Banyule City Council Agenda 4 April 2016 by Banyule City Council

Ordinary Meeting of Council Council Chambers, Service Centre 275 Upper Heidelberg Road, Ivanhoe 4 April 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 7 March 2016 Disclosure of Interests 1. Petitions 1.1 Sherwood Road, Eaglemont - Petition for the review of Paid Parking ...................................................................................................................3 1.2 Petition in relation to proposed amendments to Planning Permit P101/2014 for a performing Arts centre at Loyola College, 325 Grimshaw Street, Watsonia ....................................................................................6 REPORTS: 2. People – Community Strengthening and Support 2.1 Review Advocacy Approach to Bullying ..................................................................9 2.2 VetRide - Consideration of support .......................................................................15 3. Planet – Environmental Sustainability 3.1 Chandler Highway widening..................................................................................19

AGENDA (Cont’d) 4. Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment 4.1 Signing the International Charter for Walking........................................................23 4.2 North East Link - Quarterly Report ........................................................................26 4.3 Construct a second double storey dwelling adjacent to the existing dwelling at 5 Stone Court, Viewbank.....................................................................29 4.4 Amendment to Planning Permit P101/2014 for additional days and hours at Loyola College Performing Arts Centre, 325 Grimshaw Street, Watsonia ...................................................................................................37 4.5 Leith Walk, Macleod - Recieve submissions on proposed permanent road closure ........................................................................................48 4.6 Consent Order for Planning Application 6/67-75 The Mall, Heidelberg West (P194/2015)...............................................................................53 5. Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life 5.1 50th Anniversary of Long Tan ..............................................................................61 6. Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely 6.1 14-18 Livingstone Street, Ivanhoe - Proposed Sale of Land..................................65 6.2 Kindergartens - Proposed Leases.........................................................................72 6.3 Special Meeting for Councillor Code of Conduct Review .....................................77 6.4 One Flintoff Benefits Realisation ...........................................................................80 6.5 Assembly of Councillors .......................................................................................89 7. Sealing of Documents 7.1 Sealing of Documents 4 April 2016 .......................................................................93 8. Notices of Motion 8.1 Level Crossing Removal Consultation ..................................................................95 8.2 Defence Force School of Signals (DFSS) Exercising Freedom of Entry Ceremony to Banyule ..................................................................................96 8.3 Use of Ethical Paper .............................................................................................97 8.4 Olympic Village 60th Anniversary History Project..................................................98 9. General Business 10. Urgent Business Closure of Meeting to the Public That in accordance with Section 89(2) of the Local Government Act 1989, Council close the Meeting to members of the public and adjourn for five minutes to allow the public to leave the Chamber prior to considering the following confidential matters: 11. Confidential Matters 11.1 Contractual Matters 11.2 Contractual Matters Matters Discussed in Camera That all confidential matters and reports related to the above items remain confidential unless otherwise specified. Closure of Meeting

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 2

1.1

SHERWOOD ROAD, EAGLEMONT - PETITION FOR THE REVIEW OF PAID PARKING

Author:

Sanjev Sivananthanayagam - Transport Engineer, City Development

Ward:

Griffin

File:

D16/52504

Previous Items Council on 22 June 2015 (Item 6.5 - Additional Paid Parking Locations) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A petition with 65 signatures has been received from residents of Eaglemont and Ivanhoe, requesting the review of the need for the paid parking system introduced in Sherwood Road, Eaglemont, in February 2016. The petition prayer is as follows: “We, the undersigned, as local ratepayers, would like to request that Council review the need for, and cancel, the planned introduction of Paid Parking [from the unrestricted parking currently in place] for the13 car spaces adjacent to the Eaglemont Railway Station. The following reasons are offered in support of this position: •

•

The Paid Parking is understood to be a Council Initiative passed at the ordinary Council Meeting of 22 June 2015. which was not accompanied by any Resident Consultation either before or after the Council Meeting. The first some of the local residents became aware of the proposal was in a Council letter to “the Occupier –Sherwood Road”, dated 8 January 2016, others, only recently, when they noticed small signs positioned on tall steel poles. From past experience on Studley Road, the most likely result of introducing Paid Parking [or even just parking restrictions] at those 13 parking spaces will be for the 13 cars to seek parking on Studley Road which is the nearest unrestricted parking location. There is Insufficient available parking on Studley Road in the neighbourhood of the pathway between #54 and #56 Studley Road to absorb 13 additional cars from the Park and Ride group understood to be using those parking spaces on Sherwood Road. This will result in increased congestion in Studley Road and underutilized[sic] spaces on Sherwood Road.”

It is considered appropriate that a parking investigation be undertaken in six months to assess the parking occupancy rates for Sherwood Road and Studley Road, and determine whether modifications to the parking arrangements are necessary.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 3

1.1

Petitions

1.1

Petitions

SHERWOOD ROAD, EAGLEMONT - PETITION FOR THE REVIEW OF PAID PARKING cont’d RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1.

Receive and note the petition.

In six months, investigate the parking levels in Sherwood Road, Eaglemont, and Studley Road, Ivanhoe, and determine whether modifications to the parking arrangements in the area are appropriate.

A further report be presented to Council on the outcome of the parking investigation in the area.

Advise the primary petitioner accordingly.

BACKGROUND Council at its meeting on 22 June 2015 considered a report in relation to additional paid parking locations. At the meeting it was resolved in part: “That Council: 10.

Installs a paid parking system to operate weekdays between 8am and 5pm on the south-east side of Sherwood Road, Eaglemont, between Thoresby Grove and Studley Road. Initial parking fees to be $1 per hour, up to $5 per day, to be managed in accordance to Council’s Rates and Charges.”

Accordingly, a paid parking system was installed in February 2016. DISCUSSION The section of Studley Road to which the petition refers and the new paid parking area in Sherwood Road are shown in Figure 1.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 4

Petitions

1.1

SHERWOOD ROAD, EAGLEMONT - PETITION FOR THE REVIEW OF PAID PARKING cont’d

Figure 1 – Locality Plan All 65 petitioners are residents of Banyule and the breakdown of the streets where they reside is provided below. • • • •

40 from Studley Road 16 from Sherwood Road 7 from Carn Avenue 2 from Thoresby Grove

As experienced, with most of the locations where paid parking has been introduced in Banyule, the use of spaces increases over time. It is considered appropriate that a parking investigation be undertaken in six months to assess the use of the paid parking spaces in Sherwood Road, Eaglemont, and the occupancy rate in Studley Road, Ivanhoe, to determine whether modifications to the parking arrangements in the area are necessary.

ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 5

1.2

PETITION IN RELATION TO PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO PLANNING PERMIT P101/2014 FOR A PERFORMING ARTS CENTRE AT LOYOLA COLLEGE, 325 GRIMSHAW STREET, WATSONIA

Author:

Nick Helliwell - Major Developments Planner, City Development

Ward:

Grimshaw

File:

D16/52589

1.2

Petitions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A petition with 87 signatures has been received from residents located in the surrounding area to the south, east and west of the Loyola College School grounds. The petition prayer is as follows: “We, the undersigned, petition or request Council in its consideration of Loyola College’s application for amendments to Planning Permit P101/2014, to exclude from its consideration any and all information, however learned, from Loyola College’s online petition, which is, in any case, formally inadmissible under Council’s guidelines for petitions and joint letters. We further petition the Councillors to reject Items b) and d) of the Application for an Amendment, which seeks to amend Conditions 13 (a) and 14 of the above planning permit. Accordingly, we petition Council to base its consideration of Loyola College’s application on factual matters. These include but are not restricted to: 1.

Loyola College’s pre-existing knowledge that its “existing use right” did not extend to the use of the land for a Place of Assembly.

Loyola College did not appeal the Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit for the construction of the Performing Arts Centre (PAC).

Loyola College commenced construction of the PAC following the granting of the planning permit. (A reasonable interpretation of points 2 and 3 is that Loyola College had accepted the planning permit conditions.)

The amendments sought by Loyola College to Conditions 13 (a) and 14 of the Planning Permit would, if granted, allow almost unrestricted after hours use of the PAC – a potential level of use inconsistent with that of an Education Centre. What has changed in the period between the initial permit and the application for amendment to justify such a significant change?

Loyola College’s request to extend weekday after hours use to 11pm is not supported by the industry practice of professional performing arts companies. A review of current professional theatre, ballet and opera events in Melbourne found that none finish later than 10.40pm, with most finishing before or about 10pm.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 6

PETITION IN RELATION TO PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO PLANNING PERMIT P101/2014 FOR A PERFORMING ARTS CENTRE AT LOYOLA COLLEGE, 325 GRIMSHAW STREET, WATSONIA cont’d 6.

The permission to seek approval for additional, event-specific use of the PAC outside school hours is, in any case, available through Condition 13 of the current planning permit.

Increased “after hours” use of the PAC would exacerbate already unacceptable traffic problems in Bungay Street and other nearby streets – a matter that is not adequately covered by the current planning permit and which would require further community consultation. It would also result in a significant negative impact on the amenity of the residents living in these adjoining streets with frequent, late evening movements of PAC patrons.”

The petition requests Council to take the above comments into account in considering the application. RECOMMENDATION That: 1.

Council receives and notes the petition.

The concerns raised in the petition be considered as part of the assessment of the requested amendment to Planning Permit application (P101/2014).

The lead petitioner be advised of Council’s decision.

DISCUSSION The application to amend Planning Permit P101/2014 seeks to amend a number of conditions that were attached to the planning permit to limit the potential for adverse impact upon the neighbouring residential area, including traffic generation. These conditions included restricting the frequency of the use of the building and operating hours, restricting use of a public address system outside the building, limiting the use of the Performing Arts Centre and main School Hall at the same time and limiting the number of seats within the centre. The application is to be considered at an Ordinary Meeting of Council on 4 April 2016 as a separate agenda item.

ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 7

1.2

Petitions

2.1

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

REVIEW ADVOCACY APPROACH TO BULLYING

Author: Frances Gianinotti - Youth & Community Services Co-Ordinator, Community Programs File:

D16/52588

Previous Items Council on 7 March 2016 (Item 8.6 - Review Advocacy Approach to Bullying) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Bullying is generally defined as the repeated verbal, physical, social or psychological aggressive behaviour by a person or group directed towards a less powerful person or group that is intended to cause harm, distress or fear. There is well documented evidence and data in Australia and internationally that show the prevalence and impact of bullying on children and young people. 1.

2. 3.

Council receive a report on the 4 April 2016 regarding promotional opportunities to schools and the wider community in the documented affects associated with bullying. The report identifies locally produced documentaries based on the impacts of bullying in the community. Council receive advice on the best approach to advocate on the issues associated with bullying.

Bullying is a complex and multipronged issue and requires sensitive and diverse strategies accordingly. While bullying happens across the country every day, educators and parents are working together to do what they can to eliminate bullying both at home and school. This reports highlights work undertaken at a National, State and local level to address the issue of bullying and raise awareness and provide support. Schools are supported to develop strategies within their school communities. There are excellent resources available both online and in print through government departments, peak bodies, community based organisations and foundations for schools, individuals and parents on how to deal with bullying. Many programs have also been created locally to tackle the problem. Banyule also delivers a range of initiatives that directly and indirectly address the issues associated with bullying. These will continue to be reviewed and further developed through evaluation and continuous improvement. RECOMMENDATION That Council note the information contained in this report and continue to support initiatives that raise the awareness of bullying in the community.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 9

2.1

People – Community Strengthening and Support

REVIEW ADVOCACY APPROACH TO BULLYING cont’d OFFICER DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 (Act) requires members of Council staff, and persons engaged under contract to provide advice to Council, to disclose any direct or indirect interest in a matter to which the advice relates. Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter. CITY PLAN This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction to “develop and promote safety and resilience in our community”. BACKGROUND What is Bullying? Bullying is generally defined as the repeated verbal, physical, social or psychological aggressive behaviour by a person or group directed towards a less powerful person or group that is intended to cause harm, distress or fear. Bullying can be traumatising for the victim, affecting them emotionally, socially and psychologically as they are made to feel oppressed and powerless. Bullying can occur in school, the workplace, a sporting club, community organisation or online. A one-off dispute or incident may not be considered bullying behaviour and may resolve itself, however when these incidents become repetitive, they are likely to be classed as bullying and should be dealt with promptly. There is well documented evidence and data internationally and in Australia that shows the prevalence and impacts of bullying on children and young people. This report outlines responses the Council resolution on the 7 March 2016. Federal and State Policy Context: At both a National and State level, there is significant work being undertaken to address bullying. Both the Federal and Victorian Governments via their Education Departments have extensive policies in place on bullying and their respective curriculum frameworks provide extensive support and guidance for work in schools. Evidence suggests the best way for schools to address and prevent all forms of bullying is through a systematic whole of school approach which not only provides in-class education, but addresses the school culture, policies and procedures. The National Safe Schools Framework (NSSF) provides a vision and a set of guiding principles for safe, supportive and respectful school communities that promote student wellbeing. The NSSF contains guiding principles that represent fundamental beliefs about safe, supportive and respectful school communities. These guiding principles emphasise the importance of student safety and wellbeing as a prerequisite for effective learning in all school settings. VicHealth has developed “Don’t Be a Bully Bystander” under the NSSF which is a DVD and Print Resource for schools and is a practical classroom tool kit to help schools address bullying.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 10

REVIEW ADVOCACY APPROACH TO BULLYING cont’d In Victoria, all schools are required to develop a Bullying Prevention Policy. The Victorian Registration and Qualifications Authority (VRQA) require Victorian schools to have policies which provide students with a safe learning environment where the risk of harm is minimised and they feel physically and emotionally secure. Peak Bodies: An initiative of The Alannah and Madeline Foundation, the National Centre Against Bullying (NCAB) is a peak body working to advise and inform the Australian community on the issue of childhood bullying and the creation of safe schools and communities. Its work is driven by best-practice research and expert knowledge. There is a comprehensive range of resources and strategies / tools for support of individuals, teachers, parents and general community, via their web site. Likewise the Bullying No Way initiative, a coalition of educational providers nationwide offer a range of resources including fact sheets, strategies for bullying behaviour and videos to individuals, parents, schools and broader community. Other initiatives that also provide resources for schools and general community include Bully Zero Australia and Tune In - Not Out. Banyule – Local Response: Council delivers direct and indirect responses to bullying through a number of initiatives. Youth Services has a primary focus on the health and wellbeing of young people. Three service priorities have been identified as a result of the 2014 Banyule Youth Summit and other consultations with young people. They are: • • •

Relationships – including family, peer and social; Mental Health – including primarily, anxiety, depression and bullying; Equity – including gender issues, sexuality and cultural diversity.

A number of initiatives have been delivered to address these priorities including: •

Tackling Bullying - Community Forum - held in 2014 with 140 people in attendance.

•

Banyule Youth Summit – held in 2014 with 100 young people representing seventeen (17) schools. Eleven (11) key areas were identified and recommendations made to Council, including issues of bullying, self-image and mental health. In October 2015, young people presented a Report Card to Council on the actions taken to respond to the recommendations.

•

Council’s Youth web page - has links to a number of sites which have information on bullying and offer a range of videos, blogs, resources and strategies for children, young people, families, schools and broader community.

•

Queer Sphere Program – funded by State Government, promotes diversity and provides a safe and supportive space for LGBTIQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex, Queer) young people to come together and discuss issues that are important to them.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 11

2.1

People – Community Strengthening and Support

2.1

People – Community Strengthening and Support

REVIEW ADVOCACY APPROACH TO BULLYING cont’d •

A new Body Image and Social media presentation for young men in schools. In February 2016 seven (7) sessions were delivered to 180 Viewbank College students. Discussions have commenced with Bundoora Secondary College to deliver the modules to their students in the coming months.

An important new addition to the local youth services sector is HeadSpace in Greensborough. HeadSpace is an early intervention mental health service for young people aged between 12 and 25. Based on other Headspace experiences it is anticipated that bullying will be a common presenting issue. This service will be fully operational from middle of April 2016. Locally produced documentaries based on the impacts of bullying in the community: There are a range of online resources available, including blogs, videos about individuals’ stories and documentaries. Of particular note is the Tune In Tune Out web site www.tuneintuneout.com which contains many stories about bullying developed by young people. Banyule’s Youth Services team produced a video on cyber safety in 2015. This can be viewed through the youth webpage www.banyuleyouth.com. “The Story of Jack” produced by Vita Catalano, a local parent, is a 15 minute video on the life of a boy who is affected by bullying. The film is about Jack who is severely bullied from a young age through to his teenage years. The story focuses directly upon how the actions of those around him impact upon his life and aims to give a moral perspective on the effects and implications that bullying causes in society through one boy’s account. The primary purpose of the film is to act as an educational medium for teachers and community to expand knowledge and awareness of students on the implications of behaviours and attitudes toward bullying. The video presents a bleak outcome at the end for Jack. Whilst this is unfortunately a real outcome for some, it is important that a video so confronting be shown to young people with great care. Best practice directs that this type of messaging should be well supported, delivered with caution and should include significant lead in and post viewing work, including opportunities for discussions and offering supplementary resources. Bullying is a complex and multipronged issue and requires sensitive and diverse strategies. “The Story of Jack” has a link on Council’s youth web page. In addition, Vita Catalano participated on the Panel discussion as part of Council’s Bullying Forum in 2014. Vita is also profiled on Banyule 100 www.banyule100.com in recognition of her promotion of bullying issues.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 12

REVIEW ADVOCACY APPROACH TO BULLYING cont’d Council’s role in future advocating the issue of bullying: Council has a number of initiatives in place that directly and indirectly tackle the issue of bullying. They will continue to be reviewed and further developed as a result of evaluation and continuous improvement. •

Body Image and Social Media presentation for young men in schools which built on the success of the young women’s program and in response to an identified service gap for young males.

•

The 2016 Youth Summit to be held on the 6th May has already commenced work within secondary schools to identify key issues for discussion. Mental health including anxiety, depression and bullying feature highly. The recommendations from the Youth Summit will drive the next 12 months work of Youth Services.

•

Continued promotion of information, resources and support via the Youth Web page will be maintained and supported by regular and current updates.

•

Individual support of young people is also an important service. In 2014/15, Youth Services delivered 128 short-term face to face individual sessional support episodes to young people, an increase of 7% from previous year.

•

It is proposed that two key Plans will be developed during 2016/17 – a four year Youth Services Strategic Plan and a four year Safer Banyule Plan. Both will be presented for Council consideration and endorsement. Both are significant pieces of work and it is expected that issues around bullying, both directly and indirectly, will be identified and appropriate responses developed.

•

Work in schools by Youth Services is ongoing. Current packages available to schools include Respectful Relationships, Body Image and Social Media and Safe Partying. All can and do relate to issues of mental health – specifically peer pressure and bullying.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 13

2.1

People – Community Strengthening and Support

2.1

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

REVIEW ADVOCACY APPROACH TO BULLYING contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d CONCLUSION There is well documented evidence and data internationally and in Australia that shows the prevalence and impact of bullying on children and young people. At both a National and State level, there is significant work being undertaken to address bullying. Schools are heavily supported to develop strategies within their school communities. There are excellent resources available online and in print through government departments, peak bodies, community based organisations and foundations for schools, individuals and parents on how to deal with bullying. Bullying is a complex and multipronged issue and requires sensitive and diverse strategies. While bullying happens across the country every day, educators and parents are working together to do what they can to eliminate bullying both at home and school. Banyule delivers a range of initiatives that directly and indirectly address the issues associated with bullying. These will continue to be reviewed and further developed as a result of evaluation and continuous improvement.

ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 14

2.2

VETRIDE - CONSIDERATION OF SUPPORT

Author:

Marc Giglio - Director, Corporate Services

File:

D16/52609

2.2

People – Community Strengthening and Support

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Council on 7 March resolved to acknowledge its support for the VetRide and the work it does in looking after the welfare of Vietnam Veterans. A report is presented on the consideration of a donation towards the Service and the Sacrifice Tour 2016. Banyule administers requests for grants and donations through its grants program. This request for a donation is outside of the grant rounds. Council needs to determine whether or not to allocate the funds. RECOMMENDATION That Council determine to allocate $5,000 towards the Sacrifice Tour 2016, the funds be allocated from the current budget. 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 “promote and support health and wellbeing”. BACKGROUND Council at its meeting on 7 March resolved: “That: 1.

Council acknowledges its support for VetRide and the work it does in looking after the welfare of Vietnam Veterans and considers making a donation towards the Service and the Sacrifice Tour 2016.

A report be presented to Council on the possible allocation of $5,000 towards the Sacrifice Tour 2016.”

VetRide is an organisation dedicated through cycling, to the welfare of all service and ex-service personnel of the Australian Defence Forces. It provides something meaningful that older veterans can do for their younger compatriots, consistent with closely held values, given rise to in uniform.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 15

2.2

People – Community Strengthening and Support

VETRIDE - CONSIDERATION OF SUPPORT cont’d VetRide endeavours are supported widely by government agencies and by many organizations and people from all walks of life, in partnership with Victorian State Government who are supplying the major financial support for the event, to the Prime Minister who has provided a message of support and VetRide operates under the auspices of the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia (Victorian Branch). VetRide conducts an annual ride event, the Service and Sacrifice Tour being planned for 2016. It is an all points tour to Canberra, culminating in a final ride and ceremony in Canberra, on Sunday 20 March 2016. The Victorian ride commenced Sunday 13 March 2016 at Seymour and ended Sunday 20 March 2016 in Canberra ride via the War Memorial and the Vietnam Memorial to Old Parliament House, for the Ride Finish Ceremony. Preference is given to service and ex-service personnel, however, the event is open to any rider who would like to support the worthwhile cause. The report to Council should advise on the allocation of funds given that this donation is unbudgeted. 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 Banyule’s grant program includes: • • • • •

Environmental Sustainably grants Facility & resource Subsidy grants Community Development grants RSL Trust Fund grants and Sports Development grants

The grant program is generally open for a specific period and then closes. This request is outside the grant round. As donations are outside the scope of the grant programs, a Council resolution is required to consider the allocation of funds. Council receives many requests for donations from various groups, organisations and individuals.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 16

People – Community Strengthening and Support

2.2

VETRIDE - CONSIDERATION OF SUPPORT cont’d LEGAL CONSIDERATION The Local Government Regulations 2015 require certain documents to be made available to the public include, regulation 12(g) requires:

(g)

a list of donations and grants made by the Council in the previous 12 months, including the names of persons who, or bodies which, have received a donation or grant and the amount of each donation or grant.

FUNDING IMPLICATIONS The resolution requests the possible allocation of $5,000 towards the Sacrifice tour. This is an unbudgeted amount and the allocation, should Council resolve to allocate the funds from the current budget. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Council’s Policy is usually to apply such requests from its Grants Program. The grant program is generally open for a specific period and then closes. This request is outside the grant round. As donations are outside the scope of the grant programs, a Council resolution is required to consider the allocation of funds. Council receives many requests for donations from various groups, organisations and individuals. CONCLUSION Council at its meeting on 7 March 2016 acknowledged its support for VetRide and the work it does in looking after the welfare of Vietnam Veterans. The resolution called for a further Council report on the allocation of $5,000 towards the Service and the Sacrifice Tour 2016. Requests for donations are generally made via Councils grants programs. There are no current grant rounds and therefore a resolution of Council is required to enable Council to proceed with the donation.

ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 17

3.1

CHANDLER HIGHWAY WIDENING

Author:

Michelle Herbert - Senior Transport Engineer, City Development

File:

D16/52639

3.1

Planet – Environmental Sustainability

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The State Government made an announcement on 28 January 2016 that it will adopt VicRoads’ recommendation on widening Chandler Highway, Alphington which includes a new six lane bridge over the Yarra River on the west side of the existing bridge. Council has received letters from both Yarra City Council and Darebin City Council advising of their respective Council resolutions against the proposal. The scope of the project appears to be inconsistent with the objectives of the Transport Integration Act (2009) and Banyule’s Integrated Transport Plan, as such it is considered reasonable to request a review of the project scope and an investigation of the concerns raised by both the Yarra City Council and Darebin City Council. RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1.

Write to the Yarra City Council and Darebin City Council acknowledging their respective resolutions on the proposed widening of Chandler Highway, Alphington including the new six lane bridge over the Yarra River; and

Write to the Minister for Roads and Road Safety in relation to the six lane Chandler Highway proposal: a.

Identifying that it is inconsistent with the philosophy of the Banyule Integrated Transport Plan which looks to prioritise walking cycling and public transport over private cars and minimise any road widening in support of private cars; and

Seeking a review of the scope of the project with the concerns raised Yarra City Council and Darebin City Council being fully investigated and considered.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 19

3.1

Planet – Environmental Sustainability

CHANDLER HIGHWAY WIDENING cont’d 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 The State Government made an announcement on 28 January 2016 that it will adopt VicRoads’ recommendation on widening Chandler Highway. The recommendation includes a new six lane bridge on the west side of the existing bridge (Plan attached). Council has received letters from Yarra City Council and Darebin City Council outlining details of resolutions made on this topic (attached). Yarra City Council’s resolution (in part) is that it: •

•

Does not support the construction of a six lane Chandler Highway widening or a six lane bridge which will encourage traffic, resulting in increased levels of congestion and cause environmental damage and air pollution, amongst other detrimental impacts. Supports a road and bridge design that: o Primarily provides practical options for integrated public transport; and o Builds in future proofing design options for the construction of the Doncaster Rail. Notes that the decision appears to fail to adhere to the Transport Integration Act (2009).

Darebin City Council’s resolution (in part) is that it: • •

Calls on the Minister for Roads to release the business case for the project in the interests of transparency; and Once more, calls on the State Government to: o respond to the concerns of residents on the west side of the proposal and along Grange Road who would bear the brunt of the current “preferred option”, and o produce a new design which protects amenity of existing residents to the west, protects the Yarra Corridor habitat and environs, moves people rather than just vehicles across the Yarra River and provides genuine options for local commuters, in particular, the construction of the Doncaster Rail.

DISCUSSION The existing Chandler Highway Bridge provides for a single lane of traffic in each direction and connects to a surrounding arterial road network that is predominantly a four lane cross section. It is heavily congested during peak times and there is a need to widen the link at this location.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 20

Planet – Environmental Sustainability

3.1

CHANDLER HIGHWAY WIDENING cont’d However it is uncertain whether there is a need for a six lane cross section through this part of the network unless dedicated facilities (lanes and connections) are being planned for public transport in accordance with the objectives of the Transport Integration Act (2009). Consideration should be given to the movement of people and goods rather than individual vehicles, which includes buses travelling along the link and the potential for connections to a future Doncaster rail link. Banyule’s Integrated Transport Plan identifies a Road User Hierarchy that prioritises pedestrians, cyclists and public transport over private cars (action 45) and seeks to minimise the construction of new roads or widening of existing roads to provide for private cars (action 46) . Applying this philosophy to the Chandler Highway project is unlikely to result in a six lane configuration. As such a review of the project called for by the Yarra City Council and Darebin City Council is considered to be appropriate and worthwhile. CONCLUSION Council has received letters from the Yarra City Council and Darebin City Council outlining their recent resolutions on the proposed Chandler Highway widening. It appears that the proposal for a six lane configuration does not meet the objectives of the Transport Integration Act (2009) nor the philosophy of Council’s Integrated Transport Plan which looks to prioritise walking cycling and public transport over private cars and minimise any road widening in support of private cars. Accordingly it is appropriate to acknowledge the positions of both Yarra City Council and Darebin City Council, and to write to the Minister for Roads and Road Safety to review the project scope and consider the concerns raised by both Yarra City Council and Darebin City Council.

ATTACHMENTS No.

Title

Chandler Highway Duplication Plan

103

Yarra City Council Letter

104

Darebin City Council Letter

106

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page

Page 21

4.1

SIGNING THE INTERNATIONAL CHARTER FOR WALKING

Author:

Kathleen Petras - Transport Engineer, City Development

File:

D16/52641

4.1

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY One of the Banyule Integrated Transport Plan (BITP) objectives is to encourage walking for transport in Banyule. The importance of being active for health benefits is also an underlying principle behind the Banyule Recreation Plan and the Municipal Health and Wellbeing Action Plan. A key action of the BITP recommends that Council sign the International Charter for Walking. The charter identifies the needs of people on foot and provides a set of eight principles to help authorities create a culture where people choose to walk. These are to: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Increased inclusive mobility – ensuring safe and accessible walking infrastructure for all. Well designed and managed spaces and places for people – ensuring streets are designed for people not only cars. Improved integration of networks – connected walking routes and transport links. Supportive land-use and spatial planning – emphasis on walking access. Reduced road danger – slowing traffic and ensuring safe crossings. Less crime and fear of crime – ensure lighting of paths and unobscured visible walking routes. More supportive authorities – commit to a walking plan for the community. A culture of walking – encourage, support and celebrate walking in the community.

The Charter has been signed by municipalities globally. Local signatories include Melbourne, Monash, Manningham and Darebin Council’s. It is recommended that Council signs the International Charter for Walking. Signing the Charter will demonstrate Council’s acknowledgement of the importance of walking and increase walking awareness leading in to the planned development of a Banyule Principal Pedestrian Network and a Banyule Walking Strategy. RECOMMENDATION That Council signs the International Charter for Walking. OFFICER DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 (Act) requires members of Council staff, and persons engaged under contract to provide advice to Council, to disclose any direct or indirect interest in a matter to which the advice relates. Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 23

4.1

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

SIGNING THE INTERNATIONAL CHARTER FOR WALKING cont’d CITY PLAN This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key directions to “support sustainable transport” and to “promote and support health and wellbeing”. BACKGROUND One of the objectives of the Banyule Integrated Transport Plan (BITP) is to encourage the use of walking as a transport mode. The importance of walking and being active for health is also supported by the Banyule Recreation Plan and The Banyule Municipal Health and Wellbeing Action Plan. The commitment to signing the International Charter for Walking is action 18 of the BITP. Signing the charter will demonstrate Council’s acknowledgement of the importance of walking and the environmental and social benefits that walking can bring to the Banyule community. It will also support the development of a Banyule Walking Strategy and a Banyule Principal Pedestrian Network both of which are included in the BITP implementation plan. 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. DISCUSSION The International Charter for Walking (Attachment 1) identifies the needs of people on foot and provides a common framework to help authorities create a culture where people choose to walk. It has been in existence since October 2006 and has been signed by many local governments around the world. Locally signatories include Melbourne, Monash, Maribyrnong, Manningham and Darebin Councils. A group of eight mayors from Sydney have also signed the charter. The Charter outlines eight strategic principles and suggests actions that may improve the walking amenity of local communities. These are summarised below. The full action list is included in the attachment. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 24

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

6. 7. 8.

4.1

SIGNING THE INTERNATIONAL CHARTER FOR WALKING cont’d Less crime and fear of crime – ensure lighting of paths and unobscured visible walking routes. More supportive authorities – commit to a walking plan for the community. A culture of walking – encourage, support and celebrate walking in the community.

All of the above principles are supported and included in Council’s operations, e.g. the development of a walking plan is planned under action 15 of the BITP. CONCLUSION The City Plan, the Banyule Integrated Transport Plan and the Municipal Health and Wellbeing Plan all support the need for walking to be encouraged and provided for in Banyule. Signing the Charter will further demonstrate Council’s acknowledgement of the importance of walking and the environmental and social benefits that walking can bring to the Banyule community.

ATTACHMENTS No.

Title

International Charter for Walking

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 109

Page 25

4.2

NORTH EAST LINK - QUARTERLY REPORT

Author:

Bailey Byrnes - Transport Planning Team Leader, City Development

File:

D16/52611

Previous Items Council on 14 December 2015 (Item 4.7 - North East Link - Quarterly Report) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY There has been no indication by the State Government and VicRoads of any progress on planning for the proposed North East Link in the three months since last reported to Council. Infrastructure Australia has identified the North East Link as a priority initiative to reduce congestion and improve connections in the north east. RACV and the Victorian Transport Association are calling on the State Government to build the North East Link as a matter of urgent priority. RECOMMENDATION That Council note that the State Government and VicRoads have not progressed planning for the proposed North East Link. 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 “support sustainable transport”. BACKGROUND At its meeting on 14 December 2009, Council considered an initial report on the status of the proposed North East Link and an overview of relevant Council resolutions and positions on the link, regional transport, and associated heritage and environmental issues. Council resolved in part as follows: “That Council officers report to the Council every three months on the response from the Minister, VicRoads or other Government departments or agencies on progress in the planning of the North East link.”

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 26

4.2

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

NORTH EAST LINK - QUARTERLY REPORT cont’d In line with this resolution Council considered the most recent report on this matter on 14 December 2015, and resolved that Council: “1.

Note that the State Government and VicRoads have not progressed planning for the proposed North East Link and that Council continues to advocate for the North East Link as a direct orbital link between the Metropolitan Ring Road and Eastlink in line with the recently adopted Banyule Integrated Transport Plan 2015-2035.

Write to VicRoads requesting that any information about the outcomes of the truck curfew be made public as soon as the information is known.”

In accordance with Item 2 of the resolution, Council wrote to VicRoads in December 2015 to request that any information about the outcomes of the truck curfew be made public as soon as the information is available. DISCUSSION VicRoads has commenced collecting traffic data following the introduction of the night-time truck curfews and has indicated the information will be made publically available. In February 2016, Infrastructure Australia released the first Australian Infrastructure Plan (AIP), setting out infrastructure challenges and opportunities Australia faces over the next 15 years, and the solutions required. The AIP identifies the North East Link as a priority initiative, noting that the current arterial road connection between the Metropolitan Ring Road and the Eastern Freeway is congested and operating close to capacity. An excerpt of the AIP is provided as Attachment 1. Infrastructure Victoria (IV) has commenced development of a 30-year infrastructure strategy for the State. Consultation on the Strategy will occur in mid-2016 as work progresses towards the options phase of the strategy development. There will be an opportunity for Council to highlight the importance of and further advocate for the inclusion of the North East Link during this consultation period. RACV’s position on the North East Link as a priority road project has been reinforced, with a feature article in the February edition of the RACV’s Royal Auto detailing congestion issues in the north east, and the impact it has on residential amenity and the economy. An excerpt of the Royal Auto issues is provided as Attachment 2. RACV have also released a joint media release with the Victorian Transport Association (VTA), calling on the State Government to build the North East Link as a matter of urgent priority. Both bodies have highlighted the importance of the project in reducing congestion and improving freight connectivity between the north and the south-east of Melbourne. This was covered in detail in the 23 February 2016 release of the Heidelberg Leader and the 24 February release of the Diamond Valley Leader (Banyule edition).

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 27

4.2

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.2

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

NORTH EAST LINK - QUARTERLY REPORT cont’d There has also been a recent resolution of Council at its meeting of 7 March 2016 advocating for a direct orbital link between the Metropolitan Ring Road and EastLink as a priority project: “That Banyule Council strongly advocates for vital transport infrastructure improvements within Banyule and the wider North East of Melbourne with a focus on the following priorities: a)

Direct orbital connection of the Metropolitan Ring Road to Eastlink via a new north east link;…”

CONCLUSION The North East Link has been identified by Infrastructure Australia, RAV and the Victorian Transport Association as a priority project. However, there has been no further action from VicRoads or the State Government to progress the North East Link. Council will continue to advocate for the North East Link as a direct orbital link between the Metropolitan Ring Road to Eastlink.

ATTACHMENTS No.

Title

Australian Infrastructure Plan Excerpt - North East Link

117

RACV Royal Auto - February 2016 - North East Link Article

118

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page

Page 28

4.3

CONSTRUCT A SECOND DOUBLE STOREY DWELLING ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING DWELLING AT 5 STONE COURT, VIEWBANK

Author:

Amanda Opie - Development Planner, City Development

Ward:

Hawdon

File:

D16/52655

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report considers a planning permit application for a multi-unit development (new double storey dwelling adjacent the existing dwelling) at 5 Stone Court, Viewbank. It is considered that the proposal fails to address Council’s Residential Neighbourhood Character local policy and Clause 55 of the Banyule Planning Scheme with particular areas of concern being the proposed front setback, the design and built form of dwelling 2, the lack of opportunity to provide an open front setback with a garden setting and inadequate planting of large canopy trees throughout the site. There are also concerns with sense of address and vehicle manoeuvring. It is recommended that the application be refused. RECOMMENDATION That Council having complied with Section 52, 58, 60, 61 and 62 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, issue a Refusal to Grant a Planning Permit in respect of Application No. P670/2015 for Multi-unit development (new double storey dwelling adjacent the existing dwelling) at 5 Stone Court VIEWBANK on the following grounds. Street setback non compliance 1.

The proposed front setback does not respect the existing or preferred neighbourhood character in accordance with Standard B6 – Street setback of Clause 55 (ResCode) of the Banyule Planning Scheme.

Open space/landscaping 2.

Inadequate space has been provided throughout the development to provide canopy tree planting and landscaping to adequately soften views of the development from the street and neighbouring land and enhance the landscape character of the area contrary to Clauses 21.04-1 – Housing, 21.06 – Built Environment, 22.02 – Residential Neighbourhood Character Policy, and Standard B13 – Landscaping of Clause 55 (ResCode) of the Banyule Planning Scheme.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 29

4.3

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.3

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

CONSTRUCT A SECOND DOUBLE STOREY DWELLING ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING DWELLING AT 5 STONE COURT, VIEWBANK cont’d Siting, design and neighbouring residential amenity 3.

The siting and design of the proposed development will have an overbearing physical impact upon the neighbouring properties within Stone Court, and will have an adverse impact upon local residential amenity contrary to Clauses 15.01-1 – Urban Design and 21.04-1 – Housing of the Banyule Planning Scheme.

Mass, bulk, scale and neighbourhood character 4.

The mass, bulk and scale of the built form of the proposal is contrary to both the existing and preferred character of the neighbourhood, would erode the spacious and well landscaped character of the neighbourhood, and would have an adverse visual impact on the streetscape contrary to Clauses 15.01-1 – Urban Design, 21.04-1 – Housing, 22.02 - Residential Neighbourhood Character Policy and Standards B1 – Neighbourhood Character and B31 – Design detail of Clause 55 (ResCode) of the Banyule Planning Scheme.

Safety 5.

The entry of dwelling 2 does not address the ResCode Safety Clause 55.04 standard B12.

Access 6.

The proposed turning circle for dwelling’s 1 garage is inadequate in area for the efficient and safe movement of vehicles to enter/exit the garage as required by Clasue 52.06 Car Parking Provisions.

General 7.

The proposal is contrary to the order and proper planning of the area.

Planning Permit Application:

P670/2015

Development Planner:

Amanda Opie

Address:

5 Stone Court VIEWBANK

Proposal:

Multi-unit development – Construct a new double storey dwelling adjacent to the existing dwelling

Existing Use/Development:

Detached double storey dwelling

Applicant:

Elevation One Building Design Pty Ltd

Zoning:

General Residential Zone Schedule 2 (GRZ2)

Overlays:

Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule 5 (VPO5)

Notification (Advertising):

Yes - On-site notice and notices to owners and occupiers of surrounding properties

Objections Received:

Four

Ward:

Hawdon

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 30

CONSTRUCT A SECOND DOUBLE STOREY DWELLING ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING DWELLING AT 5 STONE COURT, VIEWBANK cont’d 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 Details of previous planning applications for the site are as follows: P919/2010 – Removal of vegetation permit was issued on 15/03/2011; this approval required the provision of 2 replacement trees similar in size to the large canopy tree removed. It would appear that the replacement trees have not been provided to date. PROPOSAL The proposal is for the construction of a second double storey dwelling adjacent to the existing two-storey dwelling, in a side by side arrangement. The site currently has two crossovers to the court bowl. It is proposed to use the western crossover to provide vehicle access for dwelling 1 (existing) and the eastern crossover to provide vehicle and access to dwelling 2 (proposed). The proposed dwelling 2 is of a modern contemporary design constructed of brickwork with a high pitched gable at the northern end presenting to the street, and the remaining roofline is flat hidden behind the parapet wall form. The ground level façade of the dwelling present with a double garage door and entry doorway, and a high pitched, glazed gable end on the upper level. As a result of the narrow 7.1m frontage to the street of dwelling 2, there are no active room windows in the façade to the street. The streetscape presentation will be of a double garage door, an entry door, and a 3.8m wide driveway with narrow garden beds either side of the driveway. The proposed dwelling has setback of 5.8m from the front boundary, the garage wall sits adjacent to the western boundary, a setback of 1.0m from the eastern boundary, and 3.0m from the rear boundary. The elevations show a continuous long building form for the length of the dwelling, with a maximum height of 7.1m to the gabled roofline, and a height at the rear of the dwelling of 6.7m above natural ground level. The proposed site coverage is 39.2% (including the pool area). SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA The subject site is an irregularly shaped residential lot located on the southern side of Stone Court, in the court bowl, approximately 40m west of the intersection with O’Donnell Street. Stone Court is a small court with 5 properties (including the subject site) facing onto the court. The existing dwelling has frontage to Stone Court with living area orientated towards the western side boundary to take advantage of distant views. The existing dwelling has 3 bedrooms and includes a basement, ground level and mezzanine level above.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 31

4.3

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.3

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

CONSTRUCT A SECOND DOUBLE STOREY DWELLING ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING DWELLING AT 5 STONE COURT, VIEWBANK cont’d A pool and pool house are located within the secluded open space of the existing dwelling. The site has a curved 13.72m frontage to the court and an average depth of 30.48m, with an overall site area of 1154sqm. There are no easements on the site. The topography of the land is undulating. The eastern portion of the subject site is the area where the second dwelling is proposed. This portion of the site has a frontage width of 7.1m, splaying out to a rear width of 11.6m, and an overall depth of 29.8m (with an area of approximately 279 square metres). This portion of the site falls approximately 1.5m from the proposed (internal) western boundary to the eastern side fence and approximately 2.1m from the north (front) to the south (rear). The site currently has two crossovers; this is unusual for a site with such a narrow frontage (curved 13.72m wide). It is proposed to utilise both crossovers for the multiunit development. Surrounding dwellings include 1960s and 1970s single and double storey brick dwellings with low pitched roofs and eaves within a garden setting. With the exception of the battle-axe style two dwelling development next door (7 Stone Court) development within the surrounding area are generally detached dwellings.

Figure 1 - Locality Plan

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION It was considered that the proposal may cause detriment to surrounding properties, and as such public notification was conducted by means of erecting a sign on the site and posting to the owners and occupiers of surrounding properties. To date four objections have been received. The grounds of objection are summarised below: • •

Lack of on-street parking within the court Excessive noise in a quiet court

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 32

CONSTRUCT A SECOND DOUBLE STOREY DWELLING ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING DWELLING AT 5 STONE COURT, VIEWBANK cont’d • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Loss of privacy Overshadowing Proposal not in keeping with the character of the surrounding area Limited opportunities for planting. Existing dwelling overlooks habitable room windows and secluded private open space of the property to the rear (6 Alec Court). Dwelling 2 roof top air-conditioner will cause excess noise for adjoining dwelling Inadequate turning circle for vehicles using existing dwelling’s garage Hazard created by the 1.5m cut between dwelling 1 (existing) and dwelling 2 (proposed) for vehicles using the site Damage to neighbouring trees Devalue adjoining properties Loss of amenity Concern about the proposed dwelling 2 being constructed on filled land (fill from pool excavation dumped on the location of proposed dwelling 2) Overdevelopment Proposed dwelling 2 fails to provide an appropriate entry to the court Impact of the structure integrity on adjoining retaining walls

REFERRAL COMMENTS ENGINEERING SERVICES Council’s Engineering Services Section has reviewed the proposal and raised concerns with the inadequate turning circle for dwelling 1’s (existing) garage. Insufficient space has been provided for vehicles to efficiently and safely enter/exit the existing tandem garage adjacent to the northern side boundary. No concerns were raised regarding access to the proposed garage of dwelling 2. Standard conditions relating to access, parking area and drainage requested should be included on any approval issued. DEVELOPMENT PLANNING ARBORIST Council’s Arborist has reviewed the proposed impact on vegetation. It is not proposed to remove any existing vegetation from the site. The proposed dwelling 2 will impact less than 10% on Tree Protection Zone of the neighbouring tree #3 – mature Spotted Gum and tree #4 – mature Silky Oak however it was noted that the impact of pruning the canopies of these trees will also need to be considered. Council’s Arborist has recommended a tree pruning assessment condition for tree #3 and #4 be placed on any approval issued. This condition would require the project arborist to determine the impact on these tree’s canopies prior to the commencement of works. The Australian Standard restricts removal of canopy to no greater than 15%. Other standard tree protection conditions are to be placed on any approval issued.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 33

4.3

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.3

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

CONSTRUCT A SECOND DOUBLE STOREY DWELLING ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING DWELLING AT 5 STONE COURT, VIEWBANK cont’d LANDSCAPE ADVISOR Council’s Landscape Advisor has reviewed the proposed landscape plan and raised the following concerns: • • •

existing vegetation within the front setback adjacent to the eastern boundary has not been nominated on the plan; additional screening vegetation and landscaping is required between dwelling 1 and the northern boundary to soften the building form of both properties and to address the interface with adjoining properties; and an additional tree should be planted within the secluded open space of dwelling 1.

Further, it is noted that there is inadequate space available to replace the vegetation removed under permit P919/2010, which required two canopy trees be provided on the site and which have not been planted to date, in breach of the conditions on the permit. PLANNING CONTROLS Table 1: Planning Controls Control General Residential Zone – Schedule 2 Vegetation Protection Overlay – Schedule 5 Car Parking ResCode

Clause 32.08 42.02 52.06 55

Permit Triggered Yes No Yes Yes

POLICIES CONSIDERED Relevant policies considered in the assessment of this proposal are outlined in Table 2 below: Table 2: Relevant Planning Scheme Policy Policy State Planning Policy Framework Settlement Built Environment and Heritage (including sub clauses) Housing (including sub clauses) Local Planning Policy Framework Land Use Built Environment (Incremental area) Local Places Residential Neighbourhood Character – Garden Court precinct 2 (south) Safer Design Policy

Clause 11 15 16 21.04 21.06 21.08 22.02 22.03

A complete assessment of the proposal against the relevant planning policy is detailed in Attachment 1 to this report. Attachment 2 includes a copy of the plans and elevations.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 34

CONSTRUCT A SECOND DOUBLE STOREY DWELLING ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING DWELLING AT 5 STONE COURT, VIEWBANK contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d TECHNICAL CONSIDERATION Poor Streetscape Presentation and Front Setback Outcome It is considered that the proposal fails to respond to the existing and preferred neighbourhood character and fails to provide appropriate opportunities for landscaping throughout site. The design, proportions and setbacks of the new dwelling is not in keeping with the surrounding 1960s and 1970s pattern of development and is not set within a landscape setting. The proposed front setback of dwelling 2 (5.382m) does not respond to the predominant setbacks within the court, which range from 6.8m to 10.6m. Due to the location of two crossovers and two driveways within the narrow frontage of the site (curved 13.72m) there is insufficient opportunity to provide an open landscaped front setback with canopy trees and shrubs which is characteristic of the court. Open Space/landscape The objective of the neighbourhood character local policy is to provide 1 medium to large tree for every 400sqm of the site, with at least one large tree within the front setback. The site area of 1124sqm requires the provision of two (2) trees. In addition, two (2) additional replacement trees are required under permit P919/2010 issued 15/03/2011 for the removal of a tree. The proposal is unable to accommodate the required tree planting, and of particular note is the lack of opportunity for planting a large canopy tree within the front setback as a result of the extent of driveway surfacing. While the proposed site coverage (39.2%) does meet the objective for maximum 40% site coverage as set down in the neighbourhood character local policy, there are limited opportunities for planting medium to large canopies trees on the site. This is as a result of the irregular configuration of the site and building layout, the location of the existing buildings and pool, the use of the two crossovers and the associated driveway areas, and the proposed footprint and design of dwelling 2. Siting, design and neighbourhood residential amenity The proposal does not comply with the neighbourhood character local policy which aims to minimise the loss of front garden space and reduce the dominance of vehicle access and parking within the front setback. The frontage of dwelling 2 will be dominated by a 3.8m crossover which leads directly to a double garage door. While the double garage provides the number of car spaces required by the scheme (Cl 52.06), it would be anticipated that the 5.382m front setback would be used for vehicle parking. This is further exacerbated by a second crossover and associated driveway being retained for dwelling 1. Mass, bulk and scale The existing 1960-1970s dwellings located within the court are single and double storey with low pitched roofs and eaves. The dwellings have established front gardens including canopy trees and shrubs.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 35

4.3

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

4.3

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

CONSTRUCT A SECOND DOUBLE STOREY DWELLING ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING DWELLING AT 5 STONE COURT, VIEWBANK cont’d The mass, bulk and scale of the proposed dwelling 2 will not be in keeping with the neighbourhood character of the court. The proposal has a high pitched roof, no eaves, minimal side setbacks and a reduced front setback. The site provides a lack of opportunity for canopy tree planting. In addition, the proposed cut (approximately 1.5m) between the ground level of dwelling 1 and dwelling 2 will further emphasise the narrow proportions of the dwelling 2 which is not in keeping with court setting. Safety The proposed entry to dwelling 2 does not provide for the safety of future residents of dwelling 2. The entry to dwelling 2’s opens onto a hallway with all habitable rooms located at the rear of the dwelling. There is no habitable room window to allow casual surveillance or visual interaction between the interior of the dwelling and the publicly accessible area of the site. Access The design and layout of the turning circle for dwelling 1’s tandem garage (located adjacent to the southern boundary) is inadequate in size to enable vehicles to efficiently and safely enter/exit the garage. The turning space is located between the existing tandem garage at the rear of the dwelling, and the proposed secluded open space of dwelling 2. The reversing area available is inadequate to enable a vehicle to manoeuvre and exit the site in a forward direction. Further, there is a fall of approximately 1.5m between these two areas, separated by a 1.8m paling fence. Given the turning area is inadequate to perform a three-point turn, there is likelihood that the separating fence will be breached. The likely result is that the level difference of a 1.5m fall from the driveway to the adjoining private open space is a vehicle exiting Dwelling 1 will fall into the private open space of dwelling 2, and the resultant and foreseeable safety hazard and implications cannot be supported. CONCLUSION The proposed development has not achieved an appropriate level of compliance with the relevant State and Local Planning Policies and has failed to adequately address key objectives of Council’s Residential Neighbourhood Character Policy and Clause 55 of the Banyule Planning Scheme as detailed in the attachment to this report. As such, the application should not be supported.

ATTACHMENTS No.

Title

5 Stone Court, Viewbank - P670/2015 - Planning Assessment

122

5 Stone Court, Viewbank - P670/2015 - Plans and elevations

133

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page

Page 36

4.4

AMENDMENT TO PLANNING PERMIT P101/2014 FOR ADDITIONAL DAYS AND HOURS AT LOYOLA COLLEGE PERFORMING ARTS CENTRE, 325 GRIMSHAW STREET, WATSONIA

Author:

Nick Helliwell - Major Developments Planner, City Development

Ward:

Grimshaw

File:

D16/52614

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Planning permission was granted on 20 January 2015 for a purpose built Performing Arts Centre and associated car parking and vegetation removal. A number of conditions were attached to the planning permit to limit the potential for adverse impact upon the neighbouring residential area, including traffic generation. These conditions included restricting the frequency of the use of the building and operating hours, restricting use of a public address system outside the building, limiting the use of the Performing Arts Centre and main School Hall at the same time and limiting the number of seats within the centre. The school are now seeking planning permission to vary these conditions. It is considered that the application should be supported in part as follows: • •

Support use of the Performing Arts Centre from 4pm to 11pm one evening a week from Monday to Friday Support minor amendments relating to public address systems and the number of seats available for patrons of the Performing Arts Centre

The proposed amendment to permit use of the Performing Arts Centre from Monday to Friday up to three nights a week until 11pm and permit use of the School Hall and Performing Arts Centre at the same time for a singular event are not supported. RECOMMENDATION That Council having complied with Section 52, 58, 60, 61 and 62 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit in respect of Application No. P101/2014 to Amend Planning Permit P101/2014 to vary operating hours and confirm the intent of permit conditions relating to use of a public address system, Saturday operating hours and the total number of seats available for the audience at the Performing Arts Centre at Loyola College, 325 Grimshaw Street, Watsonia, as follows: 1.

Replace existing Condition 11 to read: Except with the further consent of the Responsible Authority no form of public address system shall be used as part of the Performing Arts Centre building so as to be audible outside the building

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 37

4.4

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.4

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

AMENDMENT TO PLANNING PERMIT P101/2014 FOR ADDITIONAL DAYS AND HOURS AT LOYOLA COLLEGE PERFORMING ARTS CENTRE, 325 GRIMSHAW STREET, WATSONIA cont’d 2.

Amend Condition 13 to read: Except with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, the Performing Arts Centre permitted by this permit may only operate outside school hours ( 8am to 4pm) between the following times:

(a)

Monday to Friday

(b) (c)

Saturday Sundays

4pm-11pm up to one evening per weekday comprising 10pm for event finish, 10.30pm for patron/audience departure and 11pm building closed. 8.30am–12am up to two days a month. 9am-10pm up to two days a month.

Insert a new Condition 13 (d) to read The above restrictions do not apply to rehearsals, tutorials and teaching associated with school use.

Amend Condition 15 to read: The total number of seats available for patrons within the Performing Arts Centre premises (including outdoor seating) during performances must not exceed 500 except with the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

Planning Permit Application:

P101/2014

Development Planner:

Nick Helliwell

Address:

325 Grimshaw Street, Watsonia

Proposal:

Amend Planning Permit 101/2014 for Demolition of brick classroom buildings, buildings and works for the construction of a Performing Arts Centre, car parking and associated vegetation removal to:

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Amend Condition 11 to clarify that a public address system is not to be used on the premises as part of the Performing Arts Centre use

Amend Condition 13(a) to permit use of the Performing Arts Centre from 4pm to 11pm up to three evenings a week from Monday to Friday where the public may attend. This condition does not inhibit the school from providing after school practice, teaching or rehearsals in the facility any day of the week

Amend Condition 13(b) to correct a typographical error to permit use of the Performing Arts Centre from 8.30am to 12am up to two days a month on a Saturday

Page 38

AMENDMENT TO PLANNING PERMIT P101/2014 FOR ADDITIONAL DAYS AND HOURS AT LOYOLA COLLEGE PERFORMING ARTS CENTRE, 325 GRIMSHAW STREET, WATSONIA cont’d d)

Amend Condition 14 to clarify that use of the School Hall and Performing Arts Centre at the same time may not occur for separate individual and unconnected events

Amend Condition 15 to clarify that the total number of seats available for the audience within the Performing Arts Centre (including outdoor seating) must not exceed 500

Existing Use/Development:

The site is currently used by Loyola College as a Secondary School. The school has a steady student population of approximately 1,300 pupils through years 7 to 12

Applicant:

Clarke Hopkins Clarke

Zoning:

General Residential – Schedule 2

Overlays:

Environmental Significance – Schedule 4 Heritage – Schedule 29 Vegetation Protection – Schedule 2 Special Building – Schedule 2

Notification (Advertising):

Three site notices and letters to immediately abutting and opposite land owners/occupiers

Objections Received:

Nine (9)

Ward:

Grimshaw

PROPOSAL The proposal seeks to amend the existing permit conditions as follows: Permit condition

Current requirement

Requested amendment

Condition 11

No public address system on the premises to be audible outside the building

Clarify that a public address system is not to be used on the premises as part of the Performing Arts Centre use

Condition 13(a)

Performing Arts Centre may only operate outside school hours (8am to 4pm) Monday to Friday 4pm to 10pm one evening per week

Permit use of the Performing Arts Centre from 4pm to 11pm up to three evenings a week from Monday to Friday where the public may attend.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

It has also been requested that clarification be provided that this condition does not inhibit the school from providing after school practice, teaching or rehearsals in the facility any day of the week.

Page 39

4.4

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.4

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

AMENDMENT TO PLANNING PERMIT P101/2014 FOR ADDITIONAL DAYS AND HOURS AT LOYOLA COLLEGE PERFORMING ARTS CENTRE, 325 GRIMSHAW STREET, WATSONIA contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d Condition 13(b)

Performing Arts Centre may only operate 8.30am to 12pm up to two days a month on a Saturday

Correct a typographical error to permit use of the Performing Arts Centre from 8.30am to 12am up to two days a month on a Saturday

Condition 13

No exemption for school rehearsal and tutorials

Clarification is sought in relation to whether the operational restrictions would apply to Performing Arts Centre for teaching, rehearsals and practice associated with the school use.

Condition 14

Use of the Performing Arts Centre and existing School Hall for concerts, theatre productions and similar events attended by the public must not occur at the same time

Clarify that use of the School Hall and Performing Arts Centre at the same time may not occur for separate individual and unconnected events

Condition 15

The total number of seats available for patrons within the Performing Arts Centre premises (including outdoor seating) must not exceed 500

Clarify that the total number of seats available for patrons within the Performing Arts Centre (including outdoor seating) must not exceed 500 for performances

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 subject site has a history as being associated with educational use and this use has been established as of right. A number of planning permits have since been issued for buildings, works, tree removal and use on the site.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 40

AMENDMENT TO PLANNING PERMIT P101/2014 FOR ADDITIONAL DAYS AND HOURS AT LOYOLA COLLEGE PERFORMING ARTS CENTRE, 325 GRIMSHAW STREET, WATSONIA cont’d Planning permit P101/2014 for demolition of brick classroom buildings, buildings and works for the construction of a Performing Arts Centre, car parking and associated vegetation removal was issued on 20th January 2015. A Notice of Decision was initially issued as a result of three (3) objections being received against the application. A copy of the permit is included in Attachment 1. Condition 13 of the permit issued on 20th January 2015 currently reads: (13) Except with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, the Performing Arts Centre permitted by this permit may only operate outside school hours (8am to 4pm) between the following times: (a) Monday to Friday

4pm-10pm up to one evening per week.

(b) Saturday (c) Sundays

8.30am–12pm up to two days a month. 9am-10pm up to two days a month.

Effectively, this condition sets out that the Performing Arts Centre can be used for school or community use between 8am and 4pm Monday to Friday. The condition also sets out that the Performing Arts Centre can also be utilised for school or community use: •

Monday to Friday

4pm-10pm up to one evening per week.

• •

Saturday Sundays

8.30am–12pm up to two days a month. 9am-10pm up to two days a month.

It is noted that the intention of the condition is to allow for use up until midnight on two Saturdays a month. It is noted that a petition has been received in relation to this matter and while the petition is considered as a separate item in the Council Meeting Agenda, the issues raised in the petition are considered as part of this report. SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA The site is located on the southern side of Grimshaw Street to the west of Watsonia Road. The school grounds comprise 10.26 hectares of land on five titles. The site has a frontage width to Grimshaw Street of approximately 341 metres, to Bungay Street of approximately 313 metres and a maximum depth of approximately 319 metres. The school buildings are located primarily on the southern half of the site with playing fields located on the northern half. The main school entry is from Grimshaw Street with a secondary service access from Bungay Street to the south. Vehicular access through the site from Grimshaw to Bungay streets is not currently available.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 41

4.4

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.4

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

AMENDMENT TO PLANNING PERMIT P101/2014 FOR ADDITIONAL DAYS AND HOURS AT LOYOLA COLLEGE PERFORMING ARTS CENTRE, 325 GRIMSHAW STREET, WATSONIA cont’d Locality Plan

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Three site notices were erected and letters were sent to immediately abutting and opposite land owners/occupiers. Eight objections were received on the grounds of: • • • •

Increased traffic Increased on street car parking Increased disturbance from increased frequency of use and extended hours of operation Reduction in security to residents

Concerns with the existing planning permit for the Performing Arts Centre were also raised. Technically these concerns are beyond the scope of the current application as a decision has already been made and a planning permit issued. A public consultation meeting was held to discuss the issues raised although concerns were not resolved at the meeting. This meeting included discussions regarding the potential for limiting vehicle and pedestrian access to the Performing Arts Centre from Bungay Street. The school considered options in relation traffic management but ultimately decided to not make these options available for further discussion.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 42

AMENDMENT TO PLANNING PERMIT P101/2014 FOR ADDITIONAL DAYS AND HOURS AT LOYOLA COLLEGE PERFORMING ARTS CENTRE, 325 GRIMSHAW STREET, WATSONIA cont’d REFERRAL COMMENTS Council’s Traffic Engineering Department raise concern in relation to the combined use of the main School Hall (known as the Companions Hall) and the Performing Arts Centre due to the intensification of car parking demand in the surrounding area. PLANNING CONTROLS Table 1: Planning Controls Control General Residential Zone – Schedule 2 Environmental Significance Overlay – Schedule 4 Vegetation Protection Overlay – Schedule 2 Heritage – Schedule 29 Special Building – Schedule 2 Car Parking

Clause 32.08 42.01 42.02 43.01 44.05 52.06

Permit Triggered No No No No No No

No planning controls are triggered in this instance as the proposal is seeking to amend an existing planning permit. POLICIES CONSIDERED Relevant policies considered in the assessment of this proposal are outlined in Table 2 below: Table 2: Relevant Planning Scheme Policy Policy SPPF Settlement Community Infrastructure Community Facilities Transport and Infrastructure LPPF Non-residential Use and Development in Residential Zones Policy

Clause 11 19 21.04 21.07 22.04

TECHNICAL CONSIDERATION Planning permission has already been granted for the school to develop a Performing Arts Centre. The school proposes to amend a number of the permit conditions to either clarify their intent or improve functionality for the school. An assessment of each of the proposed amendments is provided as follows. Amend Condition 11 to clarify that a public address system is not to be used on the premises as part of the Performing Arts Centre The existing condition reads: (11)

Except with the further consent of the Responsible Authority no form of public address system shall be used on the premises so as to be audible outside the building.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 43

4.4

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.4

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

AMENDMENT TO PLANNING PERMIT P101/2014 FOR ADDITIONAL DAYS AND HOURS AT LOYOLA COLLEGE PERFORMING ARTS CENTRE, 325 GRIMSHAW STREET, WATSONIA cont’d A public address system already operates at the school for general school announcements. This was understood when the condition was placed on the permit. The school is concerned that this condition limits the use of the existing public address system on the whole site. The intention of this condition relates specifically to the development approved under the planning permit (ie. the Performing Arts Centre) and not the broader school grounds. The intent of this condition is to control the use of this public address system on the new building due to its proximity to neighbouring residences and the associated potential noise nuisance. However, for the benefit of the school and clarity for the surrounding community, this condition can be reworded to read as follows: 11)

Except with the further consent of the Responsible Authority no form of public address system shall be used as part of the Performing Arts Centre building so as to be audible outside the building

Amend Condition 13(a) to permit use of the Performing Arts Centre from 4pm to 11pm up to three evenings a week from Monday to Friday where the public may attend. Condition 13 currently reads: (13) Except with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, the Performing Arts Centre permitted by this permit may only operate outside school hours (8am to 4pm) between the following times: (a) Monday to Friday (b) Saturday (c) Sundays

4pm-10pm up to one evening per week. 8.30am–12pm up to two days a month. 9am-10pm up to two days a month.

The school are requesting that the Monday to Friday operating time be increased to 11pm up to three evenings per week, including general pack up post performance. The intent of this condition is to regulate both public and school use and attendance at the facility so as to minimise potential nuisance to neighbouring residences in Bungay Street and Loyola Court, particularly regarding increased car parking and traffic generation in the surrounding area and noise associated with patrons leaving the centre. The concerns regarding these issues still remain. The use of the facility for one evening a week is considered to be an appropriate way to control this impact. However, it is considered reasonable to allow a one hour increase to the duration of the use on one evening a week between Monday and Friday to provide for event cessation by 10pm and patron/audience departure by 10.30pm with minimal activity associated with packing up with the building being closed by 11pm. Any further increase in hours or days could be reconsidered once the centre is in operation and evidence of the actual operating parameters of the centre has been collated.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 44

AMENDMENT TO PLANNING PERMIT P101/2014 FOR ADDITIONAL DAYS AND HOURS AT LOYOLA COLLEGE PERFORMING ARTS CENTRE, 325 GRIMSHAW STREET, WATSONIA cont’d Amend Condition 13(b) to correct a typographical error to permit use of the Performing Arts Centre from 8.30am to 12am up to two days a month on a Saturday Although Condition 13(b) currently restricts Saturday operating times to between 8.30am–12pm up to two days a month, the intent of this condition is to allow the use of the centre up to 12am midnight. This is a typographical error in the condition that requires correction. Amend Condition 14 to clarify that use of the School Hall and Performing Arts Centre at the same time may not occur for separate individual and unconnected events Condition 14 of the permit currently states: (14)

Unless otherwise approved by the Responsible Authority, the use of the Performing Arts Centre and existing School Hall for concerts, theatre productions and similar events attended by the public must not occur at the same time, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

The Companions Hall is currently used for school functions and events. The school have advised that this hall has a capacity of 800 seats. The Performing Arts Centre has a capacity of 500 seats. Together, the facilities have a combined total of 1,300 seats. At present, the use of the two facilities at the same time is restricted so as to minimise potential off site impacts such as car parking. Car parking rates and provision/shortfall are shown in Table 3 below. Table 3: Car parking rates and provision/shortfall School facility

Seating capacity

Car parking rate (Place of Assembly)

Parking spaces required

Constructed On site car parking parking spaces excess/shortfall provided

Companions 800 Hall

0.3 spaces/patron

240

171

- 69

Performing Arts Centre

500

0.3 spaces/patron

150

171

+ 21

Combined facilities

1300

0.3 spaces/patron

390

171

- 219

Whilst a previous assessment considered a shortfall in on site car parking of 69 spaces to be acceptable, the combined use of the Companions Hall and the Performing Arts Centre, irrespective of whether the uses are connected or separate, would generate a car parking shortfall of 219 on-site parking spaces. Whilst this parking could be accommodated almost entirely on Grimshaw and Bungay Streets if all available spaces were vacant, it is considered that the extent of this parking overflow would be more than triple the initial car parking reduction. The impact of this in terms of removing the availability of on street car parking for resident and visitor use, as well as for use by any future development within the area, is considered to be excessive. For this reason it is considered that the condition should remain.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 45

4.4

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.4

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

AMENDMENT TO PLANNING PERMIT P101/2014 FOR ADDITIONAL DAYS AND HOURS AT LOYOLA COLLEGE PERFORMING ARTS CENTRE, 325 GRIMSHAW STREET, WATSONIA cont’d Further, the traffic report prepared by O’Brien Traffic in support of the initial planning application for the Performing Arts Centre specified on page 6 that the school had confirmed that: It is important to note that the existing School Hall and Performing Arts Centre would not host a function simultaneously, therefore parking within the school grounds would be available for the proposal. This statement was used by Council’s traffic engineering department as the basis for a permit condition to ensure that sufficient car parking was available to service either the Companions Hall or the Performing Arts Centre. Whilst the School are now seeking consideration of use of the two facilities for a singular event rather than separate unconnected events, this does not alter the situation in terms of the car parking and local amenity considerations. Nothing is considered to have therefore changed in this revised application to alter the assessment on this matter. Clarification is sought in relation to whether the operational restrictions would apply to Performing Arts Centre for teaching, rehearsals and practice associated with the school use. While condition 13 does not allow for the Performing Arts Centre to be used for teaching, rehearsals and practice associated with the school use outside of ‘normal school hours’, it is considered that there was no intention to limit such activities in the consideration of the original planning permit. There are no limitations on the school currently undertaking such activities outside of normal school hours within buildings elsewhere on the site. Therefore, including a restriction on a particular building would not result in any changes to amenity impacts associated with vehicles and parking. Amend Condition 15 to clarify that the total number of seats available for the audience within the Performing Arts Centre (including outdoor seating) must not exceed 500 Condition 15 of the permit currently states: (15)

The total number of seats available for patrons within the Performing Arts Centre premises (including outdoor seating) must not exceed 500 except with the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

The purpose of this condition is to limit the number of seats available to the audience of any performance within the Performing Arts Centre and prevent the provision of additional audience overflow seating outside the building. The intent of this condition is to minimise potential nuisance to neighbouring residences in Bungay Street and Loyola Court as a result of additional traffic generation, car parking and noise associated with additional patrons attending the centre. The condition does not seek to restrict the use of external seating designed as part of the facility for the day to day use of students and staff. To clarify that the restriction applies only to performances, it is considered that the condition could be reworded as follows:

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 46

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

(15)

4.4

AMENDMENT TO PLANNING PERMIT P101/2014 FOR ADDITIONAL DAYS AND HOURS AT LOYOLA COLLEGE PERFORMING ARTS CENTRE, 325 GRIMSHAW STREET, WATSONIA cont’d The total number of seats available for patrons within the Performing Arts Centre premises (including outdoor seating) during performances must not exceed 500 except with the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

CONCLUSION It is considered that use of the Performing Arts Centre from 4pm to 11pm one evening a week from Monday to Friday and the minor amendments to the permit can be supported. The proposed amendment to permit use of the Performing Arts Centre from Monday to Friday up to three nights a week until 11pm and permit use of the School Hall and Performing Arts Centre at the same time for a singular event are not supported.

ATTACHMENTS No.

Title

Planning permit P101/2014

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 139

Page 47

4.5

LEITH WALK, MACLEOD - RECIEVE SUBMISSIONS ON PROPOSED PERMANENT ROAD CLOSURE

Author:

Walter Yew - Transport Engineer, City Development

Ward:

Ibbott

File:

D16/52664

Previous Items Council on 21 September 2015 (Item 1.1 - Petition regarding Permanent Road Closure on Leith Walk, Macleod) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Council’s resolved at its meeting of 21 September 2015 to commence the statutory procedures to give public notice of Council’s intention to implement the permanent closure of Leith Walk Macleod between Munro Street and Braid Hill Road. In accordance with the Local Government Act 1989 – Schedule 11 clause 10(1)(c) and Section 223, comments on the proposal were requested from the Traffic Management Unit of the Victoria Police, the Metropolitan Ambulance Service and the Metropolitan Fire Brigade. No submission or objections have been received. Public notice was given of the consultation period for the road closure proposal via Council letter and public notices published in the ‘Heidelberg Leader’ and the ‘Heidelberg and Diamond Valley Weekly’ on 9 February 2016 with submissions on the proposal invited under Local Government Act 1989 – Section 223. The submission period closed on 9 March 2016. A total of 16 submissions, including two late submissions were received. No submitters have requested to be heard. This report seeks Council’s formal receipt of the submissions received to date and to hear and receive any further submissions. A report assessing and reviewing the written and oral submissions will be presented to Council at a further meeting for a determination to be made on the permanent road closure. RECOMMENDATION That Council: 1.

Receive and consider 16 submissions, including two (2) late submissions, received in response to the public notice given of Council’s intention to permanently close Leith Walk, Macleod, between Braid Hill Road and Munro Street.

Receive a further report at its meeting on 18 April 2016, to determine whether to permanently close Leith Walk, Macleod, between Braid Hill Road and Munro Street.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 48

4.5

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.5

LEITH WALK, MACLEOD - RECIEVE SUBMISSIONS ON PROPOSED PERMANENT ROAD CLOSURE 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 “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. BACKGROUND At its meeting on 21 September 2015, Council considered a petition requesting the permanent road closure of Leith Walk, Macleod, between Munro Street and Braid Hill Road and resolved: “That Council: 2.

Initiates the process under the Local Government Act to permanently close Leith Walk, Macleod, between Munro Street and Braid Hill Road.

Place advertisements in the local Leader Newspaper advising of the proposal to close Leith Walk, Macleod, between Munro Street and Braid Hill Road, seeking any submissions under schedule 11, clause 10(1)(c) and Section 223 of the Local Government Act.

Write to VicRoads seeking a report on the proposal to close Leith Walk, Macleod, between Munro Street and Briar Hill Road under Schedule 11, Clause 10(1)(c) of the Local Government Act.

Notifies owners and occupiers of affected properties on Leith Walk, Munro Street, and Braid Hill Road, Macleod of this resolution.

Advise the primary petitioner accordingly.”

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 49

4.5

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

LEITH WALK, MACLEOD - RECIEVE SUBMISSIONS ON PROPOSED PERMANENT ROAD CLOSURE cont’d Locality Plan Proposed location for a permanent road closure of Leith Walk

Figure 1: Leith Walk between Munro Street and Braid Hill Road, Macleod LEGAL CONSIDERATION STATUTORY PROCEDURES As required by the Local Government Act 1989 – Schedule 11 clause 10(1)(c) and Section 223, comments on the proposal were requested from the Traffic Management Unit of the Victoria Police, the Metropolitan Ambulance Service and the Metropolitan Fire Brigade. No submissions have been received. Public notice of Council’s intention to permanently the ‘road’ was given in the ‘Heidelberg Leader’ and the ‘Heidelberg and Diamond Valley Weekly’ on 9 February 2016, with submissions on the proposal invited in accordance with section 223 of the Act. The submission period closed on 9 March 2016. CONSULTATION Consent on the proposal was requested and received from VicRoads, a copy of VicRoads’ report is provided at Attachment 1. Residents were notified of the road closure proposal via Council letter and public notices published in ‘Heidelberg Leader’ and the ‘Heidelberg and Diamond Valley Weekly’ on 9 February 2016. A copy of the public notice is provided at Attachment 2. A total of 16 submissions, including two late submissions were received in response to the notices. Copies of written submissions received have been provided to Councillors under separate cover. The arguments in support and objection to the proposal are summarised in Table 1.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 50

LEITH WALK, MACLEOD - RECIEVE SUBMISSIONS ON PROPOSED PERMANENT ROAD CLOSURE contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d Table 1. Summary of arguments in support and objecting to the proposal

Argument

Arguments in favour of the proposal The proposal will improve the amenity for cyclists and pedestrians The width of Leith Walk is not suitable for two-way traffic should traffic volumes increase in the area The proposal will make the operation and design of the section of Leith Walk, between Braid Hill Road and Munro Street, consistent with other sections of the road The proposal does not affect access into properties The proposal creates a safe environment that may encourage walking Arguments objecting the proposal The proposal is not needed as rarely any vehicle uses Leith Walk as a "rat run" The closure of the road is not needed as alternate routes exist for motorists avoiding delays caused by the development of the Baptcare Strathalan Community Housing.

Number of submitters with argument 13 7 7 5 2

1 1

The submitters have been advised of the time, date and place of the meeting at which Council will hear submissions. No submitters have asked to be heard. CURRENT SITUATION Council has given public notice of the proposal to permanently close Leith Walk, Macleod between Munro Street and Braid Hill Road. This report seeks to receive submissions from the public on the proposal. A further report will be presented to Council on 18 April 2016 to formally consider whether the permanent road closure should occur. CONCLUSION The consultation period for the permanent closure of Leith Walk, Macleod, between Munro Street and Braid Hill Road has been completed. No objections were received from any authority. A total of 16 submissions from residents were received, with only one objection. No submitters have requested to be heard. A report assessing and reviewing submissions and the merits of the proposal will be presented to Council at its meeting on 18 April 2016 for a determination on the permanent road closure.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 51

4.5

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

4.5

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

LEITH WALK, MACLEOD - RECIEVE SUBMISSIONS ON PROPOSED PERMANENT ROAD CLOSURE cont’d ATTACHMENTS No.

Title

Leith Walk, Macleod - VicRoads Road Closure Report

147

Leith Walk, Macleod - Public Notice published in Local newspapers

155

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page

Page 52

4.6

CONSENT ORDER FOR PLANNING APPLICATION 6/67-75 THE MALL, HEIDELBERG WEST (P194/2015)

Author:

Elizabeth Fleming - Principal Planner, City Development

Ward:

Olympia

File:

D16/52662

4.6

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Planning application P194/2015 was refused on 27 August 2015. The application proposed development of a mixed use three-storey building and was not supported by the Development Planning unit due to issues associated mass, bulk and scale as well as safety and vehicle access. The refusal has been appealed by the applicant and the matter has been scheduled to be heard before the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) on 14 April 2016. The applicant has submitted discussion plans (Revision B Received 1 March 2016) seeking Councilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s consent to an alternative proposal. The alternative proposal addresses the concerns which resulted in the original application being refused however, the matter is being reported to a Council meeting with respect to a statutory car parking shortfall of seven car parking spaces. RECOMMENDATION That having considered the amended schematic plans dated Council resolved to advise the Permit Applicant and the Victorian Civil and Administration that it agrees to enter into a consent order 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 amended schematic plans (Revision B Received 1 March 2016), but modified to show: (a)

Waste storage areas for each Shop;

(b)

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

(c)

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:

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 53

4.6

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

CONSENT ORDER FOR PLANNING APPLICATION 6/67-75 THE MALL, HEIDELBERG WEST (P194/2015) contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d (i)

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

(ii)

The connection to the Council nominated legal point of discharge;

(iii)

The outfall drainage works necessary to connect the subject site to the Council nominated Legal Point of Discharge;

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

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

Urban Design / External Appearance 4.

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

Car Parking / Access 5.

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.

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

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 54

CONSENT ORDER FOR PLANNING APPLICATION 6/67-75 THE MALL, HEIDELBERG WEST (P194/2015) cont’d 7.

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

Time Limits 8.

In accordance with section 68 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, this permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies: (a)

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

(b)

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.

Planning Permit Application:

P194/2015

Address:

67-75 The Mall HEIDELBERG WEST

Proposal:

Construction of a mixed use development including Dwellings and Shops, change of use to a Dwelling, and reduction in standard car parking requirements

Existing Use/Development:

Vacant

Applicant:

Land Appraisal

Zoning:

Commercial 1 Zone

Overlays:

None

Restrictive covenant:

None

Notification (Advertising):

The application was advertised by way of formal notices to the owners and occupiers of the surrounding properties, and by three signs on site, pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Objections Received:

None

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 55

4.6

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.6

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

CONSENT ORDER FOR PLANNING APPLICATION 6/67-75 THE MALL, HEIDELBERG WEST (P194/2015) cont’d Ward:

Olympia

Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) required:

PROPOSAL The proposed development (as reflected in the discussion plans received 1 March 2016) is for a three-storey building with a maximum height of 10.14 metres. The ground floor is made up of two shops (floor areas of 99 square metres and 102 square metres) that predominately consist of glazing for the facades, that present to the west. The entrances to the dwellings and access to the storage spaces, bin storage, and bicycle storage is off Tobruk Avenue in the centre of the front façade. The first and second floors both consist of two, two-bedroom dwellings with mirror image floor plans, including balconies in the north-west and north-east corner, bedrooms presenting to east and west, and dining rooms presenting to the north. The wall materials are predominately glazing on the ground floor with some rendered walls. The upper levels walls are to be cladded in ‘Weathertex- Gosting-Half’ or rendered in either a “Surf mist” or “Namadji” colour. An Alucobond cladding in a metallic bronze colour is proposed for the awnings. As the entrance to the upper level dwellings is approximately 4 metres wide, the proposal also includes a change of use component for the dwellings. The provision of five car spaces which are to be accessed via a car lift. Due the amount of floor area for the shops and the number of bedrooms for the dwellings, the proposal includes a reduction in statutory car parking requirements of seven spaces. Site coverage

100%

Figure 1: Location map

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 56

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.6

CONSENT ORDER FOR PLANNING APPLICATION 6/67-75 THE MALL, HEIDELBERG WEST (P194/2015) cont’d 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’s Planning officers resolved to issue a Notice of Refusal to Gant a Permit on the 27 August 2015- Pursuant to section 77 of the Plannning and Environment Act (1987) the permit applicant lodged an application for review with VCAT Amended Plans –received 7 January 2016 A VCAT compulsory conference was held on the 7 January 2016. At the compulsory conference amended plans (Rev B) were tabled including the following changes: • • •

Introduction of a basement level providing 5 car spaces (one additional) and storage with access via a car lift; Internal stairway and lift providing access from basement car parking to residential apartments; Increased floor area to Shop 2 as a result of the replacement of the double width car stackers with single width car lift.

No changes were proposed to address Council concerns regarding the mass, bulk, scale and response to neighbourhood character. The increased floor area to Shop 2 results in additional car space being generated for the Shop use. The basement car parking has provided 5 spaces with one additional space above the original proposal and therefore the proposed car parking reduction remained at seven car spaces. Traffic Engineering Comments The amended plans (7 January 2016) were referred to Council’s Traffic Engineering department for comment regarding the proposed basement car parking layout. The following comments were provided with detailed engineering referral comments are set out in attachment 2: • •

Plans do not indicate that the splay requirement is being met. Plans to reflect the splay requirements due to safety concerns with pedestrians. A warning system to warn motorists entering the lift about vehicles that are exiting is required. It is considered unsafe for vehicles to reverse is such as situation. Details must be provided that indicate this is being provided.

Amended Plans –received 1 March 2016 Amended concept plans were received by Council on the 1 March 2016. The amended plans included the following changes in addition to the revision shown on the plans received 7 January 2016:

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 57

4.6

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

CONSENT ORDER FOR PLANNING APPLICATION 6/67-75 THE MALL, HEIDELBERG WEST (P194/2015) cont’d • •

• • • •

The articulation of the northern elevation has been increased to create a more distinct central break in the building façade by providing an 800mm setback of the first and second floor study room wall; Design details and materials have been modified to soften the buildings vertical elements and perceived height by; replacing the vertical glazing above the entrance with four symmetrically spaced windows, replacing the solid shade screens above the Second Floor windows with visually lighter, slatted shade screens and replacing the smooth rendered finish on the Second Floor walls with Weathertex Cladding that incorporates horizontal lines; The external colours have been amended to further soften the upper floor and perceived height of the building by providing a distinct break between a darker coloured First Floor level and a lighter coloured Second Floor level; A warning light has been added above the entry to the car lift to warn pedestrians using the laneway footpath. The warning light will operate automatically when the roller door open; Internal storage at ground level relocated to basement with waste storage area relocated to area previous allocated for storage; and The location of the internal access stairs from basement to ground level relocated.

The above changes are considered by planning officers to have addressed previous concerns regarding the mass, bulk, scale and response to neighbourhood character of the proposed development in addition to addressing concerns regarding pedestrian and traffic safety. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION The original application was advertised by way of formal notices to the owners and occupiers of the surrounding properties and by three signs on site. No objections have been received. PLANNING CONTROLS The planning controls and policy framework are set out in attachment 1. TECHNICAL CONSIDERATION As outlined in the background, the revised plans received by Council on the 1 March 2016 are considered to be responsive to the concerns that resulted in the original application being refused. It is noted that the while five car parking spaces are now proposed, the revised scheme does not make any change to the reduction to the car parking requirements sought which remains at a total of seven spaces (associated with 201 sq. metres of shop floor space). It is considered that the shortfall should be supported on the basis that: •

Parking availability in the surrounding Off Street Car Park is high, with a minimum of 220 parking spaces available during the peak period (as per the findings of the draft Heidelberg and Bell Street Mall Parking Plan). This could support the empirical car parking shortfall associated with the shops which is six spaces.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 58

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

• • •

4.6

CONSENT ORDER FOR PLANNING APPLICATION 6/67-75 THE MALL, HEIDELBERG WEST (P194/2015) cont’d The development proposes one dedicated space associated with the shops so that one of the premises would provide for long term parking for one staff. It is common for the ground floor commercial components of properties located along The Mall to rely on the surrounding public car parking for their customers. The site is close to public transport.

Detailed Engineering referral comments are set out in attachment 2. CONCLUSION It is considered that the amended plans received by Council 1 March 2016 respond appropriately to the issues that resulted in the original application not being supported. The car parking waiver requested is also considered to be acceptable and the revised scheme can be supported subject to standard conditions.

ATTACHMENTS No.

Title

Planning controls and policy framework

156

Engineering referral comments

158

Amended plans - Revision B received 1 March 2016

161

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page

Page 59

5.1

50TH ANNIVERSARY OF LONG TAN

Author:

Trish McEune - Communications Coordinator, Corporate Services

File:

D16/52661

5.1

Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Council in September 2015 resolved to investigate how best to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan (Vietnam Veterans Day) on 18 August 2016 within the City of Banyule. The resolution contained a number of suggested initiatives and Council officers have since met with the main stakeholders including the local RSL’s and the Diamond Valley Vietnam Veterans Association and for the funding of the proposed commemoration activities to be included in the 2016/17 budget allocations. As a result a number of events and activities are being proposed. Funding is required from the current financial period with a further allocation required from the 2016/17 Budget. This report seeks Council endorsement for the program of events and the approval of funding. RECOMMENDATION That Council commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan during 2016 and that a budget of $24,700 be allocated from the current 2015/16 Budget and a further $28,500 be allocated from the 2016/17 Budget. 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 “engage meaningfully with our community”.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 61

5.1

Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life

50TH ANNIVERSARY OF LONG TAN cont’d BACKGROUND Council at its meeting on 7 September 2015 considered a Notice of Motion in relation to the 50th Anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan (Vietnam Veterans Day) and resolved the following: “That: 1.

Council investigate with Anzac House, all the local RSL's and Vietnam Veterans groups how best to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan (Vietnam Veterans Day) on 18 August 2016 within the City of Banyule.

A report be presented back to Council including an investigation on: (a) (b) (c)

(d) (e)

(f)

(g)

(h) (i) (j) 3.

participation (by invitation) to all local RSL Vietnam Veterans to march down Burgundy Street as part of the Banyule Festival. a display in the lead up to Vietnam Veterans Day (similar to the Anzac event at the Hatch this year) a display of 520 white crosses to honour those who died in the Vietnam conflict both in the North and the South of the City at possible locations like Petrie Park in Montmorency and Remembrance Park in Heidelberg/Eaglemont. a covering page (wrap around) based on the successful Anzac Banner be published to commemorate the 50th Anniversary. two time capsules which can be dedicated on 18 August 2016 commemorating the events of the 50th Anniversary. The capsules be placed in the Parks where the crosses have been displayed with a notion indicating they be opened every 25 years. that two or three commemorate display signs be installed in the Parks reflecting on the history of the Vietnam War. Associated memorabilia may also be considered. that groups like the Men's Sheds, Local Schools and the Scouts be approached to make the 1040 white crosses required and the possible placement of them in the parks. a celebration for our Vietnam Veterans to be held in the Great Hall a Banyule coaster with the 50th anniversary logo to commemorate the occasion refer any estimated costs to be funded in the 2016/17 budget.

Further consideration is given to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the end of WW11 in 2020 in an area associated with Watsonia and Malahang Reserve in West Heidelberg.”

VICTORIA'S CHARTER OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 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.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 62

Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life

5.1

50TH ANNIVERSARY OF LONG TAN cont’d DISCUSSION Between 1962 and 1975, almost 60,000 Australians, including ground troops and air force and navy personnel, served in Vietnam; 521 died as a result of the war and over 3,000 were wounded. During the Battle of Long Tan on 18 August 1966, 17 Australians were killed and 25 wounded. Today approximately 150 Vietnam Veterans are living in Banyule, it is appropriate for Council to take part in these commemorative services. After consultation between Council and the Diamond Valley Veterans Association and local RSL’s the following activities are proposed: •

A luncheon to be held in the Great Hall at the Centre Ivanhoe on Thursday 2 June. Estimated attendance 300 people. A small memento of the Long Tan cross to be given to all attendees.

•

A double page spread or 4 page wrap to be included in the November/December edition of the Banyule Banner and would feature photos and stories from the events leading up to and on the day off the commemoration.

•

An exhibition commemorating Vietnam Veterans Day to be held at Hatch or in one of the libraries, dependent on the size and availability of the exhibition.

•

Vietnams Veterans Memorial Quilt – to be displayed at Ivanhoe Customer Service centre on a date to be confirmed.

•

A commemorative event to be held in August at Remembrance Park, Heidelberg with a time capsule to be dedicated commemorating the events of the 50th Anniversary and installed in a gabion wall. Three commemorate signs to be installed at Remembrance Park, Heidelberg, reflecting on the history of the Vietnam War.

•

Public Artwork in Greensborough War Memorial Park - these art works are reaching the end of their useful life. Council has applied for funding through the ANZAC Centenary Arts and Culture Fund Public Grants program to replace existing artworks.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 63

5.1

Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life

50TH ANNIVERSARY OF LONG TAN cont’d FUNDING IMPLICATIONS Indicative costings: Project Heritage interpretative signage x 3 (including project research and management, graphic design, production and installation

Estimated Cost $17,000

Long Tan cross (gift)

$1,200

Exhibition

$1,000

Time capsule and plaque x 1

$1,500

Lunch event in The Great Hall (250 – 300) Army Band (if required at the lunch)

$22,000 $500

Gabion wall

$10,000

TOTAL

$53,200

The resolution of the 7 September 2015 sought consideration for funding of the proposed commemoration activities to be included in the 2016/17 budget allocations. However, preparations for some of the events and activities described above will need to get underway immediately with some of the timelines occurring before the end of this financial year. Part funding will therefore be required from the current 2015/16 budget should Council wish to proceed with the 50th Anniversary of Long Tan Commemoration. CONCLUSION Officers have undertaken an investigation of events that can be held to commemorate The Battle of Long Tan (Vietnam Veterans Day) in line with Council’s resolution. These projects provide Council with the opportunity to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan and acknowledge Diamond Valley’s Vietnam Veterans. Should Council wish to proceed, it will require part funding from within this financial year and also the 2016/17 Budget.

ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 64

6.1

14-18 LIVINGSTONE STREET, IVANHOE PROPOSED SALE OF LAND

Author:

Jeanette Kringle - Property Co-ordinator, City Development

Ward:

Griffin

File:

D16/52660

6.1

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

Previous Items Council on 7 March 2016 (Item 6.5 - 14-18 Livingstone Street Ivanhoe - Hear submissions on proposed sale of land) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Council is the owner of a two level car park at 14-18 Livingstone Street, Ivanhoe, (land), which was constructed in association with the Ivanhoe Plaza Shopping Centre, and is subject to a 30 year lease to the current owner, Seacrest Pty Ltd (Seacrest), which expired in January 2013. Seacrest is currently over holding under the expired lease and protracted negotiations to enter into a new lease have been undertaken between Council and Seacrest. Ultimately Council’s senior legal advisors indicate that the negotiations are at an impasse and that litigation may not resolve the stalemate. Legal advice suggests that, in the interest of both parties, an alternative arrangement should be negotiated involving the sale of the land to Seacrest, subject to certain conditions being agreed and Council fulfilling its statutory obligations under the Local Government Act 1989 (Act) prior to the sale of the land. Together with legal expenses, continued ownership of the land may result in Council being entirely liable for all outgoing expenses including maintenance, currently costed at $75,000 annually, potentially with no leasing income depending on the outcome of litigation. Public notice of the Council’s intention to sell the land was given in the Heidelberg Leader” on 19 January 2016, with submissions on the proposal invited in accordance with Section 223 of the Act. The submission period closed on 16 February 2016, with 10 (ten) submissions, including one (1) late submission, being received. At its Ordinary Meeting on 7 March 2016, Council considered the written submissions received, and heard from four (4) of the five (5) submitters who had requested to be heard in support of their written submission, with one submitter not attending the meeting. This report seeks Council’s decision in relation to whether or not to sell the land and, if so, the preservation of 117 public car parking spaces on the land in perpetuity regardless of whether the land continues to remain in its current state or if the land is redeveloped in accordance with the Ivanhoe Structure Plan at some stage in the future.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 65

6.1

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

14-18 LIVINGSTONE STREET, IVANHOE - PROPOSED SALE OF LAND cont’d RECOMMENDATION That: 1.

Having complied with Sections 189 and 223 of the Local Government Act 1989: a. b. c.

by giving public notice in the “Heidelberg Leader” on 19 January 2016; and by recording that ten (10) submissions, including one (1) late submission, were received; and by providing an opportunity to those who have requested to be heard at Council’s Ordinary Meeting of 7 March 2016 to be heard at that meeting; and by noting the submitters’ concerns;

Council agrees to sell the Council-owned land and improvements known as 14-18 Livingstone Street, Ivanhoe (land) to Seacrest Pty Ltd for the following reasons: • • • •

it resolves the impasse in renegotiating the lease; it provides an opportunity for the land to be redeveloped in the future in accordance with the Ivanhoe Structure Plan; it protects Council from potential ongoing costs associated with owning and maintaining a public car park; and it preserves in perpetuity the retention of 117 public car parking spaces on the land.

The submitters be advised of Council’s decision and the reasons for that decision.

The contract of sale include a provision obligating Seacrest to enter into an agreement pursuant to Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 requiring the owner of the land from time to time to, amongst other things, provide 117 fully maintained car parking spaces on the land for public use, with such car parking spaces having a minimum time limit of 2 hours and a maximum time limit to be agreed between Council and the owner.

The necessary documentation to effect the sale of the land be signed and sealed at the appropriate time.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 66

14-18 LIVINGSTONE STREET, IVANHOE - PROPOSED SALE OF LAND cont’d 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, in particular, section 20 which provides that “A person must not be deprived of his or her property other than in accordance with law”. It is considered that the subject matter does not raise any human rights issues because the power to sell land is conferred on Council pursuant to Section 189 of the Act. 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 of a proposal to sell land. Council heard and considered submissions received at its Ordinary Meeting on 7 March 2016. BACKGROUND Council is the owner of a constructed two level car park at 14-18 Livingstone Street, Ivanhoe (land) identified in the locality plan in Figure 1. The car park was constructed in the 1980’s by the Bond Corporation, the developer of the adjoining Ivanhoe Plaza Shopping Centre (Plaza) at its cost, in accordance with the original Town Planning Permit TP3880 (see Attachment 1), which required the provision of 372 car spaces. There are 301 car spaces on the land with the balance of the 372 car spaces being located on Seacrest land beneath Ivanhoe Plaza. The land was then leased by the former Heidelberg Council to the developer under the following arrangements: 1. 2. 3.

A nominal fee amounting to $1 per annum for rent. Conditional on the upper floor of the car park being available for public use. All outgoings associated with the operation and maintenance of the car park – both upper and lower levels – to be borne by the lessee.

There was also a development agreement (original development agreement) in place which provided that, after the expiry of the lease, Council would ensure that it would maintain the car park for use as a car park for as long as the Plaza remained a retail shopping centre. This agreement effectively provided a unique type of encumbrance on the land intrinsically linking the car park with the Ivanhoe Plaza. In accordance with the law, the initial 30-year lease was re-assigned to various owners over the years, then finally to Seacrest Pty Ltd (Seacrest), the current owner of the Plaza. Seacrest have also been assigned the benefit of the original development agreement from Bond Corporation. The original 30-year lease of the land expired on 24 January 2013. Since this time, there have been protracted negotiations between Council and Seacrest’s representatives. The protracted negotiations relate to the proposed commercial terms presented by Council in respect of a new lease. During the negotiations, Council ratified a number of short extensions of the lease which were effective until 23 January 2015.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 67

6.1

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.1

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

14-18 LIVINGSTONE STREET, IVANHOE - PROPOSED SALE OF LAND contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d Consistent with standard leasing practice, despite the short leasing extensions being granted and now having lapsed, Seacrest is now over holding under an expired lease. This means that Seacrest has the same responsibility to observe and perform all its obligations under the lease as if it had not expired, with the exception that the payment of rent now equates to $1.00 per month. The payment of outgoings, including Council rates and charges, Yarra Valley Water rates and charges, consumables including water and electricity usage and service charges remains without any change. Seacrest is also responsible for maintaining the improvements on the land.

Figure 1: Locality Plan Under the terms of the original development agreement, which is currently assigned to Seacrest, there is conjecture regarding whether continuing rights exist in relation to the use of the car park, with or without a lease in place for so long as the complex continues to operate. As a result of the conjecture, protracted negotiations between Council and Seacrest to enter into a new lease have reached an impasse. Ultimately, Councilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s senior legal advisors indicate that, because of the onerous terms contained within the original development agreement, litigation proceedings in Court may not resolve the stalemate. As a result, senior legal advice suggests that, in the interest of both parties, an alternative arrangement should be negotiated which involves the sale of the land to Seacrest, subject to certain conditions being met and Council fulfilling its statutory obligations under the Act prior to the sale of the land. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS SALE OF LAND The Guidelines for the Sale and Exchange of Council land, adopted by Council in April 2009, provide that the sale of Council-owned land should be conducted through a public process, unless circumstances justify an alternative method of sale.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 68

14-18 LIVINGSTONE STREET, IVANHOE - PROPOSED SALE OF LAND cont’d The Guidelines acknowledge that in some circumstances it may be more advantageous for the sale to be negotiated with one party. The Act does not restrict Council from selling or exchanging Council-owned land by private treaty. Generally it will be: • • • •

the nature of the Council-owned land that is proposed to be sold or exchanged; and or how the proposed sale or exchange of the Council-owned land is initiated, e.g. often it is an external person who has initiated discussions with Council with regard to the sale or exchange of the Council-owned land; when the price offered is substantially more than the valuation; or evident that there is likely to be only one purchaser for the Council-owned land;

that will determine whether the sale or exchange of Council-owned land by private treaty is appropriate. In this particular instance and consistent with: • • • •

Senior legal advice; The original development agreement; Current planning permit requirements; The continued provision of public parking;

the only logical purchaser for the land is deemed to be Seacrest. LEGAL CONSIDERATION STATUTORY PROCEDURES Section 189 of the Act confers on Council the power to sell or exchange land, subject to complying with Section 223 of the Act, which provides that Council must give public notice and invite submissions from the public before exercising such power. Public notice of the proposal was given in the “Heidelberg Leader” on 19 January 2016, with submissions on the proposal invited in accordance with Section 223 of the Act. The submission period closed on 16 February 2016. SUBMISSIONS At its Ordinary Meeting on 7 March 2016, Council considered the ten (10) written submissions received, and heard from four out of five (5) submitters who had requested be heard in support of their written submission. One submitter did not attend the meeting, despite them lodging a request to be heard in person. A precis of the submissions and the responses to those submissions is in Attachment 2. CURRENT SITUATION The planning permit to use and operate the Ivanhoe Plaza Shopping Centre requires 372 car parking spaces to be provided to the satisfaction of Council. Irrespective of whether the land is developed in the future, the owner/operator of the Plaza must comply with the car parking requirements of the planning permit, that is, by providing 372 car parking spaces to Council’s satisfaction. These 372 car parking spaces are currently provided by way of 71 car parking spaces on land owned by Seacrest and 301 car parking spaces on Council’s land, under a lease.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 69

6.1

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.1

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

14-18 LIVINGSTONE STREET, IVANHOE - PROPOSED SALE OF LAND cont’d Importantly, should the land ever be redeveloped, the current sale proposal is conditional on the purchaser making provision for the ongoing preservation of 117 public parking spaces on the land in perpetuity regardless whether the land continues to remain in its current state, or if the land is developed in accordance with the Ivanhoe Structure Plan at some stage in the future. This is proposed to be achieved by the purchaser entering into an agreement pursuant to Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to legally bind Seacrest, and subsequent owners of the land, to provide, to Council’s satisfaction, 117 fully maintained car parking spaces on the land for public use, with such car parking spaces having a minimum time limit of 2 hours and a maximum time limit to be agreed between the parties. Consequently, under the current sale proposal, just as now, any member of the public making use of the broader Ivanhoe shopping precinct will be able to continue to utilise the car park. Furthermore, Council’s monitoring of the car park will continue to ensure compliance with parking restrictions. If Council is to continue to own the land in an arrangement where a lease is not in operation, senior legal advice suggests that Seacrest may continue to accrue rights to use the land to satisfy its planning permit conditions and the intent of the original developer agreement. Furthermore, Seacrest may also avail itself of any obligation to continue to pay for outgoings which currently amount to $75,000 annually. Council may then become liable for such costs. In addition to this, Council may also become liable for accrued and further litigation costs associated with the current leasing negotiation impasse, yielding no community benefit. All of these matters are potentially contestable in Court and would involve considerable expense and legal argument. Despite being the owner of the land it is not a simple matter of Council demanding that Seacrest enter into a new lease under the terms offered by Council or vacate the land. The original development agreement as well as the subsequent original 30-year lease terms and associated planning permit establish a much more complex and uncertain context. Selling the land to another party instead of Seacrest would also not address any of the outstanding matters and, in fact, would potentially make them much more complicated. Seacrest would be likely to continue to have strong claims over the car park use which the new owner may be obliged to fulfil. Such an action would add to complexity and include a third party in potential future legal proceedings. Ultimately, the sale of the land to Seacrest will protect Council from potential ongoing costs in respect of outgoings and any ongoing litigation costs associated with the lease of the land if a new lease was unable to be secured. CONCLUSION Legal advice makes it clear that litigation may not resolve the stalemate in relation to lease negotiations, particularly if Council wishes the land to be redeveloped in accordance with the Ivanhoe Structure Plan at some stage in the future. This is only likely to be achieved if the land is sold to Seacrest. Therefore practically speaking, due to the complicated and unique encumbrances in Seacrest’s favour, there is only one logical buyer for the land. Having considered the written submissions received, and heard from the submitters, the proposal to sell the land to Seacrest should be supported.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 70

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.1

14-18 LIVINGSTONE STREET, IVANHOE - PROPOSED SALE OF LAND contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d ATTACHMENTS No.

Title

Planning Permit TP3880

177

Precis of Submissions and Responses

180

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page

Page 71

6.2

KINDERGARTENS - PROPOSED LEASES

Author:

Jeanette Kringle - Property Co-ordinator, City Development

Ward:

All

File:

D16/52659

6.2

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

Previous Items Council on 8 February 2016 (Item 6.2 - Preschool Leases - Commence statutory procedures) 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, which is to enter into new leases with each of the entities that currently offer kindergarten services from the 23 kindergartens, has triggered the need to give public notice under section 190 of the Local Government Act 1989 (Act). In accordance with section 190 of the 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 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 $454.00 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 Council-owned 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 - 4 April 2016

Page 72

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 effect the leases be signed and sealed at the appropriate time.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 73

6.2

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

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 - 4 April 2016

Page 74

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. 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 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. LEGAL CONSIDERATION The proposal has triggered the need to give public notice under sections 190 of the Local Government Act 1989 (Act). 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 submissions 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.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 75

6.2

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.2

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

KINDERGARTENS - PROPOSED LEASES cont’d 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. 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 $454.00 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 - 4 April 2016

Page 76

6.3

SPECIAL MEETING FOR COUNCILLOR CODE OF CONDUCT REVIEW

Author:

Vivien Ferlaino - Governance Co-ordinator, Corporate Services

File:

D16/52658

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Local Government Act 1989 section 76C requires each council to adopt a Councillor Code of Conduct. The reforms arising from the Local Government Amendment (Improved Governance) Act 2015 require councils to review and comply with new requirements for the Councillor Code of Conduct by 4 July 2016. A special meeting must be called solely for the purpose of reviewing the Councillor Code of Conduct. The Local Government Act 1989 (Act) provides for the setting of meeting dates and Council is required to give public notice of the special meeting. RECOMMENDATION That: 1.

In accordance with Section 76C(1) of the Local Government Act 1989 (the Act), a Special Council Meeting be set for Monday, 2 May 2016 at 7.00pm to review and adopt the Banyule Councillor Code of Conduct; and

In accordance with Section 89(4) of the Act a public notice advising of the Special Council Meeting be published in the local newspapers.

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 “enable good governance and accountability with minimal risk”. BACKGROUND Section 76C of the Local Government Act 1989 (the Act) requires each council to have a Councillor Code of Conduct. The Code of Conduct was last reviewed on 9 September 2013 as required within 12 months after the 2012 general election.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 77

6.3

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.3

SPECIAL MEETING FOR COUNCILLOR CODE OF CONDUCT REVIEW cont’d The Code is designed to assist Councillors in maintaining the highest standards of conduct and behaviour as well as provide a means for dealing with conflicts which may occur. The Code is also intended to assist the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Councillors to discharge their public office appropriately. LEGAL CONSIDERATION COUNCILLOR CODE OF CONDUCT REQUIREMENTS The Local Government (Improved Governance) Amendment Act 2015 was passed last year by Parliament. The Amendment Act contains substantial reforms to the Councillor Conduct framework and the governance requirements for Councils. On the 18 November 2015 the first set of provisions contained in the Act came into force and the remainder of the Act, (except sections 13 and 56), came into effect on 1 March 2015. Under the new requirements introduced by the Amendment Act, Council must review the Councillor Code of Conduct and make any necessary changes at a Special meeting of the Council called solely for that purpose by 4 July 2016. The Code must include an internal resolution process for addressing alleged contraventions of the Councillor Code of Conduct, which amongst other things, provides for the selection of an independent arbiter. Section 76C requires that each Councillor must read the Code and make a declaration stating that they will abide by the revised Councillor Code of Conduct and that the Code be signed by all Councillors and witnessed by the CEO. A failure to make a declaration to abide by the Councillor Code of conduct is now a ground for disqualification as a Councillor. SPECIAL MEETING REQUIREMENTS The requirements for Special Meetings are specified in section 84 of the Local Government Act 1989. This section requires only the business specified in the notice or resolution to be transacted unless resolved to admit other business. Council’s Meeting Procedures Code (2015) requires: • • • •

The dates, times and place of all Council Meetings to be fixed by Council Notice of all meetings must be made in accordance with the Act Council may by resolution change the date, time and place of any Council Meeting which has been fixed and must provide reasonable notice of the changes to the public In the case of an emergency, the Chief Executive Officer or his or her delegate, may postpone a Council Meeting, and reasonable attempts are to be made to notify every Councillor of the postponement

Pursuant to the Act Council is required to give 7 days’ notice. TIMELINES The Code of Conduct must be reviewed and adopted at a Special Council Meeting by 4 July 2016.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 78

SPECIAL MEETING FOR COUNCILLOR CODE OF CONDUCT REVIEW contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d CONCLUSION The Councillor Code of Conduct is an important document for Councillors as it sets out the expected and legislated behaviours and conduct of Councillors to ensure they serve the Banyule community with a high degree of integrity and honesty. The changes to the Act now require the Code to be reviewed and adopted at a Special Council meeting called solely for the review of the Code. The Act also provides for the setting of meeting dates and Council is required to give public notice of the Special meeting.

ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 79

6.3

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.4

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.4

ONE FLINTOFF BENEFITS REALISATION

Author: Services

Kate Chapell - Coordinator Greensborough Office Project, Corporate

File:

D16/52618

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The construction of the office development at One Flintoff, above WaterMarc, progresses the realisation of the vision for Greensborough as a place that is economically vibrant and values community and individual wellbeing. It is expected that the construction will be completed in December 2016, with Council staff currently located across three main offices at Rosanna, Greensborough and Ivanhoe moving into the new office in January 2017. The One Flintoff project provides a broad range of benefits to the Banyule community that will be realised in the coming years once One Flintoff is completed. These benefits can be broadly categorised as: Community • Substantially improved community facilities in Greensborough. • Provision of a “One Stop Shop” for Council services. • The move of Council operations out of the Ivanhoe office provides the opportunity to revitalise the Ivanhoe Civic Precinct by providing a redeveloped library and community hub. • The move of Council operations out of the Rosanna office provides the opportunity for a redevelopment of a new commercial development and new anchor to the Rosanna commercial area. Environmental • The proposed building will be designed to be highly environmentally efficient. • The leadership shown by Council in the development of such an environmentally sustainable building will become a demonstration project for the development industry in Banyule and should influence further environmentally sustainable development in the municipality. Economic • The construction of One Flintoff in Greensborough provides broader economic benefits to the Banyule community from the construction of the building and the addition of the commercially leased floor that provides the opportunity to attract an estimated additional 150 enduring jobs to Greensborough. • The redevelopment of the Ivanhoe Town Hall as the proposed Ivanhoe Community Hub and the Rosanna office as a proposed supermarket will provide further economic benefit to the Banyule community from the construction activity. • The sale of 9-13 Flintoff Street to Australian Unity will result in a further 30 medical services related jobs in the community. Financial benefits • The commercial floor consists of 2,200 square metres of floor space which is anticipated to have a net rent in excess of $500,000 per annum. • Estimated savings from elimination of travel time, productivity savings and reduction in utility cost/year are projected to be up to $1M per year.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 80

ONE FLINTOFF BENEFITS REALISATION cont’d •

The construction of the meeting facilities frees up space in Watermarc to expand the gym thus providing a greater financial return to Council.

Since 2001 Council has consulted with the community extensively on the development of the Greensborough Structure Plan, the construction of WaterMarc and the construction of the One Flintoff office building. This has included community meetings, information sessions, festival stands, business breakfasts, Banyule Banner articles, website information, information in local papers, fact sheets and direct mail outs to stakeholders, traders and adjoining properties. Consultation meetings have also continued with Greensborough traders, the Greensborough Consultative Committee and the operator of WaterMarc facility during the detailed design stage and construction of the project. A detailed Consultation Plan has also been developed and will be progressively rolled out during the construction of the project. RECOMMENDATION That this report be noted by Council. OFFICER DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 (Act) requires members of Council staff, and persons engaged under contract to provide advice to Council, to disclose any direct or indirect interest in a matter to which the advice relates. Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter. CITY PLAN This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction to “develop and deliver best value services and facilities”. BACKGROUND In 2003 Council adopted the “Greensborough Principal Activity Centre – Local Structure Plan” As part of the Greensborough Structure Plan, Council committed to 11 key principles, one of which was the development of a civic presence in Greensborough. The relocation of Council staff is consistent with Council’s long standing vision, to renew Greensborough by creating a vibrant regional centre for commercial, residential and entertainment activity, including a new civic office. Council opened its major aquatic and leisure centre, WaterMarc, in September 2012 as the first stage of this project. WaterMarc was designed and constructed to cater for three additional floors and a mezzanine car park in the basement of the existing building.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 81

6.4

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.4

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

ONE FLINTOFF BENEFITS REALISATION cont’d Council staff are currently located across three main offices at Rosanna, Greensborough and Ivanhoe. A three floor office building is being constructed on top of WaterMarc to co-locate Council staff and provide commercial office lease opportunities. A mezzanine car park will also be built in the existing basement car park. As well as providing for the accommodation needs of Council staff, the development will also feature community/staff meeting rooms of various sizes, facilities and spaces for community functions, and councillor resource area. The new building includes: • • • • • • •

Three levels of office space on top of WaterMarc which was purposely designed for office to be constructed on top of it. Designed to be a highly environmentally sustainable building. Bringing Council staff together from three office locations - Ivanhoe, Rosanna and Greensborough. One-stop customer service area with better facilities for planning, building, engineering and health enquiries. Significant increase in community meeting rooms and facilities at the northern end of the municipality. Compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act, making it completely accessible. 2,200 square metres of commercially let office space.

The colocation of staff, from three sites into one modern purpose built office at Greensborough, will better reflect Council’s community image, increase productivity and save on operating costs. In April 2015 Council resolved to issue a Planning Permit for the Construction of a three storey addition (above the existing WaterMarc Complex) with the use of proposed Levels 3 and 4 for the purpose of Council Offices and Level 2 for commercial lease at 1 Flintoff Street, Greensborough. In September 2015, Council awarded the contract for the construction of office building and associated works at 1 Flintoff Street, Greensborough to ADCO Constructions (VIC) Pty Ltd.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 82

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.4

ONE FLINTOFF BENEFITS REALISATION cont’d Locality Plan

HUMAN RIGHTS CHARTER Victoria's Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities (the Charter) outlines the basic human rights of all people in Victoria. The Charter requires that governments, local councils and other public authorities comply with Charter and to consider relevant Charter rights when they make decisions. In developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. The development of the offices at 1 Flintoff Street enhance the accessibility of the community to Civic facilities with the current facilities at both Rosanna and Ivanhoe not fully accessible to staff or the community. The new Council facility creates a community beacon of activity in the Greensborough Precinct and adds to the community facilities available in the area. BENEFITS REALISATION The realisation of the One Flintoff project not only contributes to the revitalising of the Greensborough Activity Centre, but also has a range of community, environmental economic and financial benefits. Community Benefits The construction of One Flintoff provides a broad range of community benefits to the Banyule community. These include: • •

•

Substantially improved community facilities in Greensborough providing much needed community meeting and functions space in the northern part of the City. Provision of a “One Stop Shop” for Council services which currently are split across many locations. For example the planning department (Rosanna) is in a separate building to the building department (Greensborough) meaning inconvenience to the users of this linked service. Financial benefit to Council by leasing of commercial office space, introducing an ongoing income stream for Council and lessening Councils reliance on rate revenue.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 83

6.4

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

ONE FLINTOFF BENEFITS REALISATION cont’d • • •

Environmentally sustainable building will deliver cost savings to Council and greatly assist in reducing its carbon footprint. The move of Council operations out of the Ivanhoe office provides the opportunity to revitalise the Ivanhoe Civic Precinct and improve local community facilities by providing a redeveloped library and community hub. The move of Council operations out of the Rosanna office provides the opportunity for a redevelopment into a new commercial development and new anchor to the Rosanna commercial area.

Environmental Benefits The proposed building will be designed to be highly environmentally efficient with additional environmentally sustainable design (ESD) features designed in that will deliver a better financial return to Council. Key ESD features of the building include: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

50% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to the benchmarks of a similar offices. 90 kilowatts of solar panels to be installed. Additional solar panels on roof for water heating. Energy efficient chilled beams for air-conditioning instead of conventional air cooled air-conditioning system. External windows will be double glazed and shaded. LED lighting will be used throughout the building. Ambient light sensors near windows to adjust light depending on external light. Motion sensors to control lighting and air-conditioning of meeting rooms. Indoor plants to improve air quality. Environmentally sustainable materials used for construction and fit out. Water efficient fixtures and fittings. Rainwater for toilet flushing and garden irrigation. Landscaped terraces and a green façade. Secure bicycle spaces for workers. External bicycle spaces for visitors. Staff access showers, change facilities and lockers. Electric car charging points for Council’s car fleet.

The leadership shown by Council in the development of such an environmentally sustainable building in the municipality will become a demonstration project for the development industry in Banyule and should influence further environmentally sustainable development in the municipality. Economic benefits The construction of One Flintoff in Greensborough provides a number of broader economic benefits to the Banyule community. These include: • •

The construction of the two floors of office and community meeting facilities to service the civic needs. The construction of an additional commercially leased floor (approximately $8M) that provides the opportunity to attract an estimated additional 150 enduring jobs to Greensborough.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 84

ONE FLINTOFF BENEFITS REALISATION cont’d To understand the broader benefits of the impact of the above projects, Council has used a modelling tool developed by the National Institute of Economic and Industry Research (NIEIR), also known as National Economics. This is a recognised tool that is used in many of Australia's largest corporations as well as Federal, State and Local Government. The modelling tool provides a range of forecasting and analysis tools which can be used for strategy analysis, infrastructure planning, catchment management, investment assessment and cost-benefit analysis. The following table illustrates the economic benefits generated as a result of Council construction of One Flintoff over the 12 month construction period. One Flintoff Construction - effect of adding $31.0m sales in Construction Output Value-added Wages & Summary ($m) ($m) salaries ($m) Impact on Banyule City Council 55 18 15 economy Impact outside Banyule City 19 9 6 Council Total impact on Australian 74 27 21 economy

Local jobs 244 91 335

The following table illustrates the economic benefits generated as a result of Council leasing of the commercial floor of One Flintoff facilitating the provision of an estimated 150 enduring jobs. Effect of adding 150 jobs in Administrative and Support Services at One Flintoff Output Value-added Wages & Local Summary ($m) ($m) salaries ($m) jobs Impact on Banyule City Council 74 32 33 375 economy Impact outside Banyule City 40 18 13 184 Council Total impact on Australian 114 50 46 559 economy Source: National Institute of Economic and Industry Research (NIEIR) ©2015 Note: All $ values are expressed in 2012-13 base year dollar terms.

The construction of One Flintoff also frees up the office space currently utilised at the Ivanhoe Town Hall for staff that facilitates the construction of the proposed Ivanhoe Community Hub and the revitalisation of the Ivanhoe Civic Precinct. The relocation of staff from the Rosanna office frees up that site to facilitate the proposed construction of a supermarket in Rosanna. Both of these projects would create a similar economic benefit to the community for the construction component of the project similar to the construction of One Flintoff.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 85

6.4

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.4

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

ONE FLINTOFF BENEFITS REALISATION cont’d In addition to the above the sale of 9-13 Flintoff Street to Australian Unity will result in a redevelopment of the site and a further 30 medical services related jobs which will have a similar if not better flow on effect to other jobs in the community. Financial benefits The One Flintoff project has a budget provision of $20 million has been made in Council’s 2015/2016 Capital Works budget and a further allocation has been provided for in Council’s forward Capital Works Program for 2016/2017 financial year to complete the project. Council will fund the construction of the project from existing reserves funded by the sales of Commercial properties within Greensborough Commercial area and Rosanna Commercial area. The Project is not funded by any borrowings. Some of the subject properties that either are sold or Council has flagged its intention to sell include the development opportunities on Greensborough Walk (development now in construction), 9 - 13 Flintoff St, Greensborough (the previous Centre Link Site and Councils current Service centre), several Main Street, Greensborough properties, Councils Rosanna Service Centre in Turnham Ave, Rosanna. Council retains further significant commercial land holdings in other areas of Banyule not earmarked for contribution to this project. One Flintoff consists of two components as follows: • •

Council office and community meeting rooms $23M (two floors) Commercial office $8M (one floor)

The Commercial floor consists of 2,200 square metres floor space which will be let commercially. It is anticipated that the expected net rent Council will receive for the tenancy will be in excess of $500,000 per annum. There are a number of potential cost savings that will be realised once the new office is constructed and staff collocated. These include: • • • • • • • •

Elimination of travel time between office locations and rationalisation of some of the council passenger fleet. Staff effectiveness, improved productivity and morale. More responsive & effective communication due to co-location of all staff. Better use of resources/Customer Service provision e.g. provide a one-stop shop for customers with planning, building, engineering and health enquiries. Improved connectedness, work practices, better spatial utilisation. More responsive & effective Information Technology & Telecommunication & Records Management due to co-location. Reduction in facility operational and utility costs. The construction of the meeting facilities frees up space in Watermarc to expand the gym thus providing a greater financial return to Council.

Estimated savings from elimination of travel time, productivity savings and reduction in utility cost/year are projected up to $1M per year.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 86

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.4

ONE FLINTOFF BENEFITS REALISATION cont’d CONSULTATION Between 2001 and 2010 during the development of the Greensborough Structure Plan and in the lead up to the construction of WaterMarc, Banyule City Council conducted extensive community consultation and communication. A range of Community meetings, information sessions, festival stands and business breakfasts were held and a Greensborough Project Community Consultative Committee established to provide direct feedback to Council. Additionally, information was provided to the community via the local media, including the Banyule Banner and daily newspapers, via the Banyule Website and in direct mail outs to stakeholders, traders and adjoining properties. Since 2010 significant effort has been made to keep the community and staff informed on Councils intentions around the various stages of the project. This has included clear statements of intent to construct the offices in the budget and City Plan documents over the last two years. This has included information to the distributed to the local media, at information sessions, in banner articles, Fact Sheets and budget summary documents. Consultation meetings have continued with Greensborough traders, the Greensborough Consultative Committee and the operator of WaterMarc facility during the detailed design stage and will continue to be held during the construction phase of the project. A detailed Consultation Plan has also been developed and will be progressively rolled out during the construction of the project. The Communications Plan in place is to ensure the community and key stakeholders: • • •

Are informed about all stages of the One Flintoff project Are aware of its significance and benefits Embrace and support the development

The Greensborough Project Community Consultative Committee, an integral part of the communication strategy for the successful WaterMarc project, will meet regularly to discuss the One Flintoff project. The Committee is made up of Greensborough traders, local residents, interested groups and the local Member of Parliament. CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS AND TIMELINES The construction of One Flintoff is well underway and is progressing on time and on budget. The new mezzanine level carpark is nearing completion to a point that the WaterMarc basement carpark has been reopened to the public. Works on upper levels of the building are progressing well. Works on the reconfiguration of the WaterMarc reception and the new entry at the foyer level will commence in April 2016. It is expected that the construction will be completed in December 2016 with Council staff moving into the new office in January 2017.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 87

6.4

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

ONE FLINTOFF BENEFITS REALISATION contâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d CONCLUSION The construction of the office development at One Flintoff above WaterMarc progresses the realisation of the vision for Greensborough as a place that is economically vibrant and values community and individual wellbeing. Consecutive project opportunities for commercial and community developments within Ivanhoe, Greensborough and Rosanna are now able to be achieved. Council continues to deliver on its commitments to the Community around best value service provision, the development and regeneration of important community infrastructure and the stimulation of economic activity in key activity centres. The One Flintoff project provides a broad range of benefits to the Banyule community that will be realised in the coming years once the One Flintoff building is completed in December 2016. These benefits can be broadly categorised as Community, Environmental, Economic and Financial benefits as outlined in this report.

ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 88

6.5

ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS

Author:

Kellie O'Shea - Senior Governance Officer, Corporate Services

File:

D16/52779

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:

7 March 2016

Type of Meeting:

Councillor Briefing

Matters Considered:

Items on the Council Agenda for the Ordinary Meeting of 7 March 2016 (excluding confidential items) as listed below: 1.1 Petition for Parking Restrictions Olympic Leisure Centre 2.1 Petrie Park and Rattray Reserve Draft Master Plans 4.1 Heidelberg and Bell Street Mall Parking Plan (Revised Draft) 4.2 Substituted Plans for VCAT hearing for development of five double storey dwellings at 34 - 36 Munro Street, Macleod 4.3 Ivanhoe Grammar School - Transition to Compliance 4.4 Urban Planning and Building Activities Report 4.5 Draft Residential Parking Permit Policy Consultation Timeframes 6.1 Items for Noting 6.2 Councillor Strategic Planning Workshop 6.3 MAV - Provision of a Recruitment Services Contract 6.4 Election Period Policy

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 89

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.5

ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS cont’d 6.5 14-18 Livingstone Street, Ivanhoe Hear submissions on proposed sale of land 6.6 Community Information and Support Services - Shop 48 The Mall, West Heidelberg 6.7 9 John Street, Ivanhoe - Proposed lease to Ivanhoe Bowling Club Inc 6.8 Assembly of Councillors 7.1 Yarra Plenty Regional Library Supplemental Agreement 8.1 Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA or Drones)/Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) and Model Aircraft 8.2 Traffic Investigation - Rushworth Street and Reeves Street, and Watsonia Primary School 8.3 Funding Safe Schools Coalition Australia Program in Schools 8.4 VetRide and its support to the Vietnam Veterans 8.5 Advocacy for vital transport infrastructure in Banyule and the North East of Melbourne 8.6 Review Advocacy Approach to Bullying 8.7 Banyule City Council Procurement Policy 8.8 Sealing of Macleod Park Car Park Councillors Present:

Mark Di Pasquale Craig Langdon Tom Melican Jenny Mulholland Wayne Phillips

Staff Present:

Simon McMillan – Chief Executive Officer Allison Beckwith – Director Community Programs Scott Walker – Director City Development Marc Giglio – Director Corporate Services Geoff Glynn – Director Assets & City Services Gina Burden – Manager Governance & Communication Emily Outlaw – Council Governance Liaison Officer Amanda Cuxson – Development Planning Team Leader Joel Elbourne – Manager Urban Planning & Building Joseph Tabacco – Manager Property & Economic Development Daniel Kollmorgen – Manager Transport, Sustainability & Municipal Laws

Others Present:

Nil

Conflict of Interest:

Cr Tom Melican – item 8.4 Cr Mark Di Pasquale – item 8.4

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 90

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.5

ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS cont’d Cr Jenny Mulholland – item 8.6 2

Date of Assembly:

21 March 2016

Type of Meeting:

Briefing / Strategic Planning Meeting

Matters Considered:

Confidential Matters

Councillors Present:

Steven Briffa Mark Di Pasquale Craig Langdon Tom Melican Wayne Phillips

Staff Present:

Simon McMillan – Chief Executive Officer Marc Giglio – Director Corporate Services Geoff Glynn – Director Assets & City Services Joel Elbourne – Manager Urban Planning & Building Joseph Tabacco – Manager Property & Economic Development Jeanette Kringle – Property Co-ordinator Michael Hutchison – School Sites Redevelopment Project Coordinator Kerryn Woods – Executive Assistant/Project Officer

Others Present:

Nil

Conflict of Interest:

Nil

RECOMMENDATION That the Assembly of Councillors report be received.

ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 91

7.1

Sealing of Documents

SEALING OF DOCUMENTS 4 APRIL 2016

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

Griffin

File:

D16/52657

RECOMMENDATION That the Common Seal of the Banyule City Council be affixed to the Deed of Assignment for Private Parking Agreement at 72-84 Upper Heidelberg Road, Ivanhoe. The following documents require the affixing of the Common Seal of Council: 1

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

MRO Nominees Pty Ltd, Haofa Pty Ltd, Banyule City Council Daniel Kollmorgen F2016/1206 Deed of Assignment for Private Parking Agreement at 72-84 Upper Heidelberg Road, Ivanhoe 72-84 Upper Heidelberg Road, Ivanhoe Griffin A Private Parking Agreement between MRO Nominees Pty Ltd and Council was executed in February 2015. This agreement allowed the site to be gazetted under the Road Safety Act and for Council to enforce the Victorian Road Rules on the site. MRO Nominees Pty Ltd have now sold the land to Haofa Pty Ltd and the new owners wish to continue with Council enforcing the parking restrictions. The sealing of the Deed of Assignment is required to allow this to occur.

ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 93

8.1

LEVEL CROSSING REMOVAL CONSULTATION

Author:

Cr Steven Briffa

File:

D16/52795

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

Note the concerns by other councils over the lack of community consultation during the development of the level crossing removal project along the Cranbourne-Pakenham railway line, which includes “SkyRail” as the design option, and seek all local state members to support greater community consultation regarding this matter.

Write to local members requesting their position on the Lower Plenty Road level crossing removal at Rosanna and the possibilities of bringing this project forward to better assist our community.

Receive a report providing an update on the project, discussions to date and considering options for a working group at a future Council Meeting.”

Explanation The State Government’s recent announcement of the removal of level crossings between Caulfield and Dandenong railway stations has raised community concern over the consultation process prior to the project announcement, which includes “SkyRail” as the design option being pursued. The community’s concern about the lack of engagement during the development stage has reduced the ability for the proposal to address local issues and enable community ownership of the project. The level crossing on Lower Plenty Road, Rosanna, is one of 50 level crossings in metropolitan Melbourne identified for removal. It is vital that the community are engaged and consulted at the earliest opportunity to ensure the best outcome for Rosanna and the surrounding area.

CR STEVEN BRIFFA Hawdon Ward

ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 95

8.1

Notice of Motion

8.2

DEFENCE FORCE SCHOOL OF SIGNALS (DFSS) EXERCISING FREEDOM OF ENTRY CEREMONY TO BANYULE

Author:

Cr Craig Langdon

File:

D16/52647

8.2

Notice of Motion

TAKE NOTICE that it is my intention to move: â&#x20AC;&#x153;That: 1.

Council invite the Defence Force School of Signals (DFSS) to exercise its right to march in Banyule City by Granting of Freedom of Entry (FOE).

A report be presented to Council on the costs associated with the event.â&#x20AC;?

Explanation Granting of Freedom of Entry upon Military Units is mostly ceremonial and gives the right of general entry to the unit to parade through the streets on ceremonial occasions, and to be present at official functions and ceremonies like Anzac Day and wreath laying services. In accordance with military law and tradition, this gives the Unit the right to march through the streets with swords drawn, bayonets fixed, drums beating, bands playing and ensign flying. It is proposed the FOE parade could take place on Saturday, August 27 with the DFSS marching up Upper Heidelberg Road to the Ivanhoe Service Centre. After forming up to the south of the Service Centre, it will come to halt in the forecourt where a short parade will take place. The ceremony could be followed by a morning tea reception for approximately 250 people in the McCubbin Room, The Centre Ivanhoe. The DFSS has previously been granted Freedom of Entry to the City in 1985, 1988 and 2014. It is anticipated that in future this ceremony will take place every two years. The report to Council should advise on the allocation of funds required for this event, including traffic management and catering, given that this event is unbudgeted.

CR CRAIG LANGDON Olympia Ward ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 96

8.3

USE OF ETHICAL PAPER

Author:

Cr Craig Langdon

File:

D16/52646

8.3

Notice of Motion

TAKE NOTICE that it is my intention to move: “That a report be presented to Council regarding the use of ethical office paper in its operations and any implications of signing the Wilderness Society of Victoria’s Ethical Paper pledge. Such a report is to include advice from Council’s Environment Advisory Committee.” Explanation The Planet section of Council’s City Plan has the following key directions which give support to the use of ethical paper: 2.1 2.4 2.5

Protect and enhance our natural environment. Avoid waste generation. Act as environmental stewards.

Council has progressively reviewed is procurement of office paper to ensure it meets these City Plan Key Directions, as well as Council’s Procurement Policy. The signing of the Wilderness Society of Victoria’s Ethical Paper pledge could further underscore Council’s performance in this area. A report to Council would provide further detail on these matters.

CR CRAIG LANGDON Olympia Ward ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 97

8.4

OLYMPIC VILLAGE 60TH ANNIVERSARY HISTORY PROJECT

Author:

Cr Craig Langdon

Ward:

Olympia

File:

D16/52645

8.4

Notice of Motion

TAKE NOTICE that it is my intention to move: “That Officers include the following additional initiatives in their investigation and report back to Council on the promotion of the history of Olympic Village in West Heidelberg in the lead up to the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio De Janeiro: • • • • • • • •

Landscaping improvements along the side of the leisure centre in Alamein Road. Lighting of the Olympic rings in Alamein Road. Improvements to stone feature in the Village Green. Improvements to the Southern Road entrance to the City. Reorientate the existing bus shelter so that patrons are facing towards the oncoming bus. Painting/improvement of the metal guards protecting the windows along the side of Olympic Leisure. Development of an urban design plan to document the proposed improvements and to be used for consultation with residents and traders. Event to celebrate the Rio Olympics and the improvement to the Olympic Village.”

Explanation On 18 August 2014, Council, in response to a Notice of Motion, resolved to consider improvements around the Olympic Village and to provide the opportunity to promote the history of the Olympic Village in West Heidelberg in the lead up to the XXXI Olympiad in Rio de Janeiro, commencing on 5 August 2016. As part of the investigation officers were asked to consider the following proposals: • • • • •

improving the boundary signage on Southern Road to reflect that the Olympic Village of the XVI Olympiad in Melbourne; seeking the appropriate approval to display the Olympic Rings and/or the Melbourne Olympic symbol and the words "Melbourne Olympic Village" on the street signs along with the Banyule Council name and symbol; creating heritage interpretative signage round the Olympic Village area to highlight the history of the Village and the Melbourne Games. These could be used to create a history trail throughout the village; installing additional banners around the Olympic Village Green and Shopping Centre; and options for a possible name change of the area to Olympic Village to give credence to its history.

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 98

8.4

Notice of Motion

OLYMPIC VILLAGE 60TH ANNIVERSARY HISTORY PROJECT cont’d A small amount of funding was allocated in the current 2015/16 to support some of the above initiatives, which have already occurred, however, officers will be reporting back to Council on the further level of funding required to complete the initiatives. In the interim, further initiatives have come to light which could also be considered as part of the project and included in the proposal to improve the area around Olympic Village, these include: • • • • • • • •

CR CRAIG LANGDON Olympia Ward ATTACHMENTS Nil

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 4 April 2016

Page 99

ATTACHMENTS

3.1

Chandler Highway widening Attachment 1 Attachment 2 Attachment 3

4.1

Signing the International Charter for Walking Attachment 1

4.2

Attachment 2

Leith Walk, Macleod - VicRoads Road Closure Report.................. 147 Leith Walk, Macleod - Public Notice published in Local newspapers ................................................................................... 155

Consent Order for Planning Application 6/67-75 The Mall, Heidelberg West (P194/2015) Attachment 1 Attachment 2 Attachment 3

6.1

Planning permit P101/2014 ........................................................... 139

Leith Walk, Macleod - Recieve submissions on proposed permanent road closure Attachment 1 Attachment 2

4.6

5 Stone Court, Viewbank - P670/2015 - Planning Assessment................................................................................... 122 5 Stone Court, Viewbank - P670/2015 - Plans and elevations ....... 133

Amendment to Planning Permit P101/2014 for additional days and hours at Loyola College Performing Arts Centre, 325 Grimshaw Street, Watsonia Attachment 1

4.5

Australian Infrastructure Plan Excerpt - North East Link ................ 117 RACV Royal Auto - February 2016 - North East Link Article.......... 118

Construct a second double storey dwelling adjacent to the existing dwelling at 5 Stone Court, Viewbank Attachment 1

4.4

International Charter for Walking ................................................... 109

North East Link - Quarterly Report Attachment 1 Attachment 2

4.3

Chandler Highway Duplication Plan............................................... 103 Yarra City Council Letter ............................................................... 104 Darebin City Council Letter............................................................ 106

Planning controls and policy framework......................................... 156 Engineering referral comments...................................................... 158 Amended plans - Revision B received 1 March 2016..................... 161

14-18 Livingstone Street, Ivanhoe - Proposed Sale of Land Attachment 1 Attachment 2

Planning Permit TP3880................................................................ 177 Precis of Submissions and Responses.......................................... 180

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 101

3.1

Attachment 1: Chandler Highway Duplication Plan

Attachment 1

Item: 3.1

Attachment 2

3.1

Item: 3.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 104

Attachment 2: Yarra City Council Letter

3.1

Attachment 2: Yarra City Council Letter

Attachment 2

Item: 3.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 105

Attachment 3

3.1

Item: 3.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 106

Attachment 3: Darebin City Council Letter

3.1

Attachment 3: Darebin City Council Letter

Attachment 3

Item: 3.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 107

Attachment 3

3.1

Item: 3.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 108

Attachment 3: Darebin City Council Letter

4.1

Attachment 1: International Charter for Walking

Attachment 1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 109

Attachment 1: International Charter for Walking

Attachment 1

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 110

4.1

Attachment 1: International Charter for Walking

Attachment 1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 111

Attachment 1: International Charter for Walking

Attachment 1

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 112

4.1

Attachment 1: International Charter for Walking

Attachment 1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 113

Attachment 1: International Charter for Walking

Attachment 1

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 114

4.1

Attachment 1: International Charter for Walking

Attachment 1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 115

Attachment 1: International Charter for Walking

Attachment 1

4.1

Item: 4.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 116

4.2

Attachment 1: Australian Infrastructure Plan Excerpt - North East Link

Attachment 1

Item: 4.2

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 117

Attachment 2: RACV Royal Auto - February 2016 - North East Link Article

Attachment 2

4.2

Item: 4.2

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 118

4.2

Attachment 2: RACV Royal Auto - February 2016 - North East Link Article

Attachment 2

Item: 4.2

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 119

Attachment 2: RACV Royal Auto - February 2016 - North East Link Article

Attachment 2

4.2

Item: 4.2

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 120

4.2

Attachment 2: RACV Royal Auto - February 2016 - North East Link Article

Attachment 2

Item: 4.2

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 121

4.3

Item: 4.3

Attachment 1: 5 Stone Court, Viewbank - P670/2015 - Planning Assessment

P417/2015: ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION PLANNING CONTROLS The following planning controls are relevant to the assessment of the application: General Residential Zone - schedule 2

Attachment 1

The purpose of this zone is to: •

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

•

To encourage development that respects the neighbourhood character of the area.

•

To implement neighbourhood character policy and adopted neighbourhood character guidelines.

•

To provide a diversity of housing types and moderate housing growth in locations offering good access to services and transport.

•

To allow educational, recreational, religious, community and a limited range of other nonresidential uses to serve local community needs in appropriate locations.

Planning approval is required to construct a dwelling if there is at least one dwelling existing on the lot. Vegetation protection overlay – Schedule 5 The overlay aims to retain and protect existing trees, and to promote further planting of new trees as a significant component of local identity and neighbourhood character. A permit is required to remove, destroy or lop those trees which has a height of 12 metres or more, or has a trunk or stems that collectively are more than 400mm in diameter, measured at 1400mm above the base of the tree. It is not proposed to remove any vegetation from the site as part of this application. Clause 52.06 Car Parking Provisions No. of bedrooms

Clause 52.06 – Specified car parking rate

Proposal

Dwelling 1

Tandem two car garage

Dwelling 2

Double garage

The proposed development complies with the car parking rates of the scheme. The turning circle proposed for the tandem garage of dwelling 1 is insufficient in area to allow for vehicles to enter/ exit the garage and does not comply with the scheme. The proposal fails to achieve an appropriate balance between competing State and Local planning policies, and does not incorporate adequate regard to the provisions of the Residential Neighbourhood Character Policy and ResCode.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 122

Attachment 1: 5 Stone Court, Viewbank - P670/2015 - Planning Assessment

Clause 22.02 Neighbourhood Character Local Policy – Garden Court Precinct 2 (South)

4.3

Item: 4.3

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

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

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

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

Discussion The proposal is located within a small court with 5 properties (including the subject site) having frontage to Stone Court. The subject site is a large triangular site (area of 1154sqm) with a large portion of the site taken up by an existing dwelling, pool and pool house. The existing house has frontage to Stone Court but is also orientated towards the eastern side boundary to take advantage of distant views. It is proposed to retain the existing dwelling and construct a second double storey dwelling adjacent to the eastern side boundary, in a side by side arrangement. The second dwelling would utilise an existing second crossover on the Stone Court frontage. It is unusual to have two crossovers provided on such a small frontage (curved 13.72m wide). While Council’s records indicate no approval for the crossovers, Council’s Building and Civil works generally do not require any changes to pre-existing crossovers. The proposed dwelling 2 is of a modern contemporary design constructed of brickwork with a flat roof at ground floor and the upper storey located within a high pitched gable end, with no eaves. Other upper level roof lines are flat. The façade of the dwelling includes a double garage door and entry doorway at the ground floor, and a high pitched, glazed gable end on the upper level. The proposed narrow frontage of dwelling 2 (an opening of 7.1m onto the court) is dominated by a double garage doorway, a 3.8m wide driveway with narrow garden beds either side of the drive. Surrounding development includes 1960’s - 1970’s dwellings. There is a 2 dwelling development located to the west (7 Stone Court) with a single storey dwelling at the front and a double storey dwelling at the rear accessed via a shared driveway along the eastern side boundary. The other properties within the court are detached double storey dwellings. Setback within the court vary with the existing dwelling 1 setback 8.49m, the front dwelling at 7 Stone Court at 9.19m, 8 Stone Court at approximately 6.8m and 6 Stone Court at approximately 10.6m. Dwellings within the court have established front gardens. The adjoining dwelling to the east of the site has frontage to O’Donnell Street with a side setback to Stone Court of 4.5m.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 123

Attachment 1

Does not comply Second storey portions of buildings should be recessed from ground level wall surfaces, Yes incorporated within roof spaces where possible and minimised in height.

4.3

Item: 4.3

Attachment 1: 5 Stone Court, Viewbank - P670/2015 - Planning Assessment

The proposed dwelling 2 is at odds with the court setting due to the cut proposed (approximately 1.5m) between the NGL of dwelling 1 and dwelling 2, the proposed built form, lack of landscaping within the front setback and minimal setback to the eastern side boundary. Objective Complies? To ensure new buildings and extensions are sympathetic to the current building form Does Not Comply and architectural style.

Attachment 1

Design Response 6. In GC2 (North) and GC2 (West), new dwellings should incorporate the main themes from NA nearby buildings including the predominant roof forms, and articulation to the faรงade. 7.

In GC2 (South), infill development in 1960s/1970s areas should incorporate the main Does not themes, in correct proportion and scale, from the 1960s/1970s styles ie: low wall heights comply and low hipped roof forms.

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

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

Discussion The proportions and design of dwellings 2 fail to address design response #7 which requires new development to reflect the main themes, in correct proportion and scale, from the 1960s/1970s styles which characteristically present with low wall heights and low hipped roof forms of the surrounding dwellings. The faรงade of Dwelling 2 has been designed to include a double garage door and entry door at ground level (7.5m wide) with a high pitched, glazed gable end on the upper level. No eaves are provided. The area of flat roofline at the rear of the dwelling, hidden behind the parapet wall form, is not in keeping with the existing building form of surrounding dwellings. It is considered that the proposed dwelling is not sympathetic to the current building form and architectural style of the court and surrounding dwellings. Objective To ensure that household services are not a visually prominent feature.

Complies? Yes

Design Response 10. Solar panels should be located to minimise their visual impact. Air conditioning, Yes rainwater tanks, bins and storage should be located and/or screened so they are not visually obtrusive in the streetscape. In accessible areas, rooftop plant equipment should be screened and/or located to NA minimise their visual impact and integrate with the roof form. Discussion 11.

The areas of open space are adequate to accommodate all household services and conceal them from the court.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 124

Objective Complies? To maintain consistency of current front setbacks, whilst enabling tree planting in front Does Not gardens. Comply Design Response 12. Dwellings should be setback in line with the predominant front setback of dwellings along the street. 13. In accessible areas only, a reduced front setback for new buildings (including basements) may be acceptable, if this respects the predominant front setback of nearby dwellings and supports the planting and future growth of a large tree to maturity. 14. For corner sites, the front setback of a dwelling facing the side street should be at a transition between the predominant setback along the side street, and the side setback of the dwelling facing the front street. Discussion

4.3

Attachment 1: 5 Stone Court, Viewbank - P670/2015 - Planning Assessment

Does Not Comply NA

The proposed front setback 5.3m of dwelling 2 is not consistent with the predominant front setback within the court which ranges from 6.8m to 10.6m. Further, as a result of two crossovers and two driveways within the narrow frontage (curved 13.72m wide), there will be limited opportunities for landscaping in the front garden, including inadequate opportunity for a canopy tree in the front setback. Objective Complies? To minimise loss of front garden space, and the dominance of vehicle access, vehicle Does Not Comply storage facilities and built form as viewed from the street. Design Response 15. Locate carports and garages behind the line of the dwelling.

Does not Comply 16. In GC2 (East) locate carports, garages, and all uncovered parking spaces behind the NA line of the dwelling. Landscaping such as large shrubs and trees in the front setback and garden beds along driveway edges should be provided to discourage car parking in the front yard 17. In GC2 (North) (South) & (West), dedicated car parking spaces should not be provided Does Not between the front wall of a dwelling that faces the street, and the front property Comply boundary. Landscaping such as large shrubs and trees in the front setback and garden beds along driveway edges should be provided to discourage car parking in this location. 18. Encourage outcomes that consider the Banyule City Council Residential Vehicle NA Crossing Policy 2012. 19. Driveways should include curves and bends that provide sufficient room for Yes landscaping at varying heights. 20. Driveways should be finished in muted tones that soften their appearance and blend Conditions with vegetation. required Discussion The garage forms the predominant front building line of the dwelling, and the lack of any active spaces exacerbate the dominance of the double garage in the streetscape presentation.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 125

Attachment 1

Item: 4.3

4.3

Item: 4.3

Attachment 1: 5 Stone Court, Viewbank - P670/2015 - Planning Assessment

Due to the narrow frontage of the site (curved 13.72 wide), utilisation of two crossovers and two driveways, there are limited opportunities for planting trees and shrubs within the front garden. The extent of hard standing areas within the front setback and the dominance of vehicle storage (dwelling 2â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s garage) when viewed from the street is at odds with the garden setting of other dwellings within the court.

Attachment 1

Objective Complies? To maintain the openness of front boundary treatments and the presentation of Does Not Comply dwellings to the street. Design Response 21. Front fences should not be provided. 22. A large tree and understorey landscaping including large shrubs should be provided in the front setback. 23. Secluded private open space should be located behind the line of a dwelling that faces the street. Discussion

NA Does Not Comply Yes

No front fence is proposed. The site has a large canopy tree (Tree #6 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Narrow-leaved peppermint) located within the naturestrip between the existing crossovers and a large canopy tree (not identified in the Arborist report) located at the front of the site, adjacent to the western side boundary. It is proposed to retain these trees. Due to the proposal design which incorporates use of the two existing crossovers and two driveways within the narrow frontage site (curved 13.72m wide) there is little opportunity to provide an open garden presentation to the street, which will instead be dominated by the hard surfaces, and consequently the building form.

Objective To maintain and strengthen the garden and tree dominated streetscape character and the landscaped setting of the precinct, and to support the maintenance of wildlife habitats. Design Response 24. Retain existing trees wherever possible. If this cannot be achieved, or a tree is considered appropriate for removal, the site should provide adequate space for offset planting of indigenous or native trees that will grow to a mature height similar to the mature height of the tree to be removed. 25. Retain the existing Melbourne Yellow-gums (Eucalyptus leucoxylon subsp. Connata), which are listed as vulnerable on the Advisory List of Rare or Threatened Plants in Victoria, DSE 2005. 26. One (1) medium to large tree should be provided for every 400 sq.m of site area, with a preference for large trees. This may include existing trees that are worthy of retention. At least one of the large trees should be provided in the front setback. 27. Buildings (including basements) should be a sufficient distance from at least one side or rear property boundary to enable the planting and growth of medium to large trees. These setbacks should provide sufficient area for future growth of the mature ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 126

Complies? Does Not Comply

Yes

Does Not Comply Yes

canopy of trees, and understorey planting. 28. If more than one dwelling is proposed on a site outside an accessible area, sufficient separation should be provided between each dwelling to allow for the planting and future growth of small to medium trees and understorey vegetation. 29. Tree species and planting locations should be carefully selected to avoid canopy or root conflicts with overhead wires, easements and existing trees. 30. If there is no street tree within the frontage of a dwelling, a new street tree should be proposed. 31. Building site coverage should not exceed 40% in order to provide sufficient site area for planting, growth and retention of vegetation. This may be varied if the proposal is in an accessible area and demonstrates that the vegetated character of the site and Precinct is protected and enhanced by retaining existing vegetation and providing sufficient area for the planting of additional trees and other vegetation. Discussion

Yes

Conditions required NA Yes Proposed site coverage 39.2%

The site is 1154sqm in area are requires the provision of two large trees (1:400sqm)associated with the development. Two additional large trees are also required to be provided on site in response to previous approval granted to removal a tree at the rear of the existing dwelling to allow for the installation of the pool (Permit P919/2010 Tree removal issued 15/03/2011). It would appear that these replacement trees have not been planted to date, and no provision for these trees is provided in the proposal. There is insufficient space within the development to accommodate the planting required. Objective Complies? To ensure that developments on or near ridgelines retain existing trees, sit below the tree NA canopies, minimise excavation, and enable further tree planting to form a continuous canopy, so that the scenic quality is maintained and enhanced. Design Response 32. New buildings at or near ridgelines should be designed and sited so that cut and fill is NA minimised and the building sits below the height of trees along the ridgeline. 33. New buildings at or near ridgelines should have muted colours and tones, and non - NA reflective materials. 34. Trees and vegetation that contribute to the landscape should be retained. New native or NA indigenous trees should be planted on or near the ridgeline to form a continuous canopy. Discussion The subject site is not located on a ridgeline.

Clause 55 ResCode Neighbourhood Character and Infrastructure Not The character of the small court is 1960’s/1970’s single and Neighbourhood character Does Complies double storey brick dwellings with low pitched roof forms and objectives •

•

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

4.3

Attachment 1: 5 Stone Court, Viewbank - P670/2015 - Planning Assessment

eaves. The dwellings are located within a garden setting with established planting including large canopy trees and shrubs. The proportion, design, setbacks of the proposed dwelling 2 and lack of planting opportunities fails to address the neighbourhood character local policy – Garden Court 2 (south).

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 127

Attachment 1

Item: 4.3

Attachment 1

4.3

Item: 4.3

Attachment 1: 5 Stone Court, Viewbank - P670/2015 - Planning Assessment

Standard B1

Residential policy objectives •

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

Dwelling diversity objective

Does Not Comply

The site is located within an Incremental Area under Council’s Residential Areas Framework. These are areas typically located further away from Activity centres and the Principal Transport Network. Under the Municipal Strategic Statement (Cl. 21.06-2) these areas are to provide well designed single and medium density dwellings. It is considered that the proposal does not address this standard as it fails to provide a positive contribution to the desired future neighbourhood character.

N/A

Less than 10 dwellings

•

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

Integration objective

with

the street Complies

•

To integrate the layout development with the street. Standard B5

Site Layout and Building Mass Does Street setback objective •

The proposal provides vehicle and pedestrian links to the street.

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

Not

Comply

Proposed front setback of dwelling 2 to Stone Court is 5.382m. The existing front setbacks include: • The existing dwelling on the subject site has a front setback of 8.4m. •

Adjoining dwelling (west) at 1/7 Stone Court front setback is 9.190m.

•

Adjoining dwelling (east) 19 O’Donnell Street has frontage to O’Donnell Street with side setback of 4.5m to Stone Court. Other setbacks within the court include: • 8 Stone Court approximately 6.8m • 6 Stone Court approximately 10.6m It is considered that an appropriate setback of around 8.4m to respect the existing dwelling on the site should be provided for the objective to be met.

Building height objective

Complies

Proposed overall height above NGL 7.1m is below the maximum 9.0m height limit set down in the standard.

Does Not Comply

While the proposed site coverage 39.02% is below the 40% specified in the GRZ2 schedule, the proposal fails to address the objective of this standard which requires the site coverage to respect the preferred neighbourhood character and respond to features of the site. In this case Council’s neighbourhood character local policy requires sufficient space for canopy tree planting within the front setback and throughout the site.

•

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

Site coverage objective •

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

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 128

The site constraints, including the irregular shape of the site with a narrow frontage, location of the existing house, pool house and pool, two crossovers and associated driveways and the proposed dwelling footprint limit opportunities for adequate canopy tree planting.

Permeability objectives • •

Complies

Proposed permeability 59% meets the minimum 20% required by the standard.

Complies

Dwelling 1 (existing) living areas and PSOS has access to northern sun and provides eaves Dwelling 2 (proposed) living area and PSOS has access to eastern sunlight but has no eaves. An open pergola is provided for open space adjacent to living areas

N/A

The subject site does not adjoin any public open space.

Does Not Comply

Dwelling 1’s (existing) entry is clear and visible from Stone Court. Dwelling 2’s (proposed) entry opens onto a hallway with a habitable room located at the rear of the site. There is no habitable room window to allow casual surveillance or visual interaction between the interior of the dwelling and the publicly accessible area of the site. Council has been successful at VCAT with refusal upheld on this issue – Spark V Banyule CC [2014] VCAT 245 at 67 Lloyd St Heidelberg Heights.

Does Not Comply

The proposed design does not allow for an open front setback providing canopy trees and shrubs. The narrow front setback in dominated by two crossovers and two driveways with limited opportunities for adequate planting and landscaping consistent with the existing neighbourhood character.

Does Not Comply

There are two existing crossover on the site.

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

Energy efficiency objectives •

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

Open space objective •

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

Safety objective •

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

Landscaping objectives •

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

Access objectives •

To ensure vehicle access to and from a development is safe, manageable and convenient.

Council’s Traffic Engineers has raised a concern that the proposed turning circle for dwelling 1’s tandem garage

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 129

4.3

Attachment 1: 5 Stone Court, Viewbank - P670/2015 - Planning Assessment

Attachment 1

Item: 4.3

4.3

Item: 4.3

Attachment 1: 5 Stone Court, Viewbank - P670/2015 - Planning Assessment

•

located adjacent to the northern boundary is inadequate in space to allow for vehicles to efficiently and safely movement enter/exit the garage.

To ensure the number and design of vehicle crossovers respects the neighbourhood character. Standard B14 Complies

Dwelling 1 has 3 bedroom and provides a tandem garage 2 spaces Dwelling 2 proposes 3 bedrooms and two car parking spaces in a double garage

setbacks Complies

The proposed dwelling 2 complies with the side and rear setback as set down in the formula for this standard.

Parking location objectives

Attachment 1

•

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

Side and objective

rear

•

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

Walls on boundaries objective

N/A

No boundary walls are proposed.

•

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

An existing tandem garage for dwelling 1 is located on the northern boundary of the site.

Daylight to existing windows Complies objective

The proposal does not impact on existing habitable room windows.

•

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

North-facing objective

windows Complies

There are no north facing windows within 3m of the proposed dwelling 2.

•

To allow adequate solar access to existing north-facing habitable room windows. Standard B20

Overshadowing open space Complies objective •

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

Overlooking objective •

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

Conditions required

Shadow diagrams indicate that there will be some overshadowing to a small section of the secluded open space and dwelling at 6 Alec Court at midday and of the secluded open space of 6 Alec Court and 15 - 19 O’Donnell Street in the afternoon. Given the remaining unshaded area of secluded private open space of 6 Alec Court & 15-19 O’Donnell Street (i.e. >40sqm), the proposal is within the allowance of the Standard. The balcony and living room window of dwelling 1 currently overlook the secluded private open space and habitable room windows of the property to the rear (6 Alec Court). No changes have been proposed to dwelling 1. In respect to dwelling 2 a combination of highlight windows and privacy screens has been used to address potential

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 130

overlooking. Any approval granted for the proposal should include a condition requiring screens of the dwelling 1 balcony and living room window to address ResCode standard B22 Overlooking

Internal views objective

Complies

A combination of highlight windows and privacy screens has been used to address potential internal overlooking.

Complies

The proposed dwelling 2’s entry would be able to be accessed by people with limited mobility. The existing dwelling would be more difficult to access due to the slope of the land and stairs to the entry.

•

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

On-site Amenity and Facilities Accessibility objective •

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

Dwelling entry objective •

No changes to the entry of dwelling 1 are proposed. The entry to dwelling 2 is visible from the street and a proposed porch provides shelter.

Complies

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

Daylight to objective

new

windows Complies

Adequate daylight is provided to habitable room windows of the dwellings

•

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

Dwelling 1 (existing) secluded open space 300sqm Dwelling 2 (proposed) secluded open space 38sqm with a minimum dimension of 3m and an overall area of 56.3sqm

Solar access to open space Complies objective

Areas of secluded open space will receive adequate solar access.

Private open space objective •

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

•

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

Storage objective

Complies

Each dwelling is provided with a 6 cubic metre storage area.

Does Not Comply

The proposed dwelling 2 does not respect the preferred neighbourhood character of the court. The proposal does not provide windows to address the street on the ground floor façade, provides a high pitched roof form with no eaves and has inadequate space for canopy tree planting within the front setback and throughout the site.

N/A

No front fence proposed.

•

To provide adequate storage facilities for each dwelling. Standard B30

Detailed Design Design detail objective •

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

Front fences objective •

To encourage front fence design that respects the existing or

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 131

4.3

Attachment 1: 5 Stone Court, Viewbank - P670/2015 - Planning Assessment

Attachment 1

Item: 4.3

4.3

Item: 4.3 preferred character. Standard B32

Attachment 1: 5 Stone Court, Viewbank - P670/2015 - Planning Assessment neighbourhood

Common property objectives

N/A

No common property proposed.

Complies

The site can adequately provide site services.

•

Attachment 1

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

Site services objectives •

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

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 132

4.3

Attachment 2: 5 Stone Court, Viewbank - P670/2015 - Plans and elevations

Attachment 2

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 133

Attachment 2

4.3

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 134

Attachment 2: 5 Stone Court, Viewbank - P670/2015 - Plans and elevations

4.3

Attachment 2: 5 Stone Court, Viewbank - P670/2015 - Plans and elevations

Attachment 2

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 135

Attachment 2

4.3

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 136

Attachment 2: 5 Stone Court, Viewbank - P670/2015 - Plans and elevations

4.3

Attachment 2: 5 Stone Court, Viewbank - P670/2015 - Plans and elevations

Attachment 2

Item: 4.3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 137

4.4

Attachment 1: Planning permit P101/2014

Attachment 1

Item: 4.4

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 139

Attachment 1

4.4

Item: 4.4

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 140

Attachment 1: Planning permit P101/2014

4.4

Attachment 1: Planning permit P101/2014

Attachment 1

Item: 4.4

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 141

Attachment 1

4.4

Item: 4.4

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 142

Attachment 1: Planning permit P101/2014

4.4

Attachment 1: Planning permit P101/2014

Attachment 1

Item: 4.4

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 143

Attachment 1

4.4

Item: 4.4

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 144

Attachment 1: Planning permit P101/2014

4.4

Attachment 1: Planning permit P101/2014

Attachment 1

Item: 4.4

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 145

Attachment 1

4.4

Item: 4.4

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 146

Attachment 1: Planning permit P101/2014

4.5

Attachment 1: Leith Walk, Macleod - VicRoads Road Closure Report

Attachment 1

Item: 4.5

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 147

Attachment 1: Leith Walk, Macleod - VicRoads Road Closure Report

Attachment 1

4.5

Item: 4.5

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 148

4.5

Attachment 1: Leith Walk, Macleod - VicRoads Road Closure Report

Attachment 1

Item: 4.5

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 149

Attachment 1: Leith Walk, Macleod - VicRoads Road Closure Report

Attachment 1

4.5

Item: 4.5

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 150

4.5

Attachment 1: Leith Walk, Macleod - VicRoads Road Closure Report

Attachment 1

Item: 4.5

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 151

Attachment 1: Leith Walk, Macleod - VicRoads Road Closure Report

Attachment 1

4.5

Item: 4.5

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 152

4.5

Attachment 1: Leith Walk, Macleod - VicRoads Road Closure Report

Attachment 1

Item: 4.5

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 153

Attachment 1: Leith Walk, Macleod - VicRoads Road Closure Report

Attachment 1

4.5

Item: 4.5

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 154

4.5

Attachment 2: Leith Walk, Macleod - Public Notice published in Local newspapers

Attachment 2

Item: 4.5

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 155

4.6

Item: 4.6

Attachment 1: Planning controls and policy framework

PLANNING CONTROLS COMMERCIAL 1 ZONE Planning approval is required for buildings and works, and for a change of use to a Dwelling within this zone. CLAUSE 52.06 CAR PARKING

Attachment 1

Planning approval is required for a reduction in the standard car parking requirements, pursuant to this clause. STATE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK Urban Design Clause 15 states that planning should achieve high quality urban design and architecture that: 

Contributes positively to local urban character and sense of place.



Reflects the particular characteristics, aspirations and cultural identity of the community.



Enhances liveability, diversity, amenity and safety of the public realm.



Promotes attractiveness of towns and cities within broader strategic contexts.



Minimises detrimental impact on neighbouring properties.

Design for Safety The stated objective of Clause 15.01-4 is to “improve community safety and encourage neighbourhood design that makes people feel safe”. Cultural Identity and Neighbourhood Character The stated objective of Clause 15.01-5 is to “recognise and protect cultural identity, neighbourhood character and sense of place”. Sustainable Development Clause 15.02-1 relates to energy and resource efficiency with the objective being to “encourage land use and development that is consistent with the efficient use of energy and the minimisation of greenhouse gas emissions”. Residential Development Clause 16.01 sets out objectives in relation to integrated housing, location of residential development, strategic redevelopment sites, housing diversity and housing affordability. Relevant objectives include: 

To promote a housing market that meets community needs.



To locate new housing in or close to activity centres and employment corridors and at other strategic redevelopment sites that offer good access to services and transport.



To identify strategic redevelopment sites for large residential development in Metropolitan Melbourne.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 156

Attachment 1: Planning controls and policy framework



To provide for a range of housing types to meet increasingly diverse needs.



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

4.6

Item: 4.6

Business The objective of Clause 17.01-1 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.

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 objectives encompass Environmental Management, Economic Development and Community Development and Support. There are five key elements within the strategy to achieve the vision and objectives. The relevant elements to this application are ‘Land Use’ (housing and commercial) and ‘Built Environment’. Each element contains key issues, objectives and strategies. A response to the relevant elements is provided within the technical consideration of this report.

Clause 22.03 Safer Design Policy Council’s Safer Design Policy applies to all land in Banyule, and seeks to minimise crime and maximise actual and perceived safety. The policy relates to both the development of land, and its use. The Banyule Safer Design Guide is a policy reference, and provides assistance in assessing the response of a proposal to safety issues.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 157

Attachment 1

LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

4.6

Item: 4.6

Attachment 2: Engineering referral comments

Engineering Referral comments Flooding Point of Discharge

Attachment 2

Flooding Unlikely Discharge to Council pit located outside the east face of #63 The Mall via approximately 15m outfall drain required (min 225mm diameter), if levels permits. Alternatively seek Council advice. On-site detention system required, Cexist = 0.35, see Council requirements. Clause 52.06: The proposal consists of four two-bedroom dwellings and two shop tenancies No. of spaces with a total floor area of 180sqm. Both uses fall under the provisions of Clause 52.06 of the Banyule Planning Scheme. Table 52.06-5 requires the following: â&#x20AC;˘ One space for each one or two bedroom dwelling, â&#x20AC;˘ 4 parking spaces to be provided to each 100 sq m of leasable floor area. Accordingly the development generates a requirement for 11 parking spaces: > 4 residential parking spaces > 7 shop parking spaces The plans indicate a total of 4 parking spaces have been provided onsite for residential use. Accordingly, the applicant has requested a reduction of 7 parking spaces from the statutory rate. Based on the draft Heidelberg and Bell Street Mall Parking Plan (HBSMPP), empirical evidence and anecdotal information collected by Engineering, the following reductions to the parking rate could be supported: > >

A rate of 0.8 parking spaces per one- and two- bedroom dw elling would be appropriate for this development, given the sites location within the Bell Street Mall and proximity to Public Transport. Furthermore, this rate is equal to the draft parking rate specified in the draft HBSMPP. For a retail use, the expected long-term/short-term split is 20%/80%. This use is unlikely to be in operation outside of business hours. This would equate to 0.8 parking spaces per 100sqm for staff, and 3.2 parking spaces for customers. Parking availability in the surrounding Off Street Car Park is high, with a minimum of 220 parking spaces available during the peak period (as per the findings of the draft HBSMPP)

Based on this information, the weekday, weeknight, and weekend empirical rates and demand for this development would be: Long Term Rates EMPIRICAL RATES

W'day

W'night

Short Term Rates W'end

W'day

W'night

W'end

Residential (per unit)

0.8

Shop (per 100sqm)

0.8

3.2

QTY

Long Term Demand

PARKING DEMAND Residential (per unit)

W'day 4

W'night 3

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 158

Short Term Demand

W'end 3

W'day 3

W'night 0

W'end 0

Attachment 2: Engineering referral comments

Shop (per 100sqm)

180

TOTAL

4.6

Item: 4.6

Furthermore, Engineering supports a lower provision of parking for the residential component of the development. This could allow improvements to the internal configuration to improve pedestrian access within the development, as indicated below. Clause 52.06: Design

Design Standard 1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Accessways In accordance with Banyule Planning Scheme Clause 52.06-8, accessways should have a corner splay or area at least 50 per cent clear of visual obstructions extending at least 2m along the frontage road from the edge of the exit lane and 2.5m along the exit lane from the frontage, to provide a clear view of pedestrians on the footpath of the frontage road. Given the design and the location of the vehicle access on an access lane, it is important to provide adequate sight distance. Amended comments 8/01/16: Plans do not indicate that the splay requirement is being met. Plans to reflect the splay requirements due to safety concerns with pedestrians. Design Standard 2 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Car Parking Spaces The parking spaces are generally in accordance with the requirements of Design Standard 2 and will enable vehicles to enter and exit the parking spaces in an appropriate manner. Design Standard 3 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Gradients The accessway gradients are generally in accordance with the requirements of Design Standard 3. Design standard 4: Mechanical parking In accordance with Banyule Planning Scheme Clause 52.06-8, mechanical parking may be used to meet the car parking requirement provided: o At least 25 per cent of the mechanical parking spaces can accommodate a vehicle clearance height of at least 1.8m o Car parking spaces that require the operation of the system are allocated to residents, and not to visitors to the development. Swept path diagrams should demonstrate how vehicles are able to access the car stackers, rather than how they are to access the area allocated to the car stackers. Given that the specifications provided indicate that the car stacker platforms are smaller than the parking spaces shown on the plan, and as the provided diagrams indicate that manoeuvring space is tight, the swept path diagrams should demonstrate vehicle access and egress from the car stackers. Amended comments 8/01/16 It is required that there be a warning system to warn motorists entering the lift ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 159

Attachment 2

The surrounding commercial premises within the Bell Street Mall typically have no dedicated on-site parking, and instead utilise the parking provided in the surrounding area. Given the availability of the parking, and the nature of the surrounding businesses, Engineering would support a full waiver of the shop parking in for this development.

4.6

Item: 4.6

Attachment 2: Engineering referral comments about vehicles that are exiting. It is considered unsafe for vehicles to reverse is such as situation. Details must be provided that indicate this is being provided.

Attachment 2

Design standard 6: Safety The design of the development currently requires residents to exit the garage and travel around the building to enter the lobby. This is not supported. There is opportunity for a reconfiguration of the parking area to allow internal access to the residential lobby by removing one car stacker and replacing it with a normal parking space. Access to the bicycle parking areas and storage areas could also be improved. In accordance with Banyule Planning Scheme Clause 52.06-8, car parking should be well lit and clearly signed. In accordance with Banyule Planning Scheme Clause 52.06-8, the design of car parks should maximise natural surveillance and pedestrian visibility from adjacent buildings. Bicycles

Five (5) bicycle parking spaces have been provided for residential use within the basement car park. This is considered acceptable for the use. A bicycle rail must:  Be securely fixed to a wall or to the floor or ground.  Be in a highly visible location for bicycle security (when not in a compound).  Be of a shape that allows a cyclist to easily lock the bicycle frame and wheels. Be located to allow easy access to park, lock and remove the bicycle.

Vehicle Crossings Easements Standard Permit Conditions

New (or altered) crossings to comply with Council’s standards and specifications. According to Council records there are no easements located on site. 1.1 (c) (i), (ii), (iii), 6.1, 6.3, 6.9 Please note the Engineering plans must show all protected and/or retained trees on the development site, on adjoining properties where tree canopies encroach the development site and along proposed outfall drainage and roadway alignments (where applicable) and every effort must be made to locate services away from the canopy drip line of trees and where unavoidable, details of hand work or trenchless installation must be provided.

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 160

4.6

Attachment 3: Amended plans - Revision B received 1 March 2016

Attachment 3

Item: 4.6

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 161

Attachment 3

4.6

Item: 4.6

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 162

Attachment 3: Amended plans - Revision B received 1 March 2016

4.6

Attachment 3: Amended plans - Revision B received 1 March 2016

Attachment 3

Item: 4.6

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 163

Attachment 3

4.6

Item: 4.6

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 164

Attachment 3: Amended plans - Revision B received 1 March 2016

4.6

Attachment 3: Amended plans - Revision B received 1 March 2016

Attachment 3

Item: 4.6

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 165

Attachment 3

4.6

Item: 4.6

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 166

Attachment 3: Amended plans - Revision B received 1 March 2016

4.6

Attachment 3: Amended plans - Revision B received 1 March 2016

Attachment 3

Item: 4.6

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 167

Attachment 3

4.6

Item: 4.6

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 168

Attachment 3: Amended plans - Revision B received 1 March 2016

4.6

Attachment 3: Amended plans - Revision B received 1 March 2016

Attachment 3

Item: 4.6

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 169

Attachment 3

4.6

Item: 4.6

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 170

Attachment 3: Amended plans - Revision B received 1 March 2016

4.6

Attachment 3: Amended plans - Revision B received 1 March 2016

Attachment 3

Item: 4.6

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 171

Attachment 3

4.6

Item: 4.6

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 172

Attachment 3: Amended plans - Revision B received 1 March 2016

4.6

Attachment 3: Amended plans - Revision B received 1 March 2016

Attachment 3

Item: 4.6

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 173

Attachment 3

4.6

Item: 4.6

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 174

Attachment 3: Amended plans - Revision B received 1 March 2016

4.6

Attachment 3: Amended plans - Revision B received 1 March 2016

Attachment 3

Item: 4.6

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 175

6.1

Attachment 1: Planning Permit TP3880

Attachment 1

Item: 6.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 177

Attachment 1

6.1

Item: 6.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 178

Attachment 1: Planning Permit TP3880

6.1

Attachment 1: Planning Permit TP3880

Attachment 1

Item: 6.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 179

Attachment 2: Precis of Submissions and Responses

Attachment 2

6.1

Item: 6.1

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 4 APRIL 2016 Page 180