy of residents.

ATTACHMENTS No.

Title

Draft Banyule Surveillance Policy

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 159

Page 67

6.1

SOMERS AVENUE, MACLEOD - REVIEW OF PAID PARKING SYSTEM

Author:

Sanjev Sivananthanayagam - Transport Engineer, City Development

Ward:

Ibbott

File:

D16/52531

Previous Items Council on 22 June 2015 (Item 6.5 - Additional Paid Parking Locations) Council on 9 November 2015 (Item 8.3 - Somers Avenue Macleod Staging of Paid Parking) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At its meeting on 22 June 2015 Council resolved to install a paid parking system in Somers Avenue, Macleod. In addition, at its meeting on 9 November 2015 Council resolved to stage the paid parking implementation in two stages, assessing the impacts of the first one prior to proceeding with the second. Stage one of the paid parking system was implemented in Somers Avenue in December 2015. In the last months the occupancy rate has been low, with an average transaction of two to three vehicles per weekday, resulting in the displacement of approximately 22 vehicles to the surrounding street network. Residents, commuters and traders have raised their concerns in relation to the implementation of paid parking; with displacement of parking and increase in total cost of travel being the major concerns. RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1.

Retain the stage one paid parking restrictions installed in Somers Avenue, Macleod, and reduce the fee to $2 per day.

Postpone the implementation of stage two paid parking restrictions proposed in Somers Avenue, Macleod, until further assessment is undertaken in 12 months, when commuter parking is expected to have settled.

Receive a report in relation to the utilisation of the stage one paid parking restrictions in Somers Avenue, Macleod, following the assessment in 12 months.

Undertake regular enforcement of the short term parking restrictions in the streets near the Macleod railway station and Macleod Village shopping precinct.

Investigate the possibilities of jointly funding a Parkiteer bicycle cage at Macleod railway station, with Public Transport Victoria.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 69

6.1

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.1

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

SOMERS AVENUE, MACLEOD - REVIEW OF PAID PARKING SYSTEM cont’d OFFICER DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 (Act) requires members of Council staff, and persons engaged under contract to provide advice to Council, to disclose any direct or indirect interest in a matter to which the advice relates. Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter. CITY PLAN This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction to “plan and manage the systems and assets that support Council’s service delivery”. HUMAN RIGHTS CHARTER Victoria's Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities (the Charter) outlines the basic human rights of all people in Victoria. The Charter requires that governments, local councils and other public authorities comply with Charter and to consider relevant Charter rights when they make decisions. In developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. It is considered that the subject matter does not raise any human rights issues. BACKGROUND A report regarding additional paid parking locations was considered by Council at its meeting on 22 June 2015. At the meeting it was resolved to install a paid parking system in Somers Avenue, Macleod, adjacent to Macleod College. A locality plan is provided in Figure 1 and it shows the length of Somers Avenue, where paid parking was approved to be installed.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 70

SOMERS AVENUE, MACLEOD - REVIEW OF PAID PARKING SYSTEM cont’d

Figure 1 – Extension of the approved Paid Parking System in Macleod Further, at its meeting on 9 November 2015, Council considered a Notice of Motion in relation to staging the installation of the paid parking system in Somers Avenue, Macleod. At the meeting it was resolved: “That Council: 1.

Stage the introduction of paid parking along the east side of Somers Avenue in Macleod adjacent to Macleod College. The first stage for approximately half the unrestricted length is to be serviced by two machines and installed prior to Christmas 2015.

Receive a report assessing the impacts of the first stage six months following the introduction of stage 1 machines to determine whether to proceed to a second stage.”

This report responds to item 2 of the above resolution. LEGAL CONSIDERATION Council’s powers concerning parking is defined under Schedule 11 of the Local Government Act 1989, which allows for Council to fix, rescind or vary: • •

The days, hours and periods of time for which, and the conditions on which, vehicles may stand in a parking area in any highway or other parking area; and Fees for any vehicles standing in a parking area and the manner of payment of those fees.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 71

6.1

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.1

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

SOMERS AVENUE, MACLEOD - REVIEW OF PAID PARKING SYSTEM cont’d As such, there are no legal implications for Council in relation to introducing or modifying parking restrictions in the streets, including paid parking systems. CURRENT SITUATION Consistent with the resolution of 9 November 2015, the first stage of the paid parking system was implemented in Somers Avenue, Macleod, in December 2015. This section includes 24 parking spaces and is serviced by two machines (Refer to Figure 1). The fees are currently set at $1 per hour and up to $5 per day. Several observations were undertaken in Somers Avenue in the last months to determine the level of use of the paid parking spaces. It was determined that there was a low occupancy level (4%), and that at the most, one vehicle was parked at any time. In addition to the site observations, the transactions registered by the ticket machines provide an indication of the number of vehicles that have utilised the paid parking area. The number of transactions per machine for each month since the installation is provided in Table 1. Table 1 – Number of transactions per month Machine No.

Dec-15

Jan-16

Feb-16

Mar-16

Apr-16

May-16

36017

36018

Total

Consistent with the observations, the recorded transactions indicate that the overall usage is low, with two to three vehicles per day. It could be assumed that the demand for parking has increased by 22 vehicles in the surrounding street network following the introduction of paid parking in Somers Avenue. While the number of vehicles relocated by the introduction of paid parking represents a low number in relation to the available parking in the area, residents, commuters and traders have raised their concerns in relation to this. COMMUNITY FEEDBACK The nature of concerns received from the community in relation to paid parking implemented in Somers Avenue is listed in Table 2. Table 2 – The nature of community concerns Number of Concern times raised Displacement of parking demand to commercial and 8 residential area Total cost of travel increased 5 Reduced access to Public Transport 2 Lack of consultation with the community prior to the 2 installation Low use of the paid parking spaces 2

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 72

SOMERS AVENUE, MACLEOD - REVIEW OF PAID PARKING SYSTEM cont’d In addition to concerns directly associated with the installation of paid parking on Somers Avenue, residents living in close to Somers Avenue and the Macleod railway station have raised concerns in relation to an increase in the parking levels in their street and difficulty in finding parking near their properties. Figure 2 shows the streets where residents have contacted Council in relation to parking concerns, following the introduction of paid parking in Somers Avenue. The introduction of parking restrictions in Carwarp, Argyle and May Streets serves to both protect residents against commuter parking intrusion as well as to make the Somers Avenue parking relatively more attractive when compared to a longer walk from the next available unrestricted parking areas.

Figure 2 – Streets where short-term parking restrictions have been requested While it is recognised that the introduction of a paid parking system in Somers Avenue may have resulted in the displacement of 22 vehicles, it is important to note that other factors could also have had an effect on the increase in the demand for the parking in the surrounding streets, including: • • •

Reduction in public transport fare prices when travelling between zones one and two since 1 January 2015 Introduction of parking restrictions in residential streets Introduction of paid parking and changed parking restrictions close to other railway stations in Banyule.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 73

6.1

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.1

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

SOMERS AVENUE, MACLEOD - REVIEW OF PAID PARKING SYSTEM contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d Some residents have suggested that the daily fee is too high and that more people would use the paid parking if the fee was lowered or removed. In consideration of this, it is proposed that the daily fee be reduced to $2 per day for this location. The Macleod Village Traders Association indicated their concerns regarding the lack of public transport for residents living in the north side of the railway line and the lack of secure bicycle parking spaces at Macleod railway station. They also had concerns in relation to lack of enforcement in the streets surrounding the shopping precinct. The Parkiteer bicycle cages recently installed at the Watsonia and Greensborough railway stations have been positively received by the community, and promotes sustainable modes of transport. Given this, the installation of a Parkiteer bicycle cage in Macleod railway station is considered appropriate, and as such, Council should investigate the possibilities of jointly funding a Parkiteer bicycle cage with Public Transport Victoria. Councilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Municipal Laws department has been requested to enforce the Macleod shopping precinct in the coming months to raise awareness of the parking restrictions and improve ability for customers to find parking. IMPLEMENTATION OF STAGE 2 The low usage of the parking spaces where the paid parking system currently operates in Macleod and the displacement of vehicles into neighbouring streets is a similar situation to the one when paid parking was implemented in the off street car park in Greensborough and also the on street parking areas to the east of Rosanna railway station. Initially, there were low occupancy rates, displacement of parking to residential areas, and then the installation of short-term parking restrictions. Approximately one year after the introduction of paid parking, occupancy rates are now close to 100%. Given the above, it is considered appropriate to retain the existing paid parking restrictions implemented in Somers Avenue and postpone the implementation of stage two until further assessment is undertaken in 12 months, when commuter parking is expected to have settled. 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 At its meeting on 22 June 2015 Council resolved to install a paid parking system in Somers Avenue, Macleod. In addition, at its meeting on 9 November 2015 Council resolved to stage the paid parking implementation in two stages, assessing the impacts of the first one prior to proceeding with the second.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 74

SOMERS AVENUE, MACLEOD - REVIEW OF PAID PARKING SYSTEM contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d Stage one of the paid parking system was implemented in Somers Avenue in December 2015. In the last months the occupancy rate has been low, with an average transaction of two to three vehicles per weekday, resulting in the displacement of 22 vehicles to the surrounding street network. Residents, commuters and traders have raised their concerns in relation to the implementation of paid parking; with displacement of parking and increase in total cost of travel being the major concerns. Given that other factors impact on the demand for parking, it is difficult to link the introduction of paid parking to the increase of requests for short-term parking restrictions around Macleod railway station. While it is considered appropriate to retain the existing paid parking restrictions in Somers Avenue, it is proposed that the fee be reduced to $2 per day and the utilisation and performance of the paid parking be reassessed in 12 months when commuter parking is expected to have settled. The installation of a Parkiteer bicycle cage in Macleod railway station is considered appropriate, and as such, Council investigate the possibilities of jointly funding a Parkiteer bicycle cage with Public Transport Victoria. Councilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Municipal Laws department is to undertake regular enforcement of the short term parking restrictions in the streets near Macleod Village shopping precinct.

ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 75

6.1

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.2

KINDERGARTENS - PROPOSED LEASES

Author:

Andrea Turville - Property Officer, City Development

Ward:

Various

6.2

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

Previous Items Council on 8 February 2016 (Item 6.2 - Preschool Leases - Commence statutory procedures) Council on 4 April 2016 (Item 6.2 - Kindergartens - Proposed Leases) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Council owns and leases the land and improvements at 23 kindergartens within the municipality. The leases, which did not provide an option for a further term, have expired (expired leases). It is now proposed that Council enter into new leases with each of the entities that currently offer kindergarten services from the 23 kindergartens (proposed leases). The proposal triggered the need to give public notice under section 190 of the Local Government Act 1989 (Act). Public notice was given in the “Heidelberg Leader” on 16 February 2016 and the “Diamond Valley Leader” on 17 February 2016, with the public invited to make submissions on the proposal in accordance with section 223 of the Act. The submission period closed at 5:00pm on 16 March 2016, with no submissions being received. This report, previously presented to Council on 4 April 2016 but deferred to a future meeting of Council, now seeks Council’s decision on the granting of leases for a term of five (5) years, with no further term, at the commencing rent of $454 per annum plus GST for one room kindergartens and $654 per annum plus GST for two room kindergartens. RECOMMENDATION That: 1.

Having complied with sections 190 and 223 of the Local Government Act 1989: a. b.

by giving public notice in the “Heidelberg Leader” on 16 February 2016 and the “Diamond Valley Leader” on 17 February 2016; and by providing an opportunity to those who have requested to be heard at Council’s Ordinary Meeting of 4 April 2016 to be heard at that meeting; and by recording that no submissions were received;

Council grants to each entity listed below, a lease of the respective Councilowned land and improvements, for a term of five (5) years at the commencing rent of $454.00 per annum plus GST for one room kindergartens and $654 per annum plus GST two room kindergartens.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 76

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

Entity Try Australia Children’s Services

Council-owned Land 7 Thyer Road, Ivanhoe 179 Nepean St, Greensborough 10 The Rameo, Bundoora Early Childhood Management 15 Delta Road, Greensborough Services Inc. 19 Interlaken Pde, Rosanna 5 Birdwood Avenue, Macleod 22 Wallowa Road, Eltham North 311 Yallambie Road, Yallambie 17-19 Ester St, Greensborough 37 St Helena Rd, Greensborough Apollo Parkways Preschool 31 Plenty River Drive, Inc Greensborough Briar Hill Preschool 118 Karingal Drive, Greensborough Association Inc. The Bundoora Preschool 20 Noorong Avenue, Bundoora Association Inc. Panorama Heights Preschool 3 Mitchell Avenue, Montmorency Inc. Sherbourne Preschool 156 Sherbourne Road, Association Inc. Montmorency Wahroongah Preschool Inc. 66 Wahroonga Crescent, Greensborough Watsonia North Preschool 68 Macorna Street, Watsonia North Inc. Viewbank Preschool 84 Duff Parade, Viewbank Association Inc. Watsonia Preschool 19 Crellin Crescent, Watsonia Association Inc. Winston Hills Preschool 24 Rohan Street, Viewbank Association Inc. East Ivanhoe Preschool 1 King Street, Ivanhoe East Centre Inc. Lower Plenty Kindergarten 34 Glenauburn Road, Lower Plenty Association Inc. Yandell Kindergarten Inc. 37 St Helena Road, Greensborough * Denotes two room kindergartens

6.2

KINDERGARTENS - PROPOSED LEASES cont’d Kindergarten sites Fairy Hills Kindergarten * Grace Park Preschool Warrawee Park Preschool Delta Road Preschool Interlaken Preschool * Macleod Kindergarten * St Helena Preschool Yallambie Park Preschool * Greensborough Preschool Greenhills Preschool Apollo Parkways Preschool Briar Hill Preschool Bundoora Preschool Panorama Heights Preschool * Sherbourne Preschool. Wahroongah Preschool Watsonia North Preschool Viewbank Preschool Watsonia Preschool Winston Hills Preschool * East Ivanhoe Preschool Lower Plenty Kindergarten Yandell Kindergarten

The necessary documentation to give effect to the leases be signed and sealed at the appropriate time.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 77

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.2

KINDERGARTENS - PROPOSED LEASES contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d BACKGROUND Council owns the land and improvements at the 23 kindergarten sites referred to in Table 1 below: Table 1 Entity Try Australia Childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Services

Kindergarten sites Fairy Hills Kindergarten * Grace Park Preschool Warrawee Park Preschool Delta Road Preschool Interlaken Preschool * Macleod Kindergarten * St Helena Preschool Yallambie Park Preschool * Greensborough Preschool Greenhills Preschool Apollo Parkways Preschool Briar Hill Preschool Bundoora Preschool Panorama Heights Preschool * Sherbourne Preschool. Wahroongah Preschool Watsonia North Preschool Viewbank Preschool Watsonia Preschool Winston Hills Preschool * East Ivanhoe Preschool Lower Plenty Kindergarten Yandell Kindergarten

The existing leases, which did not provide for an option of a further term, expired on 30 April 2015. The permitted use under the existing leases allows for the operation of an education and care service, managed and administered by a non-profit community based organisation, primarily for the benefit of the residents and ratepayers of the City of Banyule, including those who are socially and/or financially disadvantaged and people with special needs. The entities are non-profit organisations offering kindergarten services from the respective kindergartens; many having offered the service to the community for many years.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 78

KINDERGARTENS - PROPOSED LEASES cont’d Discussions regarding opportunities for two of the entities, namely Try Australia Children’s Services and Early Childhood Management Services Inc, to take over the operation of some of the kindergartens as Cluster Managers, has delayed the renewal of the existing leases. LEGAL CONSIDERATION Section 190 of the Local Government Act 1989 (the Act) provides that Council must give public notice of its intention to enter into a lease where: • • •

the term of the lease is greater than one year and the current market rental value for the premises is greater than $50,000; or where the term of the lease is 10 years or greater; or it is a building or improving lease.

In this instance the current market rental valuations are above $50,000 per annum, therefore public notice is required to be given for each proposed lease. Public notice of the proposal was given in the “Heidelberg Leader” on 16 February 2016 and the “Diamond Valley Leader” on 17 February 2016, with the public invited to make a submission on the proposal in accordance with section 223 of the Act. The submission period closed at 5:00 pm on 16 March 2016, with no submissions being received. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS Under existing leases, Council is responsible for the structure of the building. Council also provides maintenance services for roof and gutter cleaning, security lighting and a range of other statutory responsibilities including maintaining exit signs and emergency lighting, fire prevention and detection equipment. The existing lease provides that the entities reimburse Council the cost of providing these services. Save and except for approved Capital Works expenditure, Council does not provide funding for these entities under any Operational or Capital Works budgets. In addition, it would appear that State and Federal Government reforms have placed additional financial burdens on organisations offering kindergarten and other child care services. Consequently, it is considered that the proposed increase in the rent of $1.00 per annum plus GST should be revised and replaced with the following for the term of the proposed lease: 1 room kindergartens - a nominal fee of $104.00 per annum plus $350 per annum for security lighting, exit signs and fire equipment. Total $454 per annum plus GST 2 room kindergartens - a nominal fee of $104.00 per annum plus $550 per annum for security lighting, exit signs and fire equipment. Total $654 per annum plus GST

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 79

6.2

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.2

KINDERGARTENS - PROPOSED LEASES cont’d Otherwise, the proposed leases will generally be in accordance with the existing leases and provide that the entities will be responsible for all consumables, some internal maintenance and reimbursing Council for the cost of providing certain services, other than security lighting, exit signs and fire equipment. These reimbursable costs have now been included in the proposed fee. 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. Section 20 provides that “A person must not be deprived of his or her property other than in accordance with law”. It is considered that the subject matter does not raise any human rights issues. Any person who considers that they have been deprived of their rights may make a submission in accordance with Section 223 of the Act with respect to a proposal to grant a lease. CURRENT SITUATION The giving of public notice does not obligate Council to approve the proposal to grant the leases. It is merely an invitation to the public to make a submission in respect of the proposal. Given that no submissions on the proposal were received it is now appropriate for Council to decide whether or not to grant leases to the entities. CONCLUSION The proposal to grant to the entities a lease of the respective Council-owned land and improvements, for a term of five (5) years at the commencing rent of $454 per annum plus GST for one room kindergartens and $654 per annum plus GST for two room kindergartens, should be supported.

ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 80

6.3

REAR 7A CURZON STREET, IVANHOE PROPOSED LICENCE OF COUNCIL LAND

Author:

Jeanette Kringle - Property Co-ordinator, City Development

Ward:

Olympia

6.3

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Council owns the land known as 1 Liberty Parade, Ivanhoe, which forms part of the Darebin Creek Reserve (Banksia to Bond Street). The owners of 7A Curzon Street, Ivanhoe, seek permission to occupy, under licence, 35m2 of the Council land immediately adjacent to the rear boundary of their property which forms part of the Darebin Creek Reserve. The purpose of this report is to provide background information on the proposal and the request by the owners of 7A Curzon Street for a reduction in the annual fee. RECOMMENDATION That: 1.

Pursuant to Part 5.7 of General Local Law No. 1, Council grants permission to the owners of 7A Curzon Street, Ivanhoe, to fence off, occupy and maintain 35m2 of the Council owned land known as 1 Liberty Parade, Ivanhoe, immediately adjacent to the rear of their property, subject to the owners entering into a licence with Council.

Based on the 2015/2016 fees and charges schedule, the annual fee payable under the licence will be $1,400.

The necessary documents to give effect to the licence be signed and sealed at the appropriate time.

CITY PLAN This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction to “develop and deliver best value services and facilities”. BACKGROUND Council is the owner of the land known as 1 Liberty Parade, Ivanhoe, shown in Figure 1 below. The Council land forms part of the Darebin Creek Reserve (Banksia to Bond Street). Part of the Council land, now known as 7A Curzon Street (being 197m2) shown in Figure 2, was purchased from Council by the owners of 7A Curzon Street in about 2010.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 81

6.3

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

REAR 7A CURZON STREET, IVANHOE - PROPOSED LICENCE OF COUNCIL LAND cont’d The western title boundary of 7A Curzon Street was determined by survey in 1997 and again in 2009. The Plan of Survey includes a notation “v. irreg. leaning open horiz. boards” (meaning - very irregular leaning open horizontal boards) to describe the barrier previously used to retain soil. The Plan of Survey indicates a small area of land below the barrier above the top of embankment. The balance of the Council land consists of a steep escarpment, which falls away sharply to the Darebin Creek. The rear fences to the properties to the north of 7A Curzon Street are not located on the correct title boundaries. This is because of the topography of the Council land.

Figure 1: Location plan of Council owned land known as 1 Liberty Parade

Figure 2: Location of 7A Curzon Street

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 82

REAR 7A CURZON STREET, IVANHOE - PROPOSED LICENCE OF COUNCIL LAND cont’d It would appear that during or subsequent to the development of 7A Curzon Street, part of the Council land at the top of the embankment has been backfilled and an additional useable area of approximately 35m2 created (subject land), as shown in Figure 3. The subject land has become an isolated parcel of Council land at the top of the Darebin Creek escarpment.

Figure 3: Council Land proposed to be licensed The owners of 7A Curzon Street have sought to occupy the subject land, under licence, for the purposes of fencing and maintaining it as part of their adjacent landholding. Because of its location and the steep topography, it is not practicable for Council to safely access and regularly maintain the area of Council land immediately to the rear of 7A Curzon Street. The proposed licencing of the subject land may present efficiencies for Council in this regard. CURRENT SITUATION The owners of 7A Curzon Street have recently written to Council indicating a preparedness to offer $500.00 per annum as an annual fee. The reduced rental offer is based on the intention to make a further application to Council to purchase the subject land. In order to consider an application to purchase, the subject land would need to be deemed surplus to Council’s and the community’s needs. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS Part 5.7 of General Local Law No. 1 provides for “the fair and equitable use of Council Land” and states that “A person must not, without a permit ….. occupy or fence off Council Land.” Occupation of the subject land, without obtaining a permit, would be considered a breach of the Local Law. Council may require notice to be given to persons who may be affected by the granting of such a permit. This will entitle those persons to make a submission, which must be considered by Council before a deciding on the application.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 83

6.3

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.3

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

REAR 7A CURZON STREET, IVANHOE - PROPOSED LICENCE OF COUNCIL LAND cont’d If Council approves the application, and grants a permit, a licence could be issued to the owners of 7A Curzon Street. A licence gives permission to the holder to occupy land without being a trespasser, but does not constitute an interest in the land. In considering a future application to purchase the subject land, Council must comply with section 189 of the Local Government Act 1989 (the Act). This section provides that public notice of its intention to sell land must be given four weeks prior to the sale. Submissions from the public must be invited during this period and a valuation obtained. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS Council’s City Valuer has determined that the underlying unencumbered residential land value for adjoining residential property is $1,200/m2. However, for the purposes of this exercise, the underlying value of the subject land, which is included in the Public Park and Recreation Zone, has been adopted at $400/m2, which equates to a land value of $14,000. The current annual fee (based on the 2015/2016 fees and charges schedule) for occupancy of Council land is $110.00 per annum inclusive of GST or 10% of the value of the land, whichever is the higher. Accordingly the annual fee has been determined at $1,400. Therefore the offer of $500.00 per annum is inconsistent with Council’s fees and charges schedule. 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. 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. CONCLUSION The subject land has become an isolated parcel of Council land at the top of the Darebin Creek escarpment, which is not practical for Council to safely access and regularly maintain.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 84

REAR 7A CURZON STREET, IVANHOE - PROPOSED LICENCE OF COUNCIL LAND cont’d Part 5.7 of General Local Law No. 1 provides that a person may, with a permit, occupy Council land. The permit can provide for the granting of a licence to fence off, occupy and maintain Council land. Based on the valuation provided by Council’s City Valuer, the annual fee has been determined at $1,400. Council should support the proposal to grant permission to the owners of 7A Curzon Street, Ivanhoe, a fence off, occupy and maintain the subject land on the basis that the owner agrees to enter into a licence agreement and pay an annual fee of $1,400, which is consistent with Council’s fees and charges schedule.

ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 85

6.3

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.4

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

ITEMS FOR NOTING

Authors: India Mortlock - Community & Social Planner, Community Programs & John Milkins – Environmental Sustainability Co-ordinator, City Development

RECOMMENDATION That Council note: 1.

The responses received on the Funding Safe School Coalition Australia Program in Schools resolution of Council.

Banyule Environmental Advisory Committee (BEAC) Meeting Notes for June 2016.

The following responses to Council’s letter to Members of Parliament regarding the Safe School Coalition Australia Program of support and Notes from the BEAC Meeting of June are presented for noting: 1

Report:

Funding Safe School Coalition Australia Program in Schools resolution of Council

Officer: Brief explanation:

India Mortlock Council at its meeting 7 March 2016 resolved the following: “Resolution (CO2016/1) 1. That Council advocate and write to the Federal Minister for Education, Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham to continue funding the Safe Schools Coalition Australia program in schools. 2. That Council write to all Federal Members outlining this resolution” Letters were sent to Federal Members and to the Federal Minister for Education on 24 March 2016. Council has to date received responses from the following (attached): • Senator the Hon. James McGrath, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister, on behalf of the Prime Minister • The Hon. Bill Shorten MP, Leader of the Opposition • Senator Carol Brown, Senator for Tasmania • Senator the Hon. Marise Payne, Minister for Defence • Department of Education & Training, Australian Government reply on behalf of the Hon. Christian Porter MP, Minister for Social Services and Senator the Hon. Simon Birmingham, Minister for Education and Training

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 86

ITEMS FOR NOTING cont’d • • • • • • • • • • 2

The Hon. Tanya Plibersek MP, Deputy Leader of the Opposition and Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, Senator for South Australia Senator Ricky Muir, Senator for Victoria Senator Eric Abetz, Senator for Tasmania Mr Warren Truss MP, Federal member for wide Bay Senator Glenn Lazarus, Senator for Queensland Mr Clive Palmer MP, Federal Member for Fairfax Senator the Hon. Fiona Nash, Minister for Regional Development, Regional Communications and Rural Health Senator the Hon. Claire Moore, Senator for Queensland Ms Julie Owens MP, Federal Member for Parramatta

Report/Committee Name:

Banyule Environmental Advisory Committee (BEAC) Meeting June 2016

Officer:

Daniel Kollmorgen, John Milkins, Peter Benazic, Jeff Parkes 16.09 Great Forest National Park BEAC clarified that its recommendation is to read: BEAC supports the proposal for a Great Forest National Park and recommends that Council also indicate its support for the creation of a Great Forest National Park due to the direct and indirect benefits to Banyule residents. BEAC noted that such benefits would occur in the following areas: • biodiversity • water quality • drinking water supply • tourism opportunities • wildlife corridor connectivity • mental health • clean air • protecting the uniqueness of the old growth tall forests of SE Australia • inter and intragenerational equity • natural heritage

Brief explanation:

14.34 Divestment Banyule City Council has made an assessment during the month of available investment returns as provided by some of the banks, credit unions and building societies that are not funding fossil fuels. The current investment made with these institutions is 11%. 16.13 Banyule Draft Open Space Plan

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 87

6.4

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.4

ITEMS FOR NOTING cont’d BEAC recommended that the Plan include: • better acknowledgement of the nexus between open space and wildlife corridors, including creeks, rivers, roadsides and railway corridors • acknowledgement that the Banyule environment is critical for the survival of for nonhuman species too • consideration of cemeteries as part of Banyule open space 16.14 Standing for Council elections BEAC members were supplied with Standing for Council material 16.15 Community Leaders in Sustainability graduation and 16.16 ChangeMakers event BEAC was invited to participate in these two Banyule Stewardship Plan events. 16.17 Resilient Melbourne Strategy Council endorsed the Resilient Melbourne Strategy on 30 May 2016 16.18 Thank you to retiring BEAC members The Mayor, Cr Langdon, made a presentation thanking retiring BEAC members Alan Leenaerts, Jonathan Thom, Matt Hall and John D’Aloia.

ATTACHMENTS No.

Title

Safe Schools Program - Senator James Mcgrath

171

Safe Schools Program - Bill Shorten

172

Safe Schools Program - Senator Carol Brown

174

Safe Schools Program - Senator Marise Payne

175

Safe Schools Program - Department of Education and Training (on behalf of the Minister for Education and Training and the Minister for Social Services)

176

Safe Schools Program - Tanya Plibersek MP

178

Safe Schools Program - Senator Sarah Hason-Young

180

Safe Schools Program - Senator Ricky Muir

181

Safe Schools Program - Senator Eric Abetz

182

Safe Schools Program - Warren Truss MP

183

Safe Schools Program - Senator Glen Lazarus

187

Safe Schools Program - Clive Palmer MP

188

Safe Schools Program - Senator Fiona Nash

189

Safe Schools Program - Senator Claire Moore

190

Safe Schools Program - Julie Owens MP

191

Banyule Environmental Banyule Environmental Advisory Committee (BEAC) Meeting Notes June 2016

192

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page

Page 88

6.5

ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS

Author:

Ellen Kavanagh - Governance Officer, Corporate Services

6.5

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

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

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

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

Date of Assembly:

13 April 2016

Type of Meeting:

Conflict of Interest:

Banyule Environment Advisory Committee (BEAC) April 2016 Meeting • Beyond Paris BZE Case Study Hazelwood advocacy • Urban Forest Strategy • Ethical Paper Pledge • Great Forest National Park Mark Di Pasquale Craig Langdon Daniel Kollmorgen – Manager Transport, Sustainability and Municipal Laws John Milkins – Environmental Sustainability BEAC Community Representatives: Kate Roberts (interim Chair), Alan Leenaerts, Matt Hall, Denise Fernando, Maree Keenan, Peter Castaldo Guests: Sue McKinnon and Mary Anne Boyd-Squires The Wilderness Society Nil

Date of Assembly:

23 May 2016

Type of Meeting:

Councillor Briefing

Matters Considered:

1. 2. 3. 4.

Matters Considered:

Councillors Present: Staff Present:

Others Present:

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Petrie Park Masterplan North East Link Resident Committee 421 Upper Heidelberg Road – Places Vic Shop 48 Update

Page 89

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.5

ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS cont’d

Conflict of Interest:

5. La Trobe Uni – Update 6. Community Sport Infrastructure Funding State of Play 7. Banyule Surveillance Policy 8. Status Update – Budget/City Plan Steven Briffa Mark Di Pasquale Rick Garotti Craig Langdon Tom Melican Jenny Mulholland Wayne Phillips Simon McMillan – Chief Executive Officer Allison Beckwith – Director Community Programs Scott Walker – Director City Development Geoff Glynn – Director Assets & City Services Marc Giglio – Director Corporate Services Lucia Brennan – Recreation Planner Darren Bennett – Manager Leisure, Recreation & Culture Services Daniel Kollmorgen – Manager Transport, Sustainability & Municipal Laws Joel Elbourne – Manager Urban Planning & Building Frances Gianinotti– Co-ordinator Youth & Community Partnerships Giovanna Savini – Manager Youth & Family Services Melinda Ramsay – Leisure Services Team Leader Ben McManus – Coordinator Leisure & Cultural Services Tania O’Reilly – Manager Finance & Procurement Five Representatives from Places Victoria Damien Jones, Shop 48 Facility Manager Nil

Date of Assembly:

30 May 2016

Type of Meeting:

Councillor Briefing

Matters Considered:

Items on the Council Agenda for the Ordinary Meeting of 30 May 2016 (excluding confidential items) as listed below:

Councillors Present:

Staff Present:

Others Present:

2.1 2.2

2.3 3.1

4.1 4.2

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Request for Over Mass Fire Truck Access on Local Roads Spirit Walk & Babarrbunin Beek Activation: Employment of an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Development Worker Rushworth Street and Reeves Street, Watsonia - Possible Treatment Options Resilient Melbourne - metropolitan strategy for a sustainable, liveable and prosperous Melbourne Banyule Planning Scheme Amendment C110 - Results of Public Exhibition Status of Closure of Myrtle Street, Linden

Page 90

ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS cont’d

Others Present:

Avenue and Forster Street, Ivanhoe Erect a carport within the front setback on a lot less than 500 sqm at 1/33 Coventry Street, Montmorency (P1070/2012) 4.4 Naming of the new public open space between Bonar and Haig Street, Heidelberg Heights 4.5 Heidelberg Road, Ivanhoe - New Pedestrian Crossing 4.6 Grimshaw Street / Flintoff Street, Greensborough, Intersection Improvement Funding 4.7 Reallocation of 2015/2016 Local Roads Resurfacing Program Funding 5.1 Proposed City Plan & Budget - Consideration of Submissions Received 6.1 Items for Noting 6.2 Assembly of Councillors 7.1 Sealing of Documents 8.2 Access on to the M80 Ring Road from the Greensborough By-pass (north bound) 8.3 Banyule Theatre 8.4 Stormwater Harvesting and Pollution Mitigation at Olympic Park Mark Di Pasquale Rick Garotti Craig Langdon Tom Melican Jenny Mulholland Wayne Phillips Simon McMillan – Chief Executive Officer Allison Beckwith – Director Community Programs Scott Walker – Director City Development Geoff Glynn – Director Assets & City Services Marc Giglio – Director Corporate Services Gina Burden – Manager Governance & Communication Emily Outlaw – Council Governance Liaison Officer Daniel Kollmorgen – Manager Transport, Sustainability & Municipal Laws Joseph Tabacco – Manager Property & Economic Development Tania O’Reilly – Manager Finance & Procurement Nil

Conflict of Interest:

Nil

Date of Assembly:

6 June 2016

Type of Meeting:

Confidential /Strategic Planning Meeting

Matters Considered:

Confidential Contractual Matters

Councillors Present:

Mark Di Pasquale Craig Langdon Tom Melican

4.3

Councillors Present:

Staff Present:

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 91

6.5

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.5

ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS cont’d

Others Present:

Jenny Mulholland Simon McMillan – Chief Executive Officer Scott Walker – Director City Development Geoff Glynn – Director Assets & City Services Jeanette Kringle – Property Co-ordinator Joseph Tabacco – Manager Property & Economic Development Darren Bennett – Manager Leisure, Recreation & Culture Services Nil

Conflict of Interest:

Nil

Date of Assembly:

14 June 2016

Type of Meeting:

Councillor Briefing

Matters Considered:

Items on the Council Agenda for the Ordinary Meeting of 14 June 2016 (excluding confidential items) as listed below:

Staff Present:

1.1

2.1 2.2 3.1 4.1

4.2 5.1 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 7.1 8.1 8.2 8.3 9.1

9.2

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Volunteers of Banyule and Banyule Support and Information Centre (BANSIC) Funding Rates Hardship Assistance Policy 2017 - 2018 Community Sport Infrastructure Fund Indian Myna Bird Control 91 Darebin Street, HEIDELBERG Construction of a multi level mixed use development Infrastructure Victoria 30 Year Strategy - Draft Submission Petrie Park and Rattary Reserve Master Plan Adoption of Banyule's City Plan 20132017 (Year 4) Adoption of Banyule's Budget for the period 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017 Return of the 2016 General Revaluation Items for Noting Reappointment of the Chief Executive Officer Sealing of Documents Dedication and launch of new Reserve celebrating Vin Heffernan OAM North East Link Advocacy Banyule Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Remembrance General Business - 3rd IFTAR Ramadan Dinner at the Bell Street Mall General Business - Bell Street Mall -

Page 92

ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS cont’d

Others Present:

CCTV Upgrade General Business - Tribute to Eric Rosario 10.1 Urgent Business – Orlando Victims Remembered at Banyule 10.2 Urgent Business – Safety on Rosanna Road Steve Briffa Craig Langdon Tom Melican Jenny Mulholland Wayne Phillips Simon McMillan – Chief Executive Officer Allison Beckwith – Director Community Programs Scott Walker – Director City Development Geoff Glynn – Director Assets & City Services Gina Burden – Manager Governance & Communication Vivien Ferlaino – Governance Co-ordinator Joseph Tabacco – Manager Property & Economic Development Lucia Brennen – Recreation Planner Tania O’Reilly – Manager Finance & Procurement Nil

Conflict of Interest:

Nil

9.3

Councillors Present:

Staff Present:

RECOMMENDATION That the Assembly of Councillors report be received.

ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 93

6.5

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.6

SUBMISSION TO THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING IN RELATION TO THE PROPOSED PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT (FEES) REGULATIONS AND SUBDIVISION (FEES) REGULATIONS

Author:

Jackie Bernoth - Development Planner, City Development

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The State Government released a Regulatory Impact Statement in relation to the proposed Planning and Environment (Fees) Regulations 2016 and Subdivision (Fees) Regulations on 26 May 2016. The proposed regulations incorporate significant increases in a range of planning and subdivision fees which would seek to provide Council with near-full cost recovery for its planning and subdivision service. Submissions in relation to the Statement were required to be submitted to the by 24 June 2016. The Municipal Association of Victoria has indicated it will be preparing a submission and a draft of that submission has been circulated to members for feedback. At the time of writing this report Council has not received the final MAV submission. The purpose of this report is to provide details of the proposed fees and the content of the submission made on behalf of Council. It is considered that Council should endorse this submission. RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1.

Endorse the submission of the Municipal Association of Victoria as supplemented and amended by the submission prepared by officers on behalf of Council in relation to the proposed Planning and Environment (Fees) Regulations 2016 and Subdivision (Fees) Regulations; and

Write to the Minister for Planning advising of this decision.

CITY PLAN This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction to “provide responsible financial management and business planning processes”. 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.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 94

6.6

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.6

SUBMISSION TO THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING IN RELATION TO THE PROPOSED PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT (FEES) REGULATIONS AND SUBDIVISION (FEES) REGULATIONS cont’d Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter. BACKGROUND Fees for the assessment of planning permit applications, subdivision applications, and related requests, are set by the State government through the Planning and Environment (Fees) Regulations and the Subdivision (Fees) Regulations. Most of the planning fees currently in place were set in 2000 and have remained unchanged, or have been increased on an ad-hoc basis to account for changes in CPI (but were last increased in 2009/10). Further, the existing fees have not been reviewed in light of changes in the processes followed by council, such as the introduction of VicSmart in 2014. A recent data collection and analysis study commissioned by the department identified that the actual cost to councils for providing these services was, in most cases, significantly higher than the current fees. While it is difficult to aggregate fees across all councils and across different types of fees, it is estimated that current fees only recover about 20-30 per cent of the actual costs to councils. Regulatory Impact Statement, p.6 The lack of review or indexation of fees has resulted in a significant accumulated shortfall for councils and effectively created a transfer in the costs of planning from applicants to broader ratepayers. The proposed fees seek to address this by aiming “at recovering a greater percentage of costs from those making applications. However, some categories of fees have been set below the estimated costs, in order to achieve fairness or other policy objectives” (Regulatory Impact Statement, p.7). In addition, the fees are proposed to be converted into fee units, which are subject to annual indexation, avoiding the need for separate consideration of the quantum of fees on an annual basis. In setting fees, the Department collected information from a range of councils across Victoria, and convened a Stakeholder Reference Group incorporating representatives of six councils, the Municipal Association of Victoria, Planning Institute of Australia, Property Council, Surveying and Spatial Sciences Institute and Association of Consulting Surveyors In general, stakeholders supported the proposed fees, although in a few instances councils advocated for higher fees than those proposed (related to permits for subdivision, and the fee cap for consideration of engineering plans). These were included as options considered in this RIS . Non-council stakeholders on the reference group were also generally supportive of the proposed changes to fees. A list of the proposed fee changes is included at Pages 8 and 9 of the Regulatory Impact Statement (Attachment 1).

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 95

6.6

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

SUBMISSION TO THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING IN RELATION TO THE PROPOSED PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT (FEES) REGULATIONS AND SUBDIVISION (FEES) REGULATIONS cont’d 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 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. ADVOCACY Council has sought to bring the quantum of planning fees to the attention of the Minister for Planning on previous occasions, including taking part in a review of planning fees 2008, and writing to the Minister for Planning on behalf of the Northern Region of Councils (Banyule, Darebin, Hume, Moreland, Nillumbik and Whittlesea) in September 2015 seeking an urgent increase in Planning Application fees. Approval of the modifications outlined in the Regulatory Impact Statement cannot be guaranteed, however, and continued advocacy on behalf of the community is required in an effort to ensure that they are implemented. KEY COMPONENTS OF THE REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT The MAV advises that key components of the RIS are as follows: • • • •

• • •

Full cost recovery across categories with the exception of VicSmart permits, single dwellings less than $2 million and other development greater than $100,000. Additional development value bands to deliver a higher level of cost recovery from the single dwelling over $250,000 and other development categories with a construction value of over $2 million. Subdivision fees will increase and double every 100 lots and satisfaction matters can be charged per item. Removal of the per lot certification and statement of compliance fee and its replacement with a $300 flat fee. The RIS confirms that the increase in subdivision fee and its doubling per 100 lots will offset the revenue reduction. Increase in the amendment fee to applications after notice, but before decision… Increase in the amendment fee to an existing planning permit application… Clarification is provided that satisfaction matters can be charged per item listed as part of the condition, rather than permit condition.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 96

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

• • •

•

6.6

SUBMISSION TO THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING IN RELATION TO THE PROPOSED PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT (FEES) REGULATIONS AND SUBDIVISION (FEES) REGULATIONS cont’d Introduction of a fee for private initiated amendments paid to the responsible authority to consider submissions. The fee will be escalated at up to 10 submissions, up to 20 submissions and 20 plus submissions. New fees for VicSmart, amendment or request to end 173 agreements, request to amend a certified subdivision plan and statement of compliance. Importantly, fees will be set in monetary fee units. This will enable fees to be indexed automatically in line with other State Government fees and fines. Fees will expire in 2026.

FUNDING IMPLICATIONS If introduced, the revised planning fees would have the impact of full (or near full) cost recovery of statutory planning services from permit applicants. Cost recovery in relation to strategic planning projects would be lower, given that the majority of planning scheme amendments conducted within the City are initiated by Council rather than members of the public. Council has previously been concerned that the current fees are not reflective of current practice or of stakeholder expectations, with councils, through their rates revenue, significantly subsiding users of the planning system. An increase in income from planning fees would therefore allow: •

An appropriate allocation of resources to the planning area and other areas of Council which provide input to the planning process;

•

A greater ability to meet the needs of the wider community in other areas.

DISCUSSION The Statement seeks input from stakeholders, particularly with respect to six questions, which broadly seek Council’s view as to whether the following are appropriate: 1.

The proposed fee discount for single dwellings;

The changes to the way fees are calculated for subdivisions;

The altered fees for VicSmart applications;

Fees for matters carried out to Council’s satisfaction;

Fees for the supervision of subdivision works; and

Criteria for when Council’s may waive fees.

Council has participated in a MAV briefing session on the RIS and provided feedback to that session along with representatives of a number of other councils from throughout the State. Specific feedback was given in relation to both these questions and other issues arising from the RIS. The MAV has prepared a submission with respect to the RIS, a draft of which was available at the time of preparation of this report. The submission confirms support for the review of the fees, including a shift towards a user-pays system; and the quantum fees proposed.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 97

6.6

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

SUBMISSION TO THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING IN RELATION TO THE PROPOSED PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT (FEES) REGULATIONS AND SUBDIVISION (FEES) REGULATIONS cont’d It is considered that the draft submission is reflective of the implications of the proposed fees upon Council and those submitting applications and amendment requests within Banyule. However, it is noted that fees for relatively minor matters associated with multi-dwelling, commercial and industrial properties, including minor building works and the display of advertising signage are proposed to rise significantly. The increases proposed would result in a fee of at least 12% of the cost of works proposed. This may both have a significant financial impact upon businesses and result in the conduct of works without the required planning permit. It is suggested that an extension of the fee discount applied to single dwellings should also be applied to other types of development, so as to alleviate this impact. Whilst Council has long advocated for an increase in planning fees which is reflective of the cost burden on council for administering the planning scheme, it is acknowledged that the increases proposed are significant, and will be accompanied by increased expectations from permit applicants with respect to the services offered by Council. A key question implied in the review therefore is the form of service improvements Council would anticipate resulting from the fees proposed. Having regard to increases in Development Planning staffing during 2015 (some of which were temporary), workload impacts experienced by related departments and the current staff workload associated with developing the provision of an on-line portal for the lodgement of applications, it is suggested that service improvements to be considered may include: • • • •

Further developing the ability for planning applications to be lodged online and a shift towards electronic processing of applications. This has the potential to save applicants both time and money in the processing of applications. An ability to provide more targeted pre-application advice to clients through the appointment of additional staff. The provision of more support staff so as to reduce administrative delays in the planning process. The provision of additional resources to areas of Council directly impacted by planning and subdivision applications. This may include engineering services, supervision of works, and enforcement.

Finally, it is noted that the fees are outlined as expiring in 2026. It is therefore appropriate that a review of the fees now being considered occurs well in advance of their expiry so as to ensure that new fees are set prior to 2026. TIMELINES The timelines for providing feedback on the RIS were relatively short, with a period of four weeks allowed. Submissions were required by 24 June 2016, which did not allow sufficient time for this matter to be reported to Council prior to a submission being prepared. As a result, the purpose of this report is to inform Councillors of the contents of the RIS, provide for discussion on the matters involved, and allow Council to formally endorse or amend the submission previously lodged. A copy of this submission is included as Attachment 2 to this report. A copy of the final MAV submission will be circulated prior to the Council meeting.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 98

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.6

SUBMISSION TO THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING IN RELATION TO THE PROPOSED PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT (FEES) REGULATIONS AND SUBDIVISION (FEES) REGULATIONS contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d CONCLUSION The review of the fees outlined in the Planning and Environment (Fees) Regulations and Subdivision (Fees) Regulations is supported. The fees outlined will generally result in full cost recovery to Council. However some modification to ensure that an inappropriate impact is not experienced by businesses is warranted. It is considered that Council should endorse the submission made by officers prior to 24 June 2016.

ATTACHMENTS No.

Title

Proposed Planning and Subdivision Fee Changes

197

Submission on Proposed Planning and Environment (Fees) Regulations and Subdivision (Fees) Regulations

199

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page

Page 99

7.1

Sealing of Documents

7.1

SEALING OF DOCUMENTS

Author:

Andy Wilson - Development Planning Team Leader, City Development

RECOMMENDATION That the Common Seal of the Banyule City Council be affixed to Contract 0871-2016. The following documents require the affixing of the Common Seal of Council: 1.

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

Absolute Planning Solutions Andy Wilson F2015/5242 Contract No. 0871A-2016 n/a n/a At its meeting on 18 April 2016, Council resolved to award a contract to a panel of planning consultants to provide statutory planning services to Council. The contracts for each of these providers now need to be sealed.

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

Andrew Crack and Associates Andy Wilson F2015/5242 Contract No. 0871B-2016 n/a n/a As above.

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

Collie Pty Ltd Andy Wilson F2015/5242 Contract No. 0871C-2016 n/a n/a As above.

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

Grace Town Planning Andy Wilson F2015/5242 Contract No. 0871D-2016 n/a n/a As above.

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

Kellock Town Planning Andy Wilson F2015/5242 Contract No. 0871E-2016 n/a n/a

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 101

7.1

Sealing of Documents

SEALING OF DOCUMENTS contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d BRIEF EXPLANATION:

As above.

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

Louise Lunn Planning Andy Wilson F2015/5242 Contract No. 0871F-2016 n/a n/a As above.

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

Meinhardt Infrastructure and Environment Andy Wilson F2015/5242 Contract No. 0871G-2016 n/a n/a As above.

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

Multiply Town Planning Andy Wilson F2015/5242 Contract No. 0871H-2016 n/a n/a As above.

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

Perspective Planning Consultants Andy Wilson F2015/5242 Contract No. 0871I-2016 n/a n/a As above.

10.

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

Tamara Orrlove Andy Wilson F2015/5242 Contract No. 0871J-2016 n/a n/a As above.

11.

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

APP Corporation Andy Wilson F2015/5242 Contract No. 0871K-2016 n/a n/a As above.

ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 102

8.1

HURSTBRIDGE LINE UPGRADE â&#x20AC;&#x201C; LOWER PLENTY ROAD LEVEL CROSSING, ROSANNA

Authors:

Cr Tom Melican & Cr Craig Langdon

TAKE NOTICE that it is my intention to move: â&#x20AC;&#x153;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) j) k)

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; 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.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 103

8.1

Notice of Motion

8.1

Notice of Motion

HURSTBRIDGE LINE UPGRADE – LOWER PLENTY ROAD LEVEL CROSSING, ROSANNA cont’d 2.

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.”

Explanation Council has been made aware through recent media coverage and more recently contact from the Level Crossing Removal Authority of the pending removal of the Lower Plenty Road level crossing at Rosanna and the concurrent duplication of the Hurstbridge Railway line between Rosanna and Heidelberg. Early works have begun with geotechnical and site investigation being carried out over the next four weeks. It is noted from the Level Crossing Removal Website that the Hurstbridge line upgrade will include: •

• • • • • •

Duplication of the single-track section of rail line between Heidelberg and Rosanna, removing a significant bottleneck, with associated power and signaling work. Redesigning the timetables for the Hurstbridge and South Morang lines to achieve additional services and improved reliability on both lines. Removal of the Lower Plenty Road level crossing in Rosanna. Building a new train station at Rosanna. Removal of the level crossing on Grange Road in Alphington - community consultation is currently underway. Addition of a new bus route between Greensborough and Diamond Creek. Investigation into further public transport benefits for the north east of Melbourne.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 104

HURSTBRIDGE LINE UPGRADE – LOWER PLENTY ROAD LEVEL CROSSING, ROSANNA cont’d Consultation with the community is expected to commence in the coming weeks and construction is expected to commence by the end of the year with completion by 2019. The development of the Latrobe employment cluster will add to congestion along Ruthven Street, Macleod so it is appropriate that the removal of that crossing be incorporated in this single project.

CR TOM MELICAN Ibbott Ward

CR CRAIG LANGDON Olympia Ward

ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 105

8.1

Notice of Motion

8.2

ACCESS TO ANTHONY BEALE RESERVE

Author:

Cr Wayne Phillips

8.2

Notice of Motion

TAKE NOTICE that it is my intention to move: “That a report be presented to Council to review the safety of vehicles and pedestrians accessing Anthony Beale Reserve, St Helena, from St Helena Road. The review should also include the consideration of a safe pedestrian crossing on St Helena Road, near the entrance to Anthony Beale Reserve.” Explanation Anthony Beale Reserve is a major sports and recreation reserve in St Helena. It is particularly heavily used on Sundays during the football season as it has two sporting grounds and is the home base for the Greensborough Junior Football Club, one of the largest junior football clubs in the region. Construction has recently started on the $750,000 regional family play space in at the Reserve and works are expected to be completed in September, 2016. Once completed the regional family play space is expected to further increase the visitation rates to Anthony Beale Reserve. During the consultation phase for developing the play space, one of the key issues identified by the community was safety around accessing the reserve from the St Helena Road entrance. This is due to the lack of a dedicated right hand turning lane in St Helena Road and also to the volume of traffic entering and exiting the reserve, at peak times. Residents on the eastern side of St Helena Road have also complained of a lack of a safe pedestrian crossing point near the entrance of the Reserve. There is currently $40,000 included in year 2 of Council’s draft Capital Works Program for a safe pedestrian crossing on St Helena Road, near the Anthony Beale Reserve entrance.

CR WAYNE PHILLIPS Beale Ward ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 106

8.3

BANYULE HORSE RIDERS

Author:

Cr Steven Briffa

8.3

Notice of Motion

TAKE NOTICE that it is my intention to move: â&#x20AC;&#x153;That a report be presented to Council on investigating the feasibility of providing improved connectivity, both on-road and off-road, for horse riders in the Lower Plenty and Viewbank areas. The investigation is to include commentary from other appropriate land managers, Parks Victoria and Melbourne Water, on the issue and involve discussions with the Banyule Horse Riders Association.â&#x20AC;?

Explanation There are a number of horse riding facilities located in Banyule, including the NorthEastern Pony Club and the Riding for the Disabled facility, both of which are located in Viewbank and the horse riding paddocks on The Boulevard in East Ivanhoe. All of these facilities are located on land managed by Parks Victoria. There are over 170 horse owners (mostly female) residing within Banyule, the majority of whom are located within the Lower Plenty and Viewbank areas. The vast majority of these horse owners reside and agist their horses in the low residential density areas of Lower Plenty and the only safe way of getting their horses to the Viewbank horse riding facilities (approximately one kilometre away) is to load them onto a horse float and drive them there. The roadside verges in the area, which by law horse riders are entitled to use, are narrow, often dangerously sloped and contain various hazards such as bollards, deep gutters, drainage pits, etc. that make them unsafe to ride on. There is also no safe crossing of the Plenty River in the area and there are no trails on public land in Banyule that allow horse riding. It is proposed that a report be presented to Council investigating the feasibility of providing improved connectivity, both on-road and off-road, for horse riders in the Lower Plenty and Viewbank areas.

CR STEVEN BRIFFA Hawdon Ward ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 107

8.4

ROAD AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS OF BONDS ROAD, LOWER PLENTY

Author:

Cr Steven Briffa

TAKE NOTICE that it is my intention to move: “That a report be presented to Council to investigate the improvement of the road surface, road widening and drainage of Bonds Road, Lower Plenty. The report should consider community views, changes in traffic volumes, cost estimates and other impacts of any improvements considered.” Explanation Bonds Road, Lower Plenty, like many of the roads in the area, is constructed to a rural standard with a sealed road pavement and open table drains down each side of the road. The existing configuration has evolved over time to minimise the impact on the local vegetation and to fit in with the low housing density environment. There have been a number of approaches to Council in the past few years requesting that Council review the road and associated drainage to improve the safety of road users and to resolve localised drainage problems caused by inadequate drainage infrastructure. The investigation needs to consider: • • • • • • •

drainage improvements to resolve localised flooding; the safety of the various users of the road; assessment of vehicle speeds; possible widening of the road; impact on any possible works on existing vegetation; community views on any possible upgrade of the road and drainage; and estimates of costs and options for funding any improvements.

CR STEVEN BRIFFA Hawdon Ward ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 108

8.4

Notice of Motion

8.5

GARAGE SALE TRAIL

Author:

Cr Tom Melican

8.5

Notice of Motion

TAKE NOTICE that it is my intention to move: â&#x20AC;&#x153;That a report be prepared that assesses the benefits and costs associated with participating in the Garage Sale Trail program and to consider taking part in the 2016 event as a one year trial.â&#x20AC;? Explanation Garage Sale Trail is not-for-profit program which claims to provide assistance to Local Government in promoting waste reduction in their communities. The once a year event fosters the opportunity for people to de-clutter, reuse, meet the neighbours, and make a few dollars all at the same time. Anyone can be involved from households, to local businesses; makers and creators, community groups, cultural institutions, schools and charities, and they can register their venue on the Garage Sale Trail website to advertise their participation. The program is a marketing and communications tool to deliver a three to four month campaign for mobilising communities around Australia to hold Garage Sales on the same day. It has been operating for five years and claims to have over 133 Councils with more than 8,000 garage sales registered all over Australia in 2014. The package offered includes artwork for Council branding and media releases, access to the Garage Sale Trail website, and social media opportunities. It does not include the cost of producing flyers, posters or other costs associated with handouts or local advertising. The communication package does not require Council to develop any further tools to market the event. The program organisers have approached Council to seek Banyuleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s involvement and have offered a one year trial in 2016. Councils are usually only offered the program on a two year or three year basis. It is proposed that a report be presented to Council that assesses the benefits and costs of participating in the 2016 Garage Sale Trail event.

CR TOM MELICAN Ibbott Ward ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 109

8.6

TREE REMOVAL PROCESS ON ROAD RESERVES

Author:

Cr Wayne Phillips

8.6

Notice of Motion

TAKE NOTICE that it is my intention to move: â&#x20AC;&#x153;That where a tree in a road reserve, which has a trunk dimension equal to or greater than 800mm and/or a height of equal to or greater than 15 metres: a)

is being considered for removal the relevant Ward Councillor is notified; and

has been removed to address an imminent public safety issue, the Ward councillor is notified within one business day.â&#x20AC;?

Explanation Banyule is fortunate to have in the vicinity of 65,000 street trees across the municipality. It well established that trees provide numerous environmental benefits for our community and local fauna. Within the tree population there are many trees of significance both indigenous and exotic species that are established in our streetscapes. The maintenance responsibility for Street tree resides with Councils Parks and Gardens service. Trees are inspected and pruned on a 2 year cyclical program to ensure that they healthy and safe and comply with the relevant legislation. Occasionally some trees are subjected to damage by extreme weather events, mechanical damage by vehicles, utility agencies or biological influences. Where trees are compromised council arborists assess the safety of the trees and if the tree is deemed imminently hazardous it is made safe which can necessitate immediate removal. There are also times when large trees are planned to be removed and is these cases, council staff undertake a local consultation process. Given the value the community place of large tree it considered important the ward councillor is made aware of rationale for the removal of any large tree in their ward.

CR WAYNE PHILLIPS Beale Ward ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 110

8.7

TRIBUTE TO ERIC ROSARIO

Author:

Cr Craig Langdon

8.7

Notice of Motion

TAKE NOTICE that it is my intention to move: “Council consider options to commemorate Eric Rosario in line with the Council and Community Commemorative Plaques Protocols and liaise with Eric’s wife and family.” Explanation At the previous Council Meeting, I raised a General Business item on a tribute to Eric Rosario, a resident of Greensborough. He was an Age-Friendly Banyule Advisory Committee member, a member of the Open Space and Playground Strategy Reference Group member and Age-Friendly Champion, with involvement in nearly every activity. Eric also had strong links to many other groups within his local community. Eric’s passion was around everyone having an opportunity to exercise. In memory of Eric, it may be fitting to install a chair along the walking track in the Apollo Parkways Reserve; Plenty River Drive, Greensborough. It maybe also suitable for plaque will be installed on the chair with the wording to be discussed with Eric’s wife and family.

CR CRAIG LANGDON Olympia Ward ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 111

8.8

BELL STREET MALL - CCTV UPGRADE

Author:

Cr Craig Langdon

8.8

Notice of Motion

TAKE NOTICE that it is my intention to move: â&#x20AC;&#x153;That Council call on the Federal Opposition to match the funding announcement made by the Federal Government of a $75,000 grant for the upgrade of the CCTV in the Bell Street Mall.â&#x20AC;? Explanation Senator Scott Ryan (at the Ramadan Iftar Dinner on Friday, 10 June 2016) announced a $75,000 grant for the upgrade of the CCTV in the Bell Street Mall under a re-elected Turnbull Government. He noted the Bell Street Mall Traders Association is also hopeful the funds will add a sense of safety for traders and the community. The Notice of Motion is to call on the Federal Opposition as the alternative Government to match the funding.

CR CRAIG LANGDON Olympia Ward ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

Page 112

ATTACHMENTS

4.2

Managing Construction Activity associated with Large Development Sites Attachment 1 Attachment 2 Attachment 3

4.3

44 Turnham Avenue, Rosanna - Proposed Supermarket (P1260/15) Attachment 1 Attachment 2 Attachment 3

4.4

Draft Banyule Surveillance Policy .................................................. 159

Items for Noting Attachment 1 Attachment 2 Attachment 3 Attachment 4 Attachment 5

Attachment 6 Attachment 7 Attachment 8 Attachment 9 Attachment 10 Attachment 11 Attachment 12 Attachment 13 Attachment 14 Attachment 15 Attachment 16 6.6

Attachment 1 - Background information......................................... 149 Attachment 2 - Advertised plans .................................................... 152

Banyule Surveillance Policy Attachment 1

6.4

Planning Policy.............................................................................. 123 Rosanna Library car park and footpath remodelling concept plan ............................................................................................... 132 Plans ............................................................................................. 133

Use and development of land at 29 Howard Street and 2-6 Stubley Court, Greensborough, for a Car Park Attachment 1 Attachment 2

4.5

Managing Development in Banyule ............................................... 114 Occupation of Council Land........................................................... 117 Construction Management Plans................................................... 118

Safe Schools Program - Senator James Mcgrath .......................... 171 Safe Schools Program - Bill Shorten ............................................. 172 Safe Schools Program - Senator Carol Brown .............................. 174 Safe Schools Program - Senator Marise Payne............................. 175 Safe Schools Program - Department of Education and Training (on behalf of the Minister for Education and Training and the Minister for Social Services) ............................................. 176 Safe Schools Program - Tanya Plibersek MP ................................ 178 Safe Schools Program - Senator Sarah Hason-Young ................. 180 Safe Schools Program - Senator Ricky Muir ................................. 181 Safe Schools Program - Senator Eric Abetz .................................. 182 Safe Schools Program - Warren Truss MP ................................... 183 Safe Schools Program - Senator Glen Lazarus ............................ 187 Safe Schools Program - Clive Palmer MP ..................................... 188 Safe Schools Program - Senator Fiona Nash ................................ 189 Safe Schools Program - Senator Claire Moore .............................. 190 Safe Schools Program - Julie Owens MP ...................................... 191 Banyule Environmental Banyule Environmental Advisory Committee (BEAC) Meeting Notes June 2016.............................. 192

Submission to the Minister for Planning in relation to the proposed Planning and Environment (Fees) Regulations and Subdivision (Fees) Regulations Attachment 1 Attachment 2

Proposed Planning and Subdivision Fee Changes ........................ 197 Submission on Proposed Planning and Environment (Fees) Regulations and Subdivision (Fees) Regulations........................... 199

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 27 JUNE 2016 Page 113

4.2

Item: 4.2

Attachment 1: Managing Development in Banyule

MANAGING DEVELOPMENT IN BANYULE

Attachment 1

Development Planning & Engineering The Development Planning team is responsible for managing the overall development and land use approvals process and subsequent enforcement in accordance with the LPPF and local rules prepared by Strategic Planning and the SPPF and P&E Act established by the State Government. Given the complexities of the planning process, public involvement and detailed rules embodied in the Banyule Planning Scheme the team involved in the approvals component of the process is quite large with individual expertise including arborists and a subdivision officer. The enforcement component, however, is limited to a ‘reactive’ service which primarily responds to complaints. Technical input to the assessment and approvals process is provided by the Engineering Services Team, primarily in regard to appropriate standards and approval of designs in relation to car parking, roads and drains. The issuing of planning permits has historically focused on the development outcome to be achieved with appropriate permit conditions relating to the development once complete rather than the activities on and near a site during the construction phase. Construction activities have generally been managed through other State and local legislation such as the Local Law and EPA in relation to pollution and noise. This continues to be the accepted approach, although conditions relating to construction activity which may impact on the ultimate planning outcome are now commonly accepted. For example, a requirement to protect a specific tree which is to be retained as part of a development is essential as a planning permit condition as it is important that the tree is protected to achieve the overall planning outcome sought. General conditions relating to construction activity are not usually expected in a planning permit although the use of Construction Management Plans for some large development sites has been required in recent years. The requirement for a Construction Management Plan provides some level of control over the construction process of these larger developments. The opportunity for and use of CMP’s is discussed in detail in the “Technical Considerations and Discussion” section below. Building (Banyule BPI) Banyule BPI is responsible for managing building approvals in the municipality, but since the deregulation of the industry over 20 years ago only if appointed as the relevant building surveyor. Private Building Surveyors can also be appointed to issue permits and monitor building approvals on sites within Banyule. Nonetheless, the enforcement of building approvals issued in the municipality, primarily in relation to structural integrity and safety of buildings and in accordance with relevant planning approvals is also another key function of the team. Banyule has been much more active in the enforcement of building regulations since the appointment of a Building Enforcement Officer four years ago which has reduced the incidence of building activity in breach of the regulations. The Building Act 1993 & Building Regulations 2006 allow Council, through its Municipal Building Surveyor, to enforce safety issues, such as pool fencing, dangerous buildings and unlawful building work. This makes building enforcement limited for amenity issues unless they affect safety. However, the Building Surveyor is responsible for ensuring that “site protection” works are in place which protects adjoining properties during construction and is particularly relevant for sites which involve excavation.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 27 JUNE 2016 Page 114

Attachment 1: Managing Development in Banyule

4.2

Item: 4.2 Local Laws

The Local Law also includes clauses relating to the occupation of roads and Council land and requires a permit to be obtained for hoardings, scaffolding, plant and equipment, skips and bins which are on Council land outside of a building sites boundary. A permit under the Local Law needs to be in a prescribed form set by Council and subject to the payment of the appropriate fee which is also set by Council. It is expected that all builders, developers and tradespeople operating within Banyule will comply with the Local Law. Breaches of the Local Law may be enforced under the relevant legislation by Council’s Local Laws unit. For significant off-site issues the EPA, Melbourne Water or other Authorities may also be involved. Construction (Asset Protection) Building and construction activities which impact on Council assets are also governed by the Local Law but are managed through Council’s Asset Protection unit rather than the Local Laws unit of Council. The relevant clause within the Local Law states: 1.

If any building work is to be carried out on land: (a) (b) (c) (d)

the owner of the relevant land; the builder engaged to carry out building work on the land; any appointed agent; or any demolition contractor engaged to demolish some object on the land as part of the building work

(e)

not carry out or allow to be carried out building work on that land unless an Asset Protection Permit has been obtained; not carry out or allow to be carried out building work on that land in breach of any conditions of an Asset Protection Permit that has been obtained; and pay any Asset Protection Permit Bond determined by the Council from time to time.

must:

(f)

(g)

If a person contravenes or fails to comply with Clause 1. above, Council may serve a Notice to Comply on that person requiring the repair, rectification, reinstatement, replacement or any other work to repair, rectify, re-instate or replace any asset vested in, controlled or owned by Council.

Note: Council will inspect and assess potential for damage to Council assets, including an Asset Protection Permit Bond. An Asset Protection Permit is not Consent or permission to work from or upon Council Land and an application may be required for the following Permits: • Occupation of Roads and Council Land • Interference with Council Assets ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 27 JUNE 2016 Page 115

Attachment 1

Council’s Local Laws Unit has wide ranging responsibilities for enforcing Councils Local Laws. One of their key functions is to ensure that construction and building activity is well managed in accordance with Council’s Local Law to minimise the impact of construction activity on the amenity of the surrounding area. The Local Law has clauses which require building works to be contained within the building site and also deal with issues such as dust, mud of roads, refuse and hours of work.

Attachment 1

4.2

Item: 4.2

Attachment 1: Managing Development in Banyule • • •

Obstruction of Roads and Council Land Vehicle Crossings Tradesperson Parking/Workzone

Councils Asset Protection unit is responsible for monitoring development impacts on Council assets such as nature strips, street trees, kerb and channel, drains, roads and right of ways but with the legislative power provided by the Local Law. The key principle behind the asset protection system is that it is a ‘user pays’ approach where those responsible for damage to Council assets are responsible for the rectification. Once a Building Permit has been issued either through Council or through a Private Building Surveyor, the site is placed on a monitoring system for an Asset Protection Inspection which is subject to a $215 fee. The inspection is conducted to ascertain the condition of Council’s assets before the commencement of works. If, as a result of the inspection, it is deemed that the building works may cause damage to any Council asset, the property owner is required to lodge a security deposit with Council. When all works are completed the owner is required to request a final inspection. The inspection will determine the condition of Council’s asset abutting the property and if damage has occurred, a quotation will be forwarded to the owner stating the cost for Council to reinstate any identified damage or alternatively the owner may engage a contractor to reinstate Council’s assets. Once the assets have been reinstated the bond is returned. The Asset Protection unit is also responsible for issuing permits under the Local Law for works on Council land and within the Road Reserve such as a road opening, stormwater connection, footpath closure, vehicle crossover, drainage connection, and erecting a hoarding or other works associated with a new development. When a permit is issued works must be conducted in accordance with the conditions of the permit which include compliance with appropriate standards of construction and usually require a traffic management plan. A fee is charged and a bond may be required as well as an inspection being undertaken.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 27 JUNE 2016 Page 116

OCCUPATION OF COUNCIL LAND Permit Type

Location

Legislation

Considerations

Crane Permit

Where the occupation is on a road or Council Asset

Road Management Act 2004

Public Safety & Asset Protection. Control the impact on residents and road users; ensure the works are undertaken safely.

Concrete Pump

Where the occupation is on a road or Council Asset

Road Management Act 2004

Public Safety & Asset Protection. Control the impact on residents and road users; ensure the works are undertaken safely and the area is left clean.

Hoarding

Where the occupation in on a Council Asset /Footpath

Building Regulations 2006

Public Protection as required under the regulation 604 of the Building Regulations and deemed necessary by the relevant Building Surveyor.

Work Area

Where the occupation of a footpath is required to undertake minor works

Disability Discrimination Act 1992 Equal Opportunity Act 1995

Ensure works on a footpath are undertaken in a safe and compliant manner and provide free and unencumbered access for pedestrians and those with disabilities.

Work Zone

Provide Trade Parking to Building Sites and minor deliveries.

Road Safety Act 1986 Victorian Road Rules

Ensure compliance with Parking restrictions and assist Developers and Builders.

Gantry and Scaffolds

Where the occupation of a footpath is required to undertake major works or protect building facade.

Building Regulations 2006 Disability Discrimination Act 1992 Equal Opportunity Act 1995

Public Protection as required under the regulation 604 of the Building Regulations and deemed necessary by the relevant Building Surveyor, protection of Heritage Buildings.

Temp Vehicle Crossovers

Entry and Egress from sites

Road Management Act 2004

Control the damage to council assets and maintain the safe integrity of the footpath for pedestrian usage.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 27 JUNE 2016 Page 117

4.2

Attachment 2: Occupation of Council Land

Attachment 2

Item: 4.2

4.2

Item: 4.2

Attachment 3: Construction Management Plans

Construction Management Plans

Attachment 3

The intent and extent of the Construction Management Plan (CMP) is to ensure that the process of construction has minimal impact upon neighbouring land uses and Council's infrastructure. The CMP effectively summarises how it is that the developer and the builder are to comply with relevant requirements of the Local Law, the Building legislation and the EPA legislation throughout the construction phase. Although from time to time a view has been expressed that the CMP could be required to be more restrictive than this legislation, there would appear to be no mechanism to require it to be so. The origin of the practice of requiring a CMP as a condition on a planning permit is unclear, however it raises a number of issues: •

The preparation and approval of a CMP provides a mechanism for a developer to think through the implications of their construction activity on the lives of surrounding property owners and occupiers. Ideally, they should be considering issues such as asset protection, deliveries (hours, means of access, storage), and construction activity (hours, facilities provided to staff on site, parking of staff vehicles). Many of these issues are separately controlled by the relevant Building Surveyor, the EPA or Council through its Local Law.

•

A planning permit is a convenient place to draw a permit holder (and subsequently developers) attention to this requirement, and linking the approval of the CMP to the commencement of the works should mean that all issues are appropriately addressed, and all relevant approvals given, prior to commencement.

•

The purpose of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (P&E Act) is to regulate the use and development of land, not the construction process. As any permit conditions must relate to the nature of the approval being given, conditions should not generally seek to control the construction process. However there will be instances when the construction process will impact upon, or have the potential to impact upon, existing use and development, or result in actions which require a planning permit in their own right (eg. The construction of an extension to an existing medical centre may result in a temporary reduction in car parking below the standard Planning Scheme requirement, or building activity on a site near a waterway may result in the temporary provision of fill within land affected by an Inundation or Special Building Overlay).

•

The fines associated with a Planning Infringement Notice (5 penalty units for a natural person and 10 for a body corporate, currently $758.35 and $1516.70 respectively) are equivalent in value to those associated with an Infringement Notice under the Local Law (5 or 10 penalty units each for matters associated with construction sites, with different penalties for different offences).

•

The application of a CMP condition on planning permits has been ad-hoc, with individual planning officers differing in when and how the requirement is imposed. Similarly, assessment of the suitability of any submitted CMP has differed from officer to officer, with differing levels of involvement of both Local Laws officers and/or Asset Protection officers in this process.

There are issues with requiring CMP’s as a planning permit requirement. These are summarised as follows: 1

The purpose of the planning function: A CMP seeks to provide a summary of controls that are, for the most part, outside of the purpose of the planning function;

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 27 JUNE 2016 Page 118

Attachment 3: Construction Management Plans

The location of the matter sought to be controlled: Many of the controls captured within a CMP are concerned with off-site activities whereas the scope of assessment of any development permit is legally limited to the title boundaries of the planning parcel;

The enforceability of the permit condition: Any failure to provide a CMP prior to the commencement of works or to comply with the requirements may not be able to be successfully enforced through the provisions of the Act as a result.

4.2

Item: 4.2

The purpose of the planning function

Notwithstanding that the term ‘development’ has a broad meaning under the Act, it is considered that the term ‘development’ in the context of the planning permit function should be read as a noun – not a verb. Development is a thing – not a doing. If such a contextual interpretation is accepted then the term ‘development’ refers to the completed construction – not the process of construction. This interpretation is evidenced by analysis of the objectives of planning in Victoria (as defined within the Act) and the decision guidelines within the planning scheme. The objectives of planning in Victoria are set out in Section 4(1) of the Act, as follows: •

To provide for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use and development of land.

•

To provide for the protection of natural and man-made resources and the maintenance of ecological processes and genetic diversity.

•

To secure a pleasant, efficient and safe working, living and recreational environment for all Victorians and visitors to Victoria

•

To conserve and enhance those buildings, areas or other places which are of scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical interest, or otherwise of special cultural value

•

To protect public utilities and other assets and enable the orderly provision and coordination of public utilities and other facilities for the benefit of the community

•

To facilitate development in accordance with the objectives set out in the points above

•

To balance the present and future interests of all Victorians

The decision guidelines found at Clause 65.01 of the Banyule Planning Scheme provide: Before deciding on an application or approval of a plan, the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate: •

The matters set out in Section 60 of the Act

•

The State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies

•

The purpose of the zone, overlay or other provision

•

Any matter to be considered in the zone, overlay or other provision

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 27 JUNE 2016 Page 119

Attachment 3

It is acknowledged that the overall planning function is focused on the use and development of land. However for the purpose of clarity the term ‘use’ is not relevant to any requirement for a CMP (as ‘use’ alone does not involve construction).

Attachment 3

4.2

Item: 4.2

Attachment 3: Construction Management Plans

•

The orderly planning of the area

•

The effect on the amenity of the area

•

The proximity of the land to any public land

•

Factors likely to cause or contribute to land degradation, salinity or reduce water quality

•

Whether the proposed development is designed to maintain or improve the quality of stormwater within and exiting the site

•

The extent and character of native vegetation and the likelihood of its destruction

•

Whether native vegetation is to be or can be protected, planted or allowed to regenerate

•

The degree of flood, erosion or fire hazard associated with the location of the land and the use, development or management of land so as to minimise any such hazard

Conditions imposed on any permit issued must relate to those matters for which a permit is required, and the appropriate decision guidelines. Matters of construction management do not ordinarily fit within this scope, whether or not these matters are separately (or adequately) addressed by other legislation. Further, whilst many developments require a planning, the relevant planning permit trigger is not always associated with development and there may not have any development related conditions included within the permit. Therefore any system which relies on construction management plans should not rely on the planning permit system to require such plans. The location of the matter sought to be controlled The scope of assessment for a development permit is limited to buildings and works that take place on the subject land. Where the subject land comprises of more than one lot the site is referred to as the planning parcel. Except in very limited circumstances, a planning permit cannot legally provide controls that are applicable to adjoining land or public land. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the ambit of discretion for a development permit does not extend beyond the title boundaries of the planning parcel. It is therefore inappropriate for a planning permit condition to seek to control matters such as parking on nearby roads, proposed routes of access to and from the site for deliveries, propping of concrete or delivery trucks on the road during construction or other similar matters. As an aside - It is acknowledged that a ‘use’ permit will seek to control activities on the land that have the potential to impact on the amenity of the environment such as operational hours, noise levels and compliance with relevant SEPPs. However it is to be recognised that such controls are normally limited to ‘use’ permits and importantly are limited to activities that take place on the land – not off-site. The enforceability of the permit condition It is recognised that any failure to submit a CMP prior to the commencement of works will constitute a breach of a properly constructed planning permit condition. However such a breach would be an administrative breach only, in the same way as a failure to submit condition 1 plans or a landscape plan for endorsement or any other subordinate instrument. The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal have consistently held that the failure to submit a subordinate instrument prior to the commencement of works does not invalidate the permit – rather this omission simply constitutes a breach of the permit. ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 27 JUNE 2016 Page 120

Attachment 3: Construction Management Plans

Similarly, a complaint alleging matters such as ‘mud on the road’ or ‘dust emissions’ or ‘construction working times’ are (if proven) breaches of the relevant legislation that controls that activity. Such allegations should not be seen as a breach of the planning permit (which derives its authority from the planning legislation).

4.2

Item: 4.2

Issue Dust control Construction site refuse Construction site hours Delivery times to construction site Noise from construction site Spoil (mud) on roads from construction site Occupation of roads (i.e. queuing of trucks) Obstruction of road Damage to a Council asset Unsightly land Unsafe vacant land/building Potential fire hazard

Appropriate Legislation Local Law and EPA Local Law Local Law and EPA Local Law EPA and Health Local Law Local Law Local Law Local Law Local Law Building and Local Law Local Law

The crossover – potentially relevant planning consideration There are limited circumstances where some part of the construction phase may impact upon the existing permitted use of the land or some other control affecting the land. In such circumstances the planning function should consider whether or not it should exercise some form of control over the potential impact. Potentially relevant planning considerations may include: •

A temporary reduction in approved car parking on the land for the period of construction;

•

The temporary storage of soil or materials on land affected by the LSIO, ESO or similar planning control; or

•

The potential for damage to occur to heritage fabric during any partial demolition phase.

Having regard to the above it is appropriate that any potentially relevant planning consideration be provided for by conditions of permit. Temporary signage displayed during construction may also require a planning permit or be prohibited by the Scheme, and has been the subject of complaints. The need to consider the Planning Scheme requirements in this regard can be reinforced by amending the standard signage note and including it on all permits issued for development. However it is also recognised that from a whole-of-Council perspective there remains the desire to ensure that the developer has focused their attention on the implications of the proposed construction activity on surrounding residents and infrastructure. This could be assisted by the inclusion of a new standard note on planning permits drawing the developer’s attention to the need to appropriately manage construction. This is similar to existing standard notes in relation to the need to obtain a building permit or consent for works within an easement. There may also be the option of including a straight forward ‘enabling’ permit condition which requires a CMP to be submitted to and approved by ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 27 JUNE 2016 Page 121

Attachment 3

The following is a (limited) list of allegations that may be received by the Council during the construction phase which are outside of the planning legislation.

4.2

Item: 4.2

Attachment 3: Construction Management Plans

Council for larger developments but the responsibility for approving the CMP enforcing it does not does not sit with the Development Planning Unit. It is acknowledged that the scope of this note or condition would require the submission of a significant number of Construction Management Plans each year. The resourcing implications and criteria to establish when a Construction Management Plan should be required is discussed later in this report.

Attachment 3

An alternative to requiring CMPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s through Planning Permits Under General Local Law No. 1 (2015), Part 3, Section 3.3, it is a requirement that an Asset Protection Permit is obtained prior to the commencement of building works. Once a Building Permit has been issued either through Council or through a Private Building Surveyor, Building and Civil Works Unit include the property owner onto the system for an Asset Protection Inspection and notify them of this by letter. Following the inspection a report and invoice is posted to them. An alternative and practical approach to construction management would appear to be to provide information and a pro-forma Construction Management Plan which encourages those undertaking construction activity to both think about the management of this activity and submit a plan in the weeks prior to the commencement of construction. A pro forma checksheet could be prepared with an aim to achieve a balance between information to builders on Council requirements and a simple but reasonably thorough checklist for them to complete. Once finalised, it could readily be enclosed with the letter provided to the property owner, or included in the Asset Protection Inspection Request form on Councilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s website. A more targeted approach would be to forward it to the building contractor, rather than the property owner, however this would require modified or additional administrative processes.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 27 JUNE 2016 Page 122

Attachment 1: Planning Policy

P1260/15 – 44 TURNHAM AVENUE ROSANNA – ATTACHMENT

4.3

Item: 4.3

PLANNING CONTROLS The following planning controls are relevant to the assessment of application: COMMERCIAL 1 ZONE

•

To create vibrant mixed use commercial centres for retail, office, business, entertainment and community uses.

•

To provide for residential uses at densities complementary to the role and scale of the commercial centre.

A planning permit is not required for the use of the land for a Supermarket (Shop) as no maximum leaseable floor area is specified within the schedule to this zone. However, planning approval is required for buildings and works within this zone. MIXED USE ZONE The purpose of this zone is: •

To provide for a range of residential, commercial, industrial and other uses which complement the mixed-use function of the locality.

•

To provide for housing at higher densities.

•

To encourage development that responds to the existing or preferred neighbourhood character of the area.

•

To facilitate the use, development and redevelopment of land in accordance with the objectives specified in a schedule to this zone.

A planning permit is required for the use of the land for a Supermarket (Shop) as the leaseable floor area will exceed 150m2. A permit is therefore required for the associated buildings and works (confined to the car park on this portion of the site). VEGETATION PROTECTION OVERLAY (VPO5) The purpose of this zone is: •

To protect areas of significant vegetation.

•

To ensure that development minimises loss of vegetation.

•

To preserve existing trees and other vegetation.

•

To recognise vegetation protection areas as locations of special significance, natural beauty, interest and importance.

•

To maintain and enhance habitat and habitat corridors for indigenous fauna.

•

To encourage the regeneration of native vegetation.

A permit is required to remove, destroy or lop those trees which meet either of the following: •

Has a height of 12 metres or more, or

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 27 JUNE 2016 Page 123

Attachment 1

The purpose of this zone is:

4.3

Item: 4.3 •

Attachment 1: Planning Policy Has a trunk or stems that collectively are more than 400mm in diameter, measured at 1400mm above the base of the tree.

The Vegetation Protection Overlay only applies to a small portion of the south eastern part of the site which contains no protected trees. However, the VPO5 covers trees within the Turnham Avenue Road Reserve at the front of the site where two trees are proposed to be removed – trees 2 and 7. Of these trees, tree 2 exceeds 12 metres in height and is therefore protected under this overlay. Tree 7 is less than 12 metres in height and is therefore not protected.

Attachment 1

CLAUSE 52.06 – CAR PARKING The purpose of this clause is: To ensure the provision of an appropriate number of car parking spaces having regard to the demand likely to be generated, the activities on the land and the nature of the locality. To support sustainable transport alternatives to the motor car. To promote the efficient use of car parking spaces through the consolidation of car parking facilities. To ensure that car parking does not adversely affect the amenity of the locality. To ensure that the design and location of car parking is of a high standard, creates a safe environment for users and enables easy and efficient use. A permit is required to reduce (including reduce to zero) the number of car parking spaces required under Clause 52.06-5. A planning permit is required in this instance as the proposal seeks to reduce the number of on-site parking spaces. Table 1 of this clause sets out the car parking requirement that applies to a use listed in the table. The table specifies a rate for supermarket of 5 spaces to each 100m2 of leaseable floor area. The proposal includes 2702m2 of leaseable floor area. The car parking requirements, provision and shortfall are set out in the table below. Use Supermarket

Spaces required 135 (2702m2 x 5)

Proposed 86

Shortfall 49

CLAUSE 52.07 – LOADING AND UNLOADING OF VEHICLES The purpose of this clause is: To set aside land for loading and unloading commercial vehicles to prevent loss of amenity and adverse effect on traffic flow and road safety. This clause specifies that: No building or works may be constructed for the manufacture, servicing, storage or sale of goods or materials unless: •

Space is provided on the land for loading and unloading vehicles as specified in the table below.

•

The driveway to the loading bay is at least 3.6 metres wide. If a driveway changes direction or intersects another driveway, the internal radius at the change of direction or intersection must be at least 6 metres.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 27 JUNE 2016 Page 124

•

The road that provides access to the loading bay is at least 3.6 metres wide. A permit may be granted to reduce or waive these requirements if either:

•

The land area is insufficient.

•

Adequate provision is made for loading and unloading vehicles to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

Floor areFloor area of building Minimum loading bay dimensions 2,600 sq m or less in single Area 27.4 sq m occupation Length 7.6 m Width 3.6 m Height clearance 4.0 m For every additional 1,800 sq m or Additional 18 sq m part A planning permit is not required for the proposed loading bay as it satisfies the above requirements. CLAUSE 52.34 –BICYCLE FACILITIES Clause 52.34 states that a new use must not commence or the floor area of an existing use must not be increased until the required bicycle facilities and associated signage has been provided on the land. The table below outlines the proposed provision of bicycle parking on site Use Supermarket (Shop) Total

Spaces required 4 (Employees) 5 (Visitors) 9

Proposed 10 8 18

Shortfall 0 0 0

The proposal includes 5 double sided bicycle parking spaces at the rear of the site in the car park and 4 double sided spaces are shown adjacent to the footpath next to the entrance at the front of the site. POLICIES CONSIDERED STATE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK The following policy is relevant to the assessment of the proposal and is outlined below and expanded on where considered appropriate: Settlement Clause 11.01- Activity Centre policy seeks to build up activity centres as a focus for highquality development, activity and living for the whole community by developing a network of activity centres. Policies on Metropolitan Melbourne also seek to encourage housing affordability and choice, job creation and liveable communities. Built Environment and Heritage Clause 15.01-1 and 15.01-2 (Urban Design and Urban Design Principles) seeks to create urban environments that are safe, functional and provide good quality environments with a sense of place and cultural identity and achieve architectural and ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 27 JUNE 2016 Page 125

4.3

Attachment 1: Planning Policy

Attachment 1

Item: 4.3

4.3

Item: 4.3

Attachment 1: Planning Policy

urban design outcomes that contribute positively to local urban character and enhance the public realm while minimising detrimental impact on neighbouring properties. Strategies: Apply the following design principles to development proposals for non-residential development or residential development not covered by Clause 54, Clause 55 or Clause 56:

Attachment 1

Context •

Development must take into account the natural, cultural and strategic context of its location.

•

Planning authorities should emphasise urban design policies and frameworks for key locations or precincts.

•

A comprehensive site analysis should be the starting point of the design process and form the basis for consideration of height, scale and massing of new development.

The public realm • The public realm, which includes main pedestrian spaces, streets, squares, parks and walkways, should be protected and enhanced. Safety •

New development should create urban environments that enhance personal safety and property security and where people feel safe to live, work and move in at any time.

Landmarks, views and vistas • Landmarks, views and vistas should be protected and enhanced or, where appropriate, created by new additions to the built environment. Pedestrian spaces • Design of interfaces between buildings and public spaces, including the arrangement of adjoining activities, entrances, windows, and architectural detailing, should enhance the visual and social experience of the user. Light and shade • Enjoyment of the public realm should be enhanced by a desirable balance of sunlight and shade. •

This balance should not be compromised by undesirable overshadowing or exposure to the sun.

Energy and resource efficiency • All building, subdivision and engineering works should include efficient use of resources and energy efficiency. Architectural quality • New development should achieve high standards in architecture and urban design.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 27 JUNE 2016 Page 126

•

Attachment 1: Planning Policy Any rooftop plant, lift over-runs, service entries, communication devices, and other technical attachment should be treated as part of the overall design.

4.3

Item: 4.3

Landscape architecture • Recognition should be given to the setting in which buildings are designed and the integrating role of landscape architecture. Clause 15.01-5 seeks to recognise and protect cultural identity, neighbourhood character and sense of place.

Economic Development The objective under Clause 17.01-1 for commercial activity is to encourage development which meet the communities’ needs for retail, entertainment, office and other commercial services and provides net community benefit in relation to accessibility, efficient infrastructure use and the aggregation and sustainability of commercial facilities. LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK Municipal Strategic Statement Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement sets the direction for land use and development in Banyule by identifying key planning elements for consideration and nominating a series of objectives and strategies for each. The overarching vision of the Municipality is: Banyule will be regarded as a city offering a range of quality lifestyles in an urban setting enhanced by the natural environment, and served by an efficient and committed Council. The relevant objective encompasses Environmental Management. Commercial Land Use The three main objectives of clause 21.04-2 are outlined below: Commercial Economic Development To support a diversity of viable, high-quality Activity Centres and Neighbourhood Centres offering a range of retail, business, entertainment, community and tourist-related goods, services and employment. Strategies to achieve this objective include: • Reinforce the existing hierarchy of retail and commercial centres in Banyule by allowing the development of existing centres to provide an improved and competitive level of service wherever this is supportable in terms of market (resident) demand and commercial viability. •

Define a primary retail core for each major centre and discourage the establishment of non-retail uses at ground-floor level.

•

Enhance Banyule’s identified tourist assets.

•

Encourage leisure and entertainment facilities in association with key Activity Centres and Neighbourhood Centres, in particular, the provision of a regional aquatic and leisure centre within the Greensborough Activity Centre. ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 27 JUNE 2016 Page 127

Attachment 1

Clause 15.02-1 seeks to encourage energy and resource efficiency.

4.3

Item: 4.3

Attachment 1: Planning Policy

Consolidation of commercial uses

Attachment 1

To consolidate and enhance of the existing role of commercial centres in the municipality. Strategies to achieve this objective include: • Reinforce the regional status of Greensborough Activity Centre as the main shopping, business and entertainment centre, serving the north-east region of outer metropolitan Melbourne. •

Encourage businesses to fully utilise existing office space.

•

Encourage larger-scale office development to locate in nominated areas within the Greensborough, Heidelberg and Ivanhoe Activity Centres.

•

Facilitate projects that will support business growth, employment and service delivery.

•

Encourage smaller office development in centres in such a way that retail roles are not fragmented.

Commercial uses outside of Activity Centres To provide appropriate opportunities for business activities outside Activity Centres. Strategies to achieve this objective include: • Encourage tourism-related businesses based on Banyule’s competitive strengths. •

Protect residential areas from unsuitable intrusions of non-residential uses that may have a detrimental impact on residential amenity.

•

Encourage residents to work from home where the amenity of the neighbourhood will not be adversely affected.

•

Identify large main road sites that may offer opportunities for new, regional retail functions which cannot be accommodated easily or economically in existing centres.

•

Investigate alternative use or redevelopment of commercial centres which no longer perform a viable retail or service function.

•

Encourage the transition of small, unviable shopping centres to non-retail uses – including office, service business and residential uses – where appropriate.

Built environment The three main objectives of clause 2.06 relevant to the assessment of this application are outlined below: Safe, attractive and high quality built environment To provide a safe, attractive and high-quality built environment. Strategies to achieve this objective include: •

Encourage uniform signage and shop frontage, particularly within strip shopping centres.

•

Encourage high standards of design for buildings, works, signage and landscaping.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 27 JUNE 2016 Page 128

•

…

•

Encourage the viability and enhancing the local character of strip shopping centres.

•

Encourage high quality architecture and urban design.

•

Encourage development to have active frontages and direct pedestrian access to abutting parklands.

•

Ensure that off-site stormwater discharges are controlled.

•

Ensure that off-site waste water discharges are eliminated.

•

Ensure that flood risk and fire hazard are considered in relation to land use and development.

Character and identity To ensure that development respects and contributes to the desired future character of residential neighbourhoods and the identity of Activity Centres and Neighbourhood Centres, in a manner that supports varying degrees of housing change. Strategies to achieve this objective include: •

Work towards undergrounding all telecommunication and electric cables.

•

Encourage residents to care for street trees in consultation with Council.

•

…

•

Encourage the retention and planting of significant trees, substantial trees and other vegetation to protect and improve the landscape character, streetscapes, habitat links and biodiversity of the area.

•

Support the removal of environmental weeds with replacement planting that is consistent with the landscape character of the area.

•

…

Sustainable design To encourage a built form that delivers more environmentally sustainable construction. Strategies to achieve this objective include: •

Encourage energy and resource efficiency, sustainable transport, pollution reduction, waste management, and improved stormwater quality for building design and site layout, building, infrastructure and landscaping.

•

Minimise the potential impacts of water, air and noise pollution on Banyule’s environment.

•

…

•

Support the retention of significant trees and the planting of trees and other vegetation.

•

Encourage environmentally sustainable design principles in new buildings, works and refurbishments.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 27 JUNE 2016 Page 129

4.3

Attachment 1: Planning Policy

Attachment 1

Item: 4.3

4.3

Item: 4.3 •

Attachment 1: Planning Policy Encourage tree protection and the planting of trees in locations that help to minimise the urban heat island effect by providing shade and shelter for dwellings and public spaces.

Environmentally Sustainable Design

Attachment 1

The overarching objective is that development should achieve best practice in environmentally sustainable development from the design stage through to construction and operation. In the context of this policy best practice is defined as a combination of commercially proven techniques, methodologies and systems, appropriate to the scale of development and site specific opportunities and constraints, which are demonstrated and locally available and have already led to optimum ESD outcomes. Best practice in the built environment encompasses the full life of the build. It is a policy to encourage innovative technology, design and processes in all development, which positively influence the sustainability of buildings. The following objectives should be satisfied where applicable: Energy performance •

To improve the efficient use of energy, by ensuring development demonstrates design potential for ESD iniatives at the planning stage.

•

To reduce total operating greenhouse gas emissions.

•

To reduce energy peak demand through particular design measures (eg. appropriate building orientation, shading to glazed surfaces, optimise glazing to exposed surfaces, space allocation for solar panels and external heating and cooling systems).

Water resources •

To improve water efficiency.

•

To reduce total operating potable water use.

•

To encourage the collection and reuse of stormwater.

•

To encourage the appropriate use of alternative water sources (eg. greywater).

Indoor Environment Quality •

To achieve a healthy indoor environment quality for the wellbeing of building occupants, including the provision of fresh air intake, cross ventilation, and natural daylight.

•

To achieve thermal comfort levels with minimised need for mechanical heating, ventilation and cooling.

•

To reduce indoor air pollutants by encouraging use of materials with low toxic chemicals.

•

To reduce reliance on mechanical heating, ventilation, cooling and lighting systems.

•

To minimise noise levels and noise transfer within and between buildings and associated external areas.

Stormwater Management •

To reduce the impact of stormwater run-off.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 27 JUNE 2016 Page 130

Attachment 1: Planning Policy

•

To improve the water quality of stormwater run-off.

•

To achieve best practice stormwater quality outcomes.

•

To incorporate the use of water sensitive urban design, including stormwater reuse.

4.3

Item: 4.3

•

To ensure that the built environment is designed to promote the use of walking, cycling and public transport, in that order.

•

To minimise car dependency.

•

To promote the use of low emissions vehicle technologies and supporting infrastructure.

Waste management •

To promote waste avoidance, reuse and recycling during the design, construction and operation stages of development.

•

To ensure durability and long term reusability of building materials.

•

To ensure sufficient space is allocated for future change in waste management needs, including (where possible) composting and green waste facilities.

Urban Ecology •

To protect and enhance biodiversity within the municipality.

•

To provide environmentally sustainable landscapes and natural habitats, and minimise the urban heat island effect.

•

To encourage the retention of significant trees.

•

To encourage the planting of indigenous vegetation.

•

To encourage the provision of space for productive gardens, particularly in larger residential developments.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 27 JUNE 2016 Page 131

Attachment 1

Transport

Attachment 2: Rosanna Library car park and footpath remodelling concept plan

Attachment 2

4.3

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 27 JUNE 2016 Page 132

4.3

Attachment 3: Plans

Attachment 3

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 27 JUNE 2016 Page 133

Attachment 3

4.3

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 27 JUNE 2016 Page 134

Attachment 3: Plans

4.3

Attachment 3: Plans

Attachment 3

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 27 JUNE 2016 Page 135

Attachment 3

4.3

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 27 JUNE 2016 Page 136

Attachment 3: Plans

4.3

Attachment 3: Plans

Attachment 3

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 27 JUNE 2016 Page 137

Attachment 3

4.3

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 27 JUNE 2016 Page 138

Attachment 3: Plans

4.3

Attachment 3: Plans

Attachment 3

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 27 JUNE 2016 Page 139

Attachment 3

4.3

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 27 JUNE 2016 Page 140

Attachment 3: Plans

4.3

Attachment 3: Plans

Attachment 3

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 27 JUNE 2016 Page 141

Attachment 3

4.3

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 27 JUNE 2016 Page 142

Attachment 3: Plans

4.3

Attachment 3: Plans

Attachment 3

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 27 JUNE 2016 Page 143

Attachment 3

4.3

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 27 JUNE 2016 Page 144

Attachment 3: Plans

4.3

Attachment 3: Plans

Attachment 3

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 27 JUNE 2016 Page 145

Attachment 3

4.3

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 27 JUNE 2016 Page 146

Attachment 3: Plans

4.3

Attachment 3: Plans

Attachment 3

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 27 JUNE 2016 Page 147

Attachment 1: Attachment 1 - Background information

29 Howard Street GREENSBOROUGH & 2-6 Stubley Court GREENSBOROUGH

Attachment 1

PROPOSAL IN DETAIL

4.4

Item: 4.4

Attachment 1

The proposal incorporates the removal of 30 trees to facilitate the construction of a car park on each property. Details of existing vegetation on the land is as follows:

Tree #

Species

Stubley Court 1 Brachychiton acerifolius 2 Betula pendula 3 Quercus palustris 4 Lagerstroemia indica 5 Fraxinus excelsior 'Aurea' 6 Quercus palustris 7 Pittosporum undulatum 8 Eucalyptus bicostata 9 Ailanthus altissima 10 Corymbia maculata 11 Eucalyptus camaldulensis 12 Eucalyptus camaldulensis 13 Ailanthus altissima 14 Corymbia maculata 15 Grevillia robusta 16 Magnolia grandiflora 17 Nerium oleander 18 Nerium oleander 19 Ailanthus altissima 20 Ailanthus altissima Howard Street 21 Fraxinus angustifolia ssp. angustifolia 22 Fraxinus angustifolia ssp. angustifolia 23 Callistemon sp. 24 Callistemon sp. 25 Callistemon sp. 26 Callistemon sp. 27 Callistemon sp. 28 Acer palmatum

Common Name Illawarra Flame Tree Silver Birch Pin Oak Crape Myrtle Golden Ash Pin Oak Sweet Pittosporum Eurabbie Tree of Heaven Spotted Gum River Red Gum River Red Gum Tree of Heaven Spotted Gum Silky Oak Bull Bay Oleander Oleander Tree of Heaven Tree of Heaven

Height Spread DBH (m) (m) (cm) 8 10 15 5 10 14 9 16 10 16 12 12 12 17 15 6 4 5 7 16

3 5 12 3 14 14 9 16 8 8 4 8 12 10 10 5 2 3 8 13

Desert Ash

Desert Ash Bottlebrush Bottlebrush Bottlebrush Bottlebrush Bottlebrush Japanese Maple

Retention Rating

SRZ (m)

TPZ (m)

23 28 50 20 50 60 45 110 38 40 40 49 32 70 58 17 20 30 30 50

Low Remove High Remove Low High Remove (weed) High Remove (weed) High Poor Poor Remove (weed) High Medium Low Street tree Street tree Remove (weed) Remove (weed)

1.8 1.9 2.5 1.7 2.5 2.7 2.4 3.4 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.1 2.8 2.6 1.6 1.7 2.0 2.0 2.5

2.8 3.4 6.0 2.4 6.0 7.2 5.4 13.2 4.6 4.8 4.8 5.9 3.8 8.4 7.0 2.0 2.4 3.6 3.6 6.0

Street tree

2.0

3.7

Street tree

2.3

4.8

5 5 6 6 6 4

3 2 3 3 2 4

15 15 15 15 20 10

Low Low Low Low Low Low

1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.5

2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.4 2.0

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 27 JUNE 2016 Page 149

Attachment 1: Attachment 1 - Background information

Attachment 1

4.4

Item: 4.4

29 30 31 32 33

Callistemon sp. Callistemon sp. Callistemon sp. Lophostemon confertus Lophostemon confertus

Bottlebrush Bottlebrush Bottlebrush Brush Box Brush Box

6 5 5 9 6

4 3 6 5 4

25 20 20 33 24

Low Low Low Medium Low

1.8 1.7 1.7 2.1 1.8

3.0 2.4 2.4 4.0 2.9

Trees 3, 5, 6, 8, 10-15 and 20 are protected by the Vegetation protection Overlay which affects 2-6 Stubley Court. The proposal incorporates the removal of all but Trees 2, 13 and 14 from the Stubley Court properties and all vegetation from the Howard Street property. PLANNING CONTROLS IN DETAIL ACTIVITY CENTRE ZONE SCHEDULE 1 The land use and development objectives to be achieved by the Zone include:

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 27 JUNE 2016 Page 150

Attachment 1: Attachment 1 - Background information

Landscaping •

To create a greener Greensborough by providing landscaped spaces, plazas and other open spaces within and around the Activity Centre.

•

To ensure landscaping is integrated with the design of the development and complements the landscaping of any adjoining public realm.

•

To ensure development is well landscaped, including canopy trees where possible.

4.4

Item: 4.4

•

To promote a safe, convenient and sustainable traffic and transport network that assists walking, cycling and public transport use and maximises mobility for all.

•

To ensure the design of parking and access areas is safe, practical, easily maintained and allows for use of car parking space for multiple purposes.

•

To design any car parking within the centre to facilitate its use for multiple purposes throughout the week.

•

To improve directional signage and way finding measures for users of the activity centre.

•

To ensure key community nodes and Key Pedestrian Areas have good access to sunlight, weather protection and clear pathways which link elements throughout the activity centre.

Whilst a planning permit would ordinarily be required to use the land for a Car Park, Clause 4.1 to Schedule 1 of the Activity Centre Zone provides that “A permit is not required to use land for the purpose of Local Government providing the use is carried out by, or on behalf of, the public land manager.” The use of the land for a car park in association with the Activity Centre is consistent with the role of Local Government as outlined by the Local Government Act 1989, and with the objectives of the Zone. No planning permit is required for works associated with the car park pursuant to the Zone, as the development is to be conducted by Council and the cost of works is less than $1 million. VEGETATION PROTECTION OVERLAY A planning permit is required to remove, lop or destroy trees on the Studley Court properties which have a height of 12m or more and a trunk circumference of more than 400mm. A planning permit is required for the proposed removal of Trees 3, 5, 6, 8, 10-12, 15 and 20. REFERRAL COMMENTS DEVELOPMENT PLANNING ARBORIST Council’s Development Planning Arborist has advised that, of the trees of high retention value that are nominated for removal, Tree 3 is the most appropriate to retain, given existing site conditions and its ability to withstand the proposed construction.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 27 JUNE 2016 Page 151

Attachment 1

Transport and access

Attachment 2

4.4

Item: 4.4

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 27 JUNE 2016 Page 152

Attachment 2: Attachment 2 - Advertised plans

4.4

Attachment 2: Attachment 2 - Advertised plans

Attachment 2

Item: 4.4

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 27 JUNE 2016 Page 153

Attachment 2

4.4

Item: 4.4

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 27 JUNE 2016 Page 154

Attachment 2: Attachment 2 - Advertised plans

4.4

Attachment 2: Attachment 2 - Advertised plans

Attachment 2

Item: 4.4

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 27 JUNE 2016 Page 155

Attachment 2

4.4

Item: 4.4

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 27 JUNE 2016 Page 156

Attachment 2: Attachment 2 - Advertised plans

4.5

Attachment 1: Draft Banyule Surveillance Policy

Surveillance in Public Places POLICY Banyule City Council

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 27 JUNE 2016 Page 159

Attachment 1

Item: 4.5

4.5

Item: 4.5

Attachment 1: Draft Banyule Surveillance Policy

Contents DEFINITIONS 1

Policy Definitions ................................................................................................. 3

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES.................................................. 3

Attachment 1

2 3

Purpose ................................................................................................................. 3 Objectives ............................................................................................................. 4

SCOPE ...................................................................................... 4 4

Scope of Policy..................................................................................................... 4

POLICY ..................................................................................... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Network Principles ............................................................................................... 4 Decision to Implement surveillance systems .................................................. 5 Documentation of Management Systems.......................................................... 6 Requests for Digital Images / Footage............................................................... 7 Standard Operating Procedures and Training ................................................. 7 Signage ................................................................................................................. 8 Collection of Surveillence Data .......................................................................... 8 Privacy................................................................................................................... 8 Inappropriate Use and Complaint Management................................................ 8 Governance Evaluation and Monitoring ............................................................ 9

RELATED DOCUMENTS .......................................................... 9 15 16 17

Council Documents ............................................................................................. 9 Legislation ..........................................................................................................10 Other Reference Material...................................................................................11

RESPONSIBILITY ....................................................................11 18

Responsible Officer ...........................................................................................11

REVIEW ...................................................................................11 19

Requirement to Review Policy..........................................................................11

APPENDIX 1 – Human Rights Charter – Assessment of Compatibility……………………….12

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 27 JUNE 2016 Page 160

DEFINITIONS Policy Definitions CCTV Surveillance records/footage Steering Committee System

Council Council Audit & Risk Committee

Department of Justice’s Guide FOI IPP Public place

Closed circuit television. Any information that is recorded or unrecorded that is taken from a surveillance system including any data, still images or moving images. The committee established by Council to oversee the operation of a system. A surveillance system in which a number of cameras are connected through a closed circuit. The footage taken by the cameras is sent to a television monitor or recorder. These systems consist of cameras, monitors, recorders, interconnecting hardware and support infrastructure. Banyule City Council The Council committee for the ongoing management of systems. A function of the committee will be to uphold the integrity of Council systems and ensure they operate within this policy Guide to Developing for Public Safety in Victoria, Department of Justice, August 2011 Freedom of Information (in reference to the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Vic)) Information Privacy Principles (from Schedule 1 of the Information Privacy Act 2000 (Vic)) Any place to which the public has access as of right or by invitation, whether expressed or implied and whether or not a charge is made for admission to the place. A public place relevant to Council can include, but is not limited to, public streets, public malls, shopping centres, Council car parks, open space parks or reserves; Council managed public buildings or areas.

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES 2

Purpose The purpose of this Policy is to assist Council to regulate the operation and management of Council-owned surveillance systems which have been (or which in the future may be) installed for use in public places. The Policy enables Council to fairly, appropriately and reasonably perform its functions and exercise its powers in connection with public place surveillance throughout the Banyule municipality. Amongst other relevant material, the Policy takes account of (and acknowledgement is given to) the Victorian Ombudsman’s Guidelines for developing Closed Circuit Television policies for Victorian Public Sector Bodies, November 2012. The Policy will be freely available to Council staff and the public generally by being included on Council’s Internet website and a hard copy can be provided on request. As well as being a general Policy document, the Policy includes the detail of Council’s audit and evaluation mechanisms and its complaint handling process. The Policy is intended to act as a code of practice for Council staff. Additionally, those members of Council staff working with Council systems will be expected to undertake their duties in accordance with the Policy.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 27 JUNE 2016 Page 161

Attachment 1

Attachment 1: Draft Banyule Surveillance Policy

4.5

Item: 4.5

4.5

Item: 4.5 3

Attachment 1: Draft Banyule Surveillance Policy

Objectives The objectives of this Policy are: • • • •

To ensure that systems are installed for a lawful and proper purpose that has the benefits of increasing safety and security for people in Banyule and/or allow for Council function use To ensure Council systems are compliant with relevant legislation and other laws; To ensure that management of records/footage is appropriate, including in relation to use, retention, security, privacy, access, disclosure, storage and disposal; and To ensure there is appropriate and ongoing monitoring and evaluation of systems

Attachment 1

SCOPE 4

Scope of Policy This policy applies to all Council-owned systems installed in public places that have the purpose of public surveillance. They will be located in general public areas or Council managed buildings. The Policy does not apply to surveillance systems used by Council where public access is restricted. The Policy does not apply where surveillance is for council operations for its own assets, such as Waste Truck operations and road and pathway condition reports. However, any incidental footage captured by this surveillance that is requested through a formal channel, e.g., Victoria Police, is included in the scope of this policy The Policy also does not apply to systems that are used by Council staff or its contractors for drainage inspections. POLICY

Network Principles Council surveillance systems will be operated and managed in accordance with the following principles: • • • • •

All aspects will be operated and managed with integrity and will be compliant with the all relevant legislation, standards, codes and guidelines as outlined in this Policy and otherwise in force from time to time; All aspects will be operated and managed with due regard to the privacy and respect for the human rights of individual members of the public; Monitoring and access to surveillance records/footage will be controlled and managed in accordance with operating procedures of each system; Each system will be regularly monitored and evaluated to ensure that the purposes and objectives of each system are being achieved; and The public will be provided with clear and easily accessible information in relation to existing unmanned surveillance systems, including processes to request or to view surveillance records/footage.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 27 JUNE 2016 Page 162

Decision to Implement surveillance systems Council will, in making decisions affected by this Policy, utilise and take into account all relevant material, including the Department of Justice’s CCTV Guide, in the development and implementation of a system. Any decision to implement a new (or retain an existing) Council-owned system will be assessed based on meeting the following categories: Purpose: •

To improve actual and perceived levels of safety;

•

To reduce levels of graffiti and other forms of vandalism;

•

To reduce anti-social behaviour e.g., the surveillance may have a preventative effect, or Council can use it to respond strategically to issues

•

To reduce incidents of serious criminal offences and/or

•

To reduce illegal behaviour such as rubbish dumping, or damage to Council property

•

To improve Council’s facility supervision

•

To monitor levels of activity at Council’s facilities

•

Contractor monitoring at Council’s facilities

Criteria: •

Council owned land, or

•

assess capacity for landowner to install where private property faces on to Council land;

•

Meets legislative requirements;

•

Meets cost benefit analysis;

•

Fits in with councils broader strategic objectives for that site;

•

Broader community safety and/or crime prevention initiatives are in place or planned for this site to complement

•

It benefits the broader community rather than individuals

•

Needs and priorities have been considered and compared to other sites in Banyule

Supporting evidence •

Expert advice

•

Qualified statistical data specific to the site and/or

•

Council requests through its Customer Records Management (CRM) system

Operating management responsibility •

The ownership is determined to be council

•

Where Police access and monitor data, a written agreement is put in place with Council and Victoria Police about roles and accessing footage, or where an external company access and monitor data, a licence agreement is in place.

The relevant use must be specifically stated for each system and such use must be in accordance with the IPP 1: Collection (Information Privacy Principles from Schedule 1 of the Privacy & Data Protection Act 2014. In accordance with IPP 2, any use for a purpose other ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 27 JUNE 2016 Page 163

Attachment 1

Attachment 1: Draft Banyule Surveillance Policy

4.5

Item: 4.5

4.5

Item: 4.5

Attachment 1: Draft Banyule Surveillance Policy

than the primary purpose must be precluded or limited to exceptional circumstances, as determined by Council and in accordance with the legislation. Council will consult with its community, the wider public and other relevant stakeholders prior to establishing a fixed surveillance system. The Victoria Police will be specifically consulted where the purpose of a surveillance system in a public place is to manage high crime locations and matters of public order or safety. Council will otherwise consult with such other stakeholders as required in relation to the performance of a particular function. This may include utility companies, private property owners and local traders. The use of mobile cameras will not be subject to external consultation however they will be installed with signage to inform the community that they are there.

Attachment 1

Council-owned systems will only be used as part of a range of strategies to improve community outcomes in that space, e.g., a public awareness campaign.

Documentation of Management Systems In most cases, Council systems in public places will be owned, installed and maintained by Council. The responsibility for the operation and monitoring of the system will typically be by the Victoria Police, a private contracting company or a nominated member of Council staff. Council owned with Victoria Police operating and monitoring Where Victoria Police have direct access to view or download footage for a Council owned system, Council and Police will have an agreement to share footage as required and where it complies with legislation Externally operated and monitored Where a Council system is operated and monitored by a private contracting company, Council will enter into a Licence Agreement (or similar type of agreement) that will cover the key considerations listed above. Council operated and monitored systems Where a Council system is operated and monitored by Council, Council will prepare a Standard Operating Procedures Manual for each system that will cover the following: •

Confirmation that it meets the requirements section 6 of this Policy “Decision to implement surveillance systems:

•

Camera locations including number of cameras within one system

•

Technical data including installation date, product specifications, manufacturers details, warranty information, technical drawings,

•

Hours of operation

•

purpose of system e.g. main function is Local Laws

•

Type of monitoring – active, passive or retrospective (determined by the purpose)

•

Maintenance – schedule, responsibility and budget

•

Authorised users: nominated positions for operation, extraction, viewing, storage and analysis of the data. Images/footage recorded is only able to be downloaded, viewed, copied and managed by the authorised officers.

•

Training for operators of the system

•

Data retention – recording should be kept for a minimum of 30 days and all retention schedules longer than this will be recorded here. Where a Freedom of Information (FOI) request is made prior to deletion of data, the data will be retained longer than the 30 days where possible, while waiting for a formal request/subpoena to arrive.

•

Data that is used for evidential purposes will be securely stored and password protected limiting access to approved and authorised officers only.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 27 JUNE 2016 Page 164

Attachment 1: Draft Banyule Surveillance Policy •

Incident response – this will detail the responsibilities of reporting incidents that are viewed on footage whether related to its main function or outside of main function, e.g. crimes recorded and viewed must be referred to police

4.5

Item: 4.5

Requests for Digital Images / Footage Banyule City Council is committed to ensuring the right to privacy of individuals is respected and honoured. This document is intended to ensure the privacy of individuals undertaking lawful activity is protected and to govern the manner in which data collected through the operation of this system is maintained.

•

An individual captured in the footage

•

An authorised Police member in relation to an offence or suspected offence

•

An external Enforcement agency where an exemption under the Information Privacy Act 2000 applies or a Court Order via Subpoena

Access to CCTV footage will only be considered for the above if one of the following authorised conditions is met: •

There is a foreseeable threat to Council property or staff (active viewing);

•

It is required as a preventative measure to dissuade or arrest anti-social or criminal behaviour (active viewing);

•

It is used to monitor and enhance delivery of a Council service. (active viewing);

•

Where damage to council property or injury to Council staff, visitors, members of the public has occurred (passive review of incidents);

•

Where evidence is required in which to investigate or prosecute a suspected or alleged crime (passive review); or

•

Where otherwise authorised by law, such as a Freedom of Information request (FOI) or Subpoena

The decision as to whether access to footage is approved under the above authorised conditions can only be made by a Council authorised officer. All other requests will require an application for a Freedom of Information (FOI) request. Information on FOI applications can be found on Council’s website or by calling Council on 9490 4222. Footage provided to an agency by Banyule City Council will be managed in accordance with relevant legislation and standards.

Standard Operating Procedures and Training When a new system is installed, Council will provide the operators of the system with the required training and support to accompany the Standard Operating Procedures Manual.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 27 JUNE 2016 Page 165

Attachment 1

Digital images/footage captured will only be made available to the following external parties:

Attachment 1

4.5

Item: 4.5 10

Attachment 1: Draft Banyule Surveillance Policy

Signage Council will advise the community by installing appropriate signage to indicate that they are in an area of a system where they may be observed or recorded. Signage will be placed so as to comply with relevant Australian Standards in force from time to time and will comply with the following requirements:

•

Signs will be placed at each main access to the coverage area where the members of the public are reasonably entitled to use and be monitored;

•

Signs will be prepared so as to be easily understood by members of the public, including people who are from non-English speaking backgrounds. Signs will include a mix of text and symbols;

•

Signs will be clearly visible, distinctive and located in areas with good lighting, placed within normal eye range and large enough so that any text can be read easily;

•

Signs will identify Council as the owner of the system;

•

Signs will include details of who to contact for any queries about the system; and

•

Signs will be checked regularly for damage and theft, and replaced where required.

Collection of Surveillance Data Council will ensure that its record keeping practices comply with the Public Records Office Standards for the management of public records, Public Records Office Specifications and the Public Records Act 1973 (Vic). In general, camera footage is temporary and may be destroyed when any relevant administrative use has concluded. Where footage has been provided to a third party (e.g. Victoria Police) it will be the third party’s responsibility to retain the records/footage in accordance with the disposal authority that covers their agency’s functional responsibilities.

Privacy Council will balance the need for surveillance against the right for privacy of members of the public. Council staff that use surveillance systems are required to act responsibly and consider the reasonable expectations of the privacy of individuals. All Council staff that use surveillance systems will undertake the training on privacy and understand the contents of this Policy, including the legislative requirements to ensure that the requirements of privacy are understood. Information gathered by Council as a result of a system will only be shared with its staff on a need to know basis and in line with Council’s Privacy Policy.

Inappropriate Use and Complaint Management Council staff who work with surveillance systems are to comply with the requirements of this Policy. Where a Council staff member is in breach of this Policy, there will be an internal review and appropriate action will be taken. Any public complaints in relation to any aspect of a system relating to Council must be made in writing to: Banyule City Council PO Box 51 Ivanhoe 3087 Or enquiries@banyule.vic.gov.au Any member of the public that is dissatisfied with the outcome of their complaint to Council also has the right to complain to the Victorian Ombudsman using the following contact details:

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 27 JUNE 2016 Page 166

Attachment 1: Draft Banyule Surveillance Policy

Victorian Ombudsman Level 9, 459 Collins Street (North Tower) Melbourne Victoria 3000 Email: ombudvic@ombudsman.vic.gov.au Phone: (03) 9613 6222

4.5

Item: 4.5

•

Representative of Victoria Police;

•

Officer in Charge for the Police station

•

Victoria Police Professional Standards Command; or

•

(Assuming jurisdiction) The Independent Broad-Based Anti-Corruption Commission.

Governance Evaluation and Monitoring Council will establish a Surveillance Policy Steering Committee that is chaired by a Council representative and will be responsible to oversee the implementation of this Policy and its ongoing management; The first rigorous evaluation of a new system will occur between 12 and 18 months following the full commissioning of the system.

The Surveillance Policy Steering Committee has the responsibility to uphold the integrity of Council surveillance systems. The Surveillance Policy Steering Committee will be responsible to: •

Report on the management of systems;

•

Ensure adherence to the Standard Operating Procedures and , Council policies and the law;

•

Promote public confidence in systems by ensuring its operations are transparent and subject to public scrutiny; and

•

Make recommendations to improve the integrity of systems.