Banyule City Council Agenda inc Attachments 14 June 2016

Ordinary Meeting of Council

Council Chambers, Service Centre

275 Upper Heidelberg Road, Ivanhoe

14 June 2016 commencing at 7.45pm

Following the public forum commencing at approximately7.30pm 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 peopleand, on behalf of Banyule City Council, I wish to acknowledge them as the TraditionalOwners. I would also like to pay my respects to the Wurundjeri Elders, past andpresent, and to the Elders of other Aboriginal peoples who may be here today”

Apologies and Leave of Absence

Confirmation of MinutesOrdinary Meeting of Council held 30 May 2016

Disclosure of Interests

1. Petitions

1.1 Volunteers of Banyule and Banyule Support and InformationCentre (BANSIC) Funding ......................................................................................3

REPORTS:

2. People – Community Strengthening and Support

2.1 Rates Hardship Assistance Policy...........................................................................52.2 2017 - 2018 Community Sport Infrastructure Fund .................................................8

3. Planet – Environmental Sustainability

3.1 Indian Myna Bird Control ......................................................................................15

4. Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.1 91 Darebin Street, HEIDELBERG - Construction of a multi levelmixed use development ........................................................................................21

4.2 Infrastructure Victoria 30 Year Strategy - Draft Submission ..................................45

AGENDA (Cont’d)

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 14 June 2016 Page 2

5. Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life

5.1 Petrie Park and Rattary Reserve Master Plan.......................................................49

6. Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.1 Adoption of Banyule's City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 4).............................................556.2 Adoption of Banyule's Budget for the period 1 July 2016 to 30

June 2017.............................................................................................................676.3 Return of the 2016 General Re-valuation..............................................................786.4 Items for Noting ....................................................................................................816.5 Reappointment of the Chief Executive Officer ......................................................85

7. Sealing of Documents

7.1 Sealing of Documents...........................................................................................87

8. Notices of Motion

8.1 Dedication and launch of new Reserve celebrating Vin HeffernanOAM .....................................................................................................................89

8.2 North East Link Advocacy.....................................................................................918.3 Banyule Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Remembrance...............................92

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, Councilclose the Meeting to members of the public and adjourn for five minutes to allow thepublic to leave the Chamber prior to considering the following confidential matters:

11. Confidential Matters

11.1 Contractual Matters11.2 Contractual Matters11.3 Contractual Matters

Matters Discussed in Camera

That all confidential matters and reports related to the above items remainconfidential unless otherwise specified.

Closure of Meeting

Petitions


1.11.1 VOLUNTEERS OF BANYULE AND BANYULE

SUPPORT AND INFORMATION CENTRE(BANSIC) FUNDING

Author: Giovanna Savini - Manager Youth & Family Services, CommunityPrograms

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A petition with 737 signatures has been received.

Of those 737, 12 signatures were incomplete due to insufficient information beingprovided.

For the purpose of this report all signatures will be accepted as valid.

The petition prayer is as follows:

“We, the undersigned, petition or request Council to maintain crucial ongoing fundingfor Volunteers of Banyule (VOB) and Banyule Support and Information Centre(BANSIC).

The work undertaken by these great organisations to the ultimate benefit of theBanyule community must be supported by Council in a permanent, ongoing way.

Please provide these great organisations with the funding certainty they need.”

Both VOB and BANSIC have made a submission to the draft 2016/17 Council budgetprocess seeking financial support to each organisation. These submissions will beconsidered as part of the budget process.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Receives and notes the petition.

2. Consider the budget submission for financial support received from Volunteersof Banyule as part of the 2016/17 budget process.

3. Advise the primary petitioner accordingly.

DISCUSSION

Council has made a number of resolutions over the past two (2) years towards theestablishment of an integrated community information and volunteer support servicefor Banyule. This was the result of a review in 2013 of the three Council fundedagencies which delivered these services being Volunteers of Banyule (VOB),BANSIC and Diamond Valley Community Support (DVCS).

Petitions

VOLUNTEERS OF BANYULE AND BANYULE SUPPORT AND INFORMATIONCENTRE (BANSIC) FUNDING cont’d


1.1

The overall objective of the new service model was to provide an integratedcommunity information and volunteer support service in the City of Banyule thatencourages collaborative partnerships in the sector and promotes community healthand wellbeing, community connectedness and enjoyment of life. Two satellite sitesformed part of the proposed model one operating from Greensborough (currentlyserviced by DVCS) and the second located at Shop 48, The Harmony Centre WestHeidelberg.

Over the past two (2) years, Council has worked closely with VOB, BANSIC andDVCS to achieve a merger to the new service which would deliver the integratedcommunity information and volunteer support service in Banyule. It was anticipatedthat Council funding allocated to each of the three agencies would subsequently becombined and redirected to the new ‘merged’ service. Unfortunately, the mergernegotiations were unsuccessful.

In late 2015 Council resolved to continue with its decision to establish an integratedservice model redirecting existing funding. DVCS was refunded to deliver theGreensborough satellite site for the next three years. The remaining funds previouslyallocated to BANSIC and VOB have been allocated to the delivery of a satellite site atShop 48, The Harmony Centre. The proposed service at Shop 48, The HarmonyCentre includes a substantial volunteer service which builds and oversees a team ofvolunteers that support the community information and volunteer support service,develops strategic partnerships with existing support services and a range ofcollocated services and strengthen engagement of marginalised groups.

A public tender was offered for the management and delivery of a communityinformation and volunteer support service from Shop 48, The Harmony Centre as thesecond satellite site. No tender responses were received from VOB orBANSIC. Ultimately, no suitable tenders were identified, and as a result Councildetermined to abandon the tender process and establish and operate Shop 48, TheHarmony Centre directly for the next eighteen (18) months during which time it willbring in and partner with a range of collocated services with the intention oftransitioning the service to a full community based model from July 2017.

Council is committed to the implementation of a robust and dynamic communityinformation and volunteer support service in Banyule. This is why it has included acommunity information, volunteer support and leadership service as a criticalcomponent of Shop 48.

Both BANSIC and VOB have made a submission to the draft 2016/17 Council budgetfor the consideration of financial support to each organisation. These submissionswill be considered as part of 2016/17 budget process.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

People – Community Strengthening and Support


2.12.1 RATES HARDSHIP ASSISTANCE POLICY

Author: Tania O'Reilly - Manager Finance & Procurement, Corporate Services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Rates Hardship Assistance Policy has been developed to ensure ratepayers indisadvantaged circumstances and seeking rate relief are given the opportunity toapply to Council for financial assistance to defer or waive rates, charges, and specialrates and charges.

The Rates Hardship Assistance Policy has been made in accordance with Sections170, 171, 171A and 172 of the Local Government Act 1989.

− Council may defer in whole or in part the payment by a person of any rate orcharge which is due and payable for a specified period and subject to anyconditions determined by the Council if it considers that an application by thatperson shows that the payment would cause hardship to the person;

− Council may waive the whole or part of any rate or charge or interest on thegrounds of financial hardship; and

− A Council may exempt any person from paying the whole or part of any interesteither generally or specifically.

The Rates Hardship Assistance Policy if adopted by Council will come into effectimmediately upon adoption and will be reviewed annually.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Adopt the Rates Hardship Assistance Policy.

2. Review the Rates Hardship Assistance Policy annually.

CITY PLAN

This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction to “support people toachieve their economic potential”.

BACKGROUND

Council is committed to assisting its ratepayers in genuine financial distress with apolicy to defer rates and charges payable on their property and/or waive the whole orpart of any interest payable as outlined in Sections 170, 171, 171A and 172 of theLocal Government Act 1989.


RATES HARDSHIP ASSISTANCE POLICY cont’d


2.1

The policy applies to any individual who owes monies to Council for rates, charges,special rates and charges. In the case of deferment of rates, to be eligible to apply,the applicant must be the titled owner of the property and property must be theprincipal place of resident (Owner/Occupied).

The Rates Hardship Assistance Policy outlines four options available to the individualexperiencing financial hardship:

• Deferring of rates and Charges;• Waiving of Rates and Charges;• Waiving of Interest / legal costs;• Payment Arrangement.

The policy states that Council will not waive rates.

CEO to staff Delegations are outlined in the Rates Hardship Assistance Policy toprovide the Director of Corporate Services; Manager, Finance and Procurement;Revenue Services Coordinator and Revenue Officers the appropriate delegation toconsider waiver and deferment of rates and charges, special rates and charges,interest and legal costs.

Information will be required to be collected from the applicant in order to fully assesstheir request for rates hardship assistance.

LEGAL CONSIDERATION -

The Rates Hardship Assistance Policy has been made in accordance with Sections170, 171, 171A and 172 of the Local Government Act 1989.

HUMAN RIGHTS CHARTER -

Victoria's Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities (the Charter) outlines thebasic human rights of all people in Victoria. The Charter requires that governments,local councils and other public authorities comply with Charter and to considerrelevant Charter rights when they make decisions.

In developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered inaccordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights andResponsibilities.

It is considered that the subject matter does not raise any human rights issues.

CURRENT SITUATION

It has been determined that a formal Rates Hardship Assistance Policy is requiredand should be adopted to align with the MAV Hardship Policy guidelines which areconsistent with current legislation.

CONSULTATION

Banyule City Council has developed the Rates Hardship Assistance Policy withreference to other Council’s Policy, the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) DraftHardship Policy Guidelines and internal consultation.


RATES HARDSHIP ASSISTANCE POLICY cont’d


2.1TIMELINES

The Rates Hardship Assistance Policy if adopted by Council will come into effectimmediately upon adoption and will be reviewed annually.

OFFICER DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 (Act) requires members of Councilstaff, and persons engaged under contract to provide advice to Council, to discloseany 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 inthis matter.

CONCLUSION

The Rates Hardship Assistance Policy has been developed to ensure ratepayers indisadvantaged circumstances and seeking rate relief are given the opportunity toapply to Council for financial assistance to defer or waive rates, charges, and specialrates and charges.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil



2.22.2 2017 - 2018 COMMUNITY SPORT

INFRASTRUCTURE FUND

Author: Ben McManus - Coordinator Leisure & Cultural Services, CommunityPrograms

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Community Sports Infrastructure Fund (CSIF) provides high-quality andaccessible community sport and recreation facilities. Funding is available under eightcategories for 2017/18. Officers have not identified potential 2017/18 projects thatmeet the selection criteria within the Better Pools, Small Aquatic Projects or MajorFacilities categories.

There are three (3) projects that have been identified within the Minor or CricketFacilities category, two (2) projects for the Female Friendly Facilities category andone (1) Planning Project category. It should be noted for the Minor or CricketFacilities category only two (2) applications can be submitted in the same category(either Minor or Cricket).

The projects include:

• Minor Facilities: Burkitt Oval (Sports Field Lighting).• Minor Facilities: East West Power Easement Trail (Stage 4).• Cricket Facilities: Greensborough Park Multipurpose Facility.• Female Friendly Facilities: Gabonia Avenue Reserve Pavilion and Elder Street

Reserve Pavilion Change Rooms.• Planning Category: Nets stadium - Feasibility Study for additional outdoor

courts and supporting infrastructure.

Project proposals for all applications were due on the 8 June 2016 therefore thisreport seeks retrospective approval for projects that have been submitted within theMinor Facilities, Female Friendly Facilities and Cricket Facilities Category.

Sport and Recreation Victoria will advise Councils of project proposals supported toFull Application stage from 18 July 2016 onwards. Council will receive a furtherreport to consider the funding implications for all projects invited to Full Applicationand confirm matching funding requirements. Full application for all categories closeon 31 August 2016 and funding announcements and notification of outcomes areexpected from November 2016 onwards.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. Council retrospectively endorse the proposed Project Proposals within the2017/18 Community Sports Infrastructure Fund and note officers havesubmitted Project Proposal to Sport and Recreation Victoria on 8 June 2016 forthe following projects:

• Minor Facilities: Burkitt Oval (Sports Field Lighting) and East West PowerEasement Trail (Stage 4);


2017 - 2018 COMMUNITY SPORT INFRASTRUCTURE FUND cont’d


2.2

• Cricket Facilities: Greensborough Park Multipurpose Facility;• Female Friendly Facilities: Gabonia Avenue Reserve Pavilion and Elder

Street Reserve Pavilion Change Rooms; and• Planning Category: Nets stadium - Feasibility Study for additional outdoor


2. Council receive a further report in August 2016 to consider the overall matchingfunding required for projects which have been invited to Full Application stagewithin the 2017/18 Community Sports Infrastructure Fund.

CITY PLAN

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

BACKGROUND

The Community Sports Infrastructure Fund (CSIF) for 2017-2018 provides grants forplanning, building new, and improving existing facilities where communities conduct,organise and participate in sport and recreation.

Funding is available under the following categories:

o Better Pools – Up to $3 million to provide high-quality aquatic leisure facilitiesthrough new or redeveloped aquatic centres.

o Major Facilities – Up to $650,000 (total project cost is more than $500,000) todevelop or upgrade major district and regional sport and recreation facilities.

o Small Aquatic Projects – Up to $200,000 to improve and upgrade aquaticfacilities, seasonal pools and develop new water play spaces.

o Minor Facilities –Up to $100,000 for any one project (total project cost is up to$1,000,000) to develop or upgrade community sport and recreation facilities.

o Cricket Facilities - Up to $100,000 to assist local Councils, cricket associationsand local cricket clubs to upgrade and develop cricket specific clubinfrastructure including new buildings, grounds, and training facilities.

o Female Friendly Facilities – Up to $100,000 are available to build new andupgrade existing, out-dated change facilities at sports clubs around the statethat cater for traditional and non-traditional female sport, with a focus onpromoting female and family friendly environments.

o Planning – Available for planning initiatives that address the future sport andrecreation needs, including:

o Up to $30,000 for projects focusing on recreation planning or facilityfeasibility in one municipality.

o Up to $50,000 for regional planning initiatives that demonstrate inter-municipal needs and financial support from multiple local governmentauthorities.

o Up to $30,000 for female participation strategies.




2.2

The table below summarises the application categories, the number of applicationsCouncil can apply for, the total funding available and the funding ratio for eachcategory:

ApplicationNumber

Category FundingAmount

Funding Ratio

1Bette Pools Up to $3M

SRV $1:$3 localMajor Facilities (>$500 TPC*) Up to $650KSmall Aquatic Up to $200K SRV $1:$1 local

Up to 3 total (maxof 2 applications

from anycategory)

Minor Facilities (<$1m TPC*) Up to $100KSRV $1:$1 local

Cricket Facilities Up to $100K

2 Female Friendly Facilities Up to $100K SRV $1:$1 local1 Local Planning in Banyule Up to $30K SRV $1:$1 local1 Regional Planning Up to $50K SRV $1.5:$1 local

Application Process

• Project proposals for all applications were due on the 8 June 2016.• Sport and Recreation Victoria will advise Councils of project proposals

supported to Full Application stage 18 July 2016 onwards.• Council will receive a further report to consider the funding implications for all

projects invited to Full Application and confirm matching funding requirements.• Full application for all categories close on 31 August 2016.• Funding announcements and notification of outcomes are expected from

November 2016 onwards.


There are no direct legal implications arising from the recommendation contained inthis report.





CURRENT SITUATION

Project proposals for all applications were due on the 8 June 2016. Officers have notidentified potential 2017/18 projects that meet the selection criteria within the BetterPools, Small Aquatic Projects, Major Facilities or Planning Project categories,therefore this report considers potential projects within the Minor Facilities, FemaleFriendly Facilities and Cricket Facilities Category.




2.2

There are three (3) projects that have been identified as potential applications for theMinor or Cricket Facilities category and two (2) projects for the Female FriendlyFacilities category. It should be noted for the Minor or Cricket Facilities category onlytwo (2) applications can be submitted in the same category (either Minor or Cricket).

The six (6) potential projects include:

• Minor Facilities: Burkitt Oval (Sports Field Lighting) and East West PowerEasement Trail (Stage 4).

• Cricket Facilities: Greensborough Park Multipurpose Facility.• Female Friendly Facilities: Gabonia Avenue Reserve Pavilion and Elder Street

Reserve Pavilion Change Rooms.• Planning Category: Nets stadium - Feasibility Study for additional outdoor


FUNDING IMPLICATIONS

2017/18Project Proposals

Proposed Funding Mix Comments

Minor or Cricket Facilities

Burkitt Oval (SportsField Lighting)

$220K(BCC $100K, SRV $100K Club $20K)

Council has made an allocation of$100K in the draft 2017/18 capitalworks budget for Sports Field Lighting.

East West PowerEasement Trail (Stage4)

$260K(BCC $160K, SRV $100K)

Council has made an allocation of$160K in the draft 2017/18 capitalworks budget for this project.

Greensborough ParkMultipurpose Facility

$150K(BCC $75K, SRV $75K)

Council will be required to consider thisas a new project and make anallocation within the draft 2017/18capital work budgets.

Female Friendly Facilities

Gabonia AvenueReserve (Changerooms)

$300K(BCC $180K, SRV $100K Club $20K)


Elder Street Reserve(Change rooms)

$300K(BCC $180K, SRV $100K Club $20K)


Planning - Facility Feasibility

Nets stadium -additional outdoorcourts and supportinginfrastructure

$60K(BCC $30K, SRV $30K


CONSULTATION

Officers have meet with Sport and Recreation Victoria representatives and discussedthe five proposed projects. SRV have indicated all projects have merit and haveencouraged Council to submit project proposals. Officers have also held preliminarydiscussions with tenant sporting Clubs. All clubs are supportive of the projectshowever further discussion with Watsonia Heights Soccer Club is required to furtherconfirm the project scope and Club contribution.




2.2 DISCUSSION

Burkitt Oval (Sports Field Lighting) – Ibbott WardBurkitt Oval is one of two ovals located off Beverley Road in Heidelberg, adjacent tothe Old Shire Offices. These two ovals currently serve three sporting clubs, BanyuleFootball Club, Banyule Junior Football Club and Banyule Cricket Club.

The 2015 Sports Field Lighting Audit has prioritised this project as a high priority forreplacement due to the number of teams, including junior and female teams.

East West Power Easement Trail (Stage 4) – Grimshaw WardThis project is Stage 4 in the redevelopment of the East West Power Easement Trailworks in Bundoora and Watsonia. This project emerged as a high priority within theNorthern Region Trails Strategy.

Greensborough Park Multipurpose Facility – Beale WardGreensborough Park off Diamond Creek Road in Greensborough is home to manysporting clubs and community groups. Greensborough Park is currently used byRiverside Cricket Club, Greensborough Tennis Club and St Mary’s Junior FootballClub.

The audit of cricket net facilities in 2015 prioritised the Riverside Cricket Club nets atWhatmough Park as a priority for replacement. This opportunity is on theGreensborough Tennis Club courts and would be a shared facility betweenGreensborough Tennis Club and Riverside Cricket Club.

Gabonia Avenue Reserve and Elder Street Reserve (Change rooms) – BakewellWardGabonia Avenue Reserve and Elder Street Reserve are both located in Watsonia.The Gabonia Avenue Reserve is used by the Watsonia Heights Soccer Club. TheElder Street Reserve is used by many sporting clubs. The Elder Street Reservepavilion is used by Watsonia Heights Soccer Club and Greensborough Cricket Club.The Watsonia Heights Soccer Club currently has the highest female participation insoccer according to the state sporting association data.

Nets stadium - additional outdoor courts and supporting infrastructureThe lack of highball courts in Banyule is well documented. Additional outdoor netballcourts at Macleod will allow the facility to be used for tournaments and also provideadditional courts in a central location which is very assessable by public transport.

Council has received in-principle approval from both the Department of Educationand Training and the Macleod College for additional outdoor netball courts to beestablished behind Nets Stadium and additional car parking to the east of the facility.To progress the negotiations a detailed feasibility study is required to confirm thelevel of support infrastructure that will be required to service the additional courts andthe cost estimates for the overall project.




2.2TIMELINES

Key dates regarding the application process are included below:

StageOne

Project Proposals for all categories Closing date:8 June 2016

StageTwo

Development of Full Applications for allcategories

Closing date:31 August 2016

Funding announcements and notification of outcomes November 2016 onwards




CONCLUSION

Having regard for the funding criteria and the highly competitive nature of the Sportand Recreation funding the projects identified in this report are considered the mostappropriate to progress to Stage One – Project Proposal.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Planet – Environmental Sustainability


3.13.1 INDIAN MYNA BIRD CONTROL

Author: Peter Benazic - Manager Parks & Gardens, Assets & City Services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Banyule City Council, like numerous other municipalities, has significant numbers ofIndian Myna birds. The large numbers can have negative impacts on native birdspecies due to competition for nesting hollows and territorial behaviour.

At a Federal and Victorian Government level there is no program or process toaddress the population growth of the species or undertake coordinated eradication.

There are many local councils that are providing resources to support a communityand environmental group lead approach to control numbers of Indian Myna birds inaccordance with the relevant approved humane control measures.

It is recommended that Council responds to the environmental impacts being causedby the Indian Myna bird by establishing a community based control model for controlof the birds. It is also recommended that Council advocate to the State Governmentto request that the Indian Myna bird be declared a pest and seeking support fromthem and the Municipal Association Victoria to establish a coordinated Indian Mynabird control strategy.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. Council write to the Victorian State Government and Municipal AssociationVictoria (MAV) seeking support for the establishment of a coordinated IndianMyna bird control strategy.

2. Council write to the Department of Environment Land Water and Planning torequest that the Indian Myna bird be declared a pest under the Catchment andLand Protection Act 1994.

3. Council enters into discussion with the Darebin Creek Management Committeeto establish another suitable trial site for the control of Indian Myna birds.

4. Council consider providing a budget allocation of $10,000 in the2017/2018 budget process to establish a community based model for thecontrol of Indian Myna birds.

CITY PLAN

This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction to “act as environmentalstewards”.


INDIAN MYNA BIRD CONTROL cont’d


3.1 BACKGROUND

The Indian Myna bird (Acridotheres tristis), is native to the Indian sub-continent andextends from Iran to Sri Lanka. It is notorious as a highly effective invader due thebird’s territorial and aggressive traits. The species was originally first introduced toAustralia in Victoria between 1863 and 1872 to control insects in Melbourne’s marketgardens and now occupies most of the Eastern states of Australia.

Banyule City Council like numerous other municipalities has significant numbers ofIndian Myna birds. The size of the population is difficult to establish but sightings ofthe bird are frequent and common. It is well know that the species inhabits publicparks and private properties in significant numbers. Being intelligent and highlyadaptive has assisted its ability to thrive in the urban environment.

Indian Myna birds are believed to pair for life. They breed through much of the yeardepending on the location, building their nest in a hole in a tree, roof or wall. Thenormal clutch size is 4–6 eggs, the incubation period is 17 to 18 days and fledgingperiod is 22 to 24 days. According to a document produced by the Wollongong CityCouncil, one breeding pair can be attributed to creating 686 birds by the thirdbreeding season. This provides an indication of the prolific nature of the bird and itsability to become a dominant species in a relatively short period of time.

The large numbers can have negative impacts on native species due to competitionfor nesting hollows and territorial behaviour. The Indian Myna bird uses the nests ofmost Australian native birds and easily takes to nest boxes. Their aggressivebehavior is considered to contribute to its success as an invasive species. TheInternational Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) declared this Myna species asone of the only three birds among the world’s 100 worst invasive species.

DISCUSSION

Government Response

At a Federal Government level there is no program or process to address thepopulation growth of the Indian Myna bird or undertake coordinated eradicationprograms.

At a Victorian Government level the Indian Myna Bird is not currently classified as apest species under Victorian State Government legislation. The Catchment and LandProtection Act 1994 is the primary legislative instrument for pest classification. As aresult there is currently no coordinated approach to respond to the increasing numberof this species. The Victorian State Government does not currently provide fundingfor programs to reduce or control populations of the bird.




3.1

The Local Government sector is more reactive to the issue. A desktop reviewreveals that a number of local government organisations are active in the provision ofsupport and information on the control of the Indian Myna bird. There are severallocal councils that are providing resources to support a community andenvironmental group lead approach for the control and eradication of the Indian Mynabird. These include:

• Wollongong City Council provides resource information on their website andalso offer RSPCA approved humane euthanasia services to assist communitymembers that have trapped the birds in approved cages.

• Bayside City Council has provided modest funding ($11,000) for an eradicationand control program. The purpose of the funding is to assist with theestablishment of a local action group. This funding assists in the purchase oftrapping devices and for veterinary fees for humane euthanasia of the trappedbirds.

• Manningham and Darebin City Councils have provided information resourceson their websites and have provided access to trapping devices.

The identified control models generally rely on the volunteers to monitor andadminister the control program.

Local Control Response

At the local level, environmental groups such the Darebin Creek ManagementCommittee (DCMC), which is partially funded by Banyule City Council, has beenundertaking a trial population reduction program with a high degree of success. Theprogram occurs in the Darebin Parklands and is closely managed by the residentPark Ranger. The program has been underway for over twelve months and to dateappears to have reduced local populations.

Banyule City Council has also undertaken a trial at Rosanna Parkland. This trial waspredicated on the installation of nesting boxes within the parklands to draw out IndianMyna birds from the surrounding local residential properties. Unlike the DarebinParkland trial, this trial did not yield any significant reduction in the number of birds.This can in part be attributed to the inability to provide close surveillance by Council’sbushland maintenance staff on nesting sites due to competing resource demands.Whilst using nesting boxes can be used as mechanism for control, it would appearthat a greater efficiency of the reduction program may have been achieved through atrapping program using specifically designed cages.

Council’s environment staff have also engaged in a small community based trappingtrial. The purpose of this trial is to investigate the effectiveness of a communitytrapping program in reducing the Indian Myna population in the municipality based onprivate property. Council facilitated an information workshop using the Yarra IndianMyna Action Group Incorporated (YIMAG). The process included providing interestedcommunity members with the relevant information such as, non-lethal controlmethods for Indian Mynas, identifying target species, demonstration of traps, tips forsuccessful trapping, humane methods to euthanize the birds and collecting data andmonitoring progress.




3.1

Control

Controlling the population of the birds is difficult in the absence of a high levelcoordinated approach. Whilst undertaking local control programs can have animpact, it would be preferable to undertake a broader approach. This would assist toreduce the incidents of the bird repopulating areas as a result in difference ofapproaches and timing used by neighbouring councils.

The preliminary research undertaken as part this report also suggests that reductionprograms have greater effectiveness and are more economical if conducted bycommunity members, particularly if they are supported through the provision oftraining, resources and access to humane euthanizing services for trapped birds.

FINANCIAL IMPACTS

The cost of undertaking a control program is difficult to quantify as it is dependant themodel adopted and the breadth of any potential program. The options available forcontrol programs include engaging a contracted vermin control service, using councilstaff resources or encouraging community volunteers. Each of the options has adifferent cost structure.

As an example, Bayside City Council allocated $11,000 to fund a community basedprogram. The funding provides for the purchase of traps which are estimated atapproximately $50 per trap and for veterinary services to humanely treat capturedbirds. Cost for professional services to euthanize birds can be in the magnitude of$60 per bird, however some veterinary clinics indicated that they do provide a serviceat no cost for small numbers of pest species.

Should the State Government get involved by declaring the Indian Myna bird a pestand introduced a regional model of control, procurement advantages and uniformityof control measures across all Councils participating in the project could potentiallymake cost savings and greater effectiveness of the control program.

In considering an expansion of any control programs in Banyule, it would be prudentto use the expertise developed at the DCMC. This would result in a lower cost andmay provide modest income supplementation for a well-established communityorganisation.








3.1

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

As discussed, the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 is the primary legislativeinstrument for pest classification, however, the Indian Myna Bird is not currentlyclassified as a pest species and therefore there is no legislative control over thesebirds.

In the absence of a state-wide approach, councils have been left to implement localcontrol programs which are less effective. This report recommends that Counciladvocates for the Indian Myna bird to be declared a pest under the Catchment andLand Protection Act 1994.




CONCLUSION

It is prudent that Council continue to respond the environmental impacts beingcaused by the Indian Myna bird as the growth in the bird populations can have anegative effect on local species for reasons highlighted in this report.

Given the perceived issues created the by the Indian Myna bird, a coordinatedapproach would potentially increase the effectiveness of control measures given thatthe birds have established populations across all of the Eastern State Governmentboundaries. Advocating for a coordinated State and Local government approach mayproduce the most resource effective result.

It would be prudent to expand the program using the expertise developed at theDCMC to other Banyule Council sites. It is critical that any program be undertakenby the community or levels of government are in accordance with the relevantapproved humane control measures.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment


4.14.1 91 DAREBIN STREET, HEIDELBERG -

CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI LEVEL MIXEDUSE DEVELOPMENT

Author: Jackie Bernoth - Development Planner, City Development

Ward: Griffin

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

It is proposed to construct a building extending to six storeys in height above twolevels of basement car parking on the site, which is located on the corner of DarebinStreet and Powlett Street. The building will accommodate a total of 37 apartmentsand a two practitioner medical centre, with 47 parking spaces provided.

The height of the building will exceed the preferred height by between 7 metres and9 metres, with the greatest height proposed at the eastern side of the site. However,the proposed building is considered to respond appropriately to both theneighbouring properties and the street.

On this basis the proposal should be supported but acknowledging the extent of carparking reduction, the applicant should be required to make a contribution towardsthe provision of public parking within the Heidelberg Activity Centre.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council having complied with Section 52, 58, 60, 61 and 62 of the Planning andEnvironment Act 1987, resolves to issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a PlanningPermit in respect of Application No. P1135/2015 for Buildings and works to constructa multi dwelling development (up to 6 storeys) including 37 apartments within aDesign and Development Overlay; and, a reduction in the standard car parkingrequirements associated with Dwelling and Medical Centre uses at 91 Darebin StreetHEIDELBERG subject to the following conditions:

Plans

1. Before the development permitted by this permit starts, amended plans to thesatisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved bythe Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and willthen form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale withdimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally inaccordance with the advertised plans submitted with the application butmodified to show:

(a) The provision of additional screening to restrict overlooking of theabutting properties to the south and east, including:

(i) The south facing Apartment 207 dining room window;

(ii) The south-east facing section of balcony to Apartment 207;


91 DAREBIN STREET, HEIDELBERG - CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI LEVELMIXED USE DEVELOPMENT cont’d


4.1

(iii) Extend the proposed screening to Balcony 306 to the south andsouth-east (but not necessarily the curved section facing south-west)

(iv) The balconies of Apartments 401 and 404, from a pointapproximately 14m from the Darebin Street frontage, along theeastern façade and to a point approximately 10m from the PowlettStreet frontage.

Screening should be designed to focus views toward the broader area,rather than preventing outlook, and up to 25% transparency in the viewtowards the adjoining properties will be acceptable. In some instances,use of planter boxes or similar to prevent access to the outer edge of abalcony may be sufficient to screen overlooking.

(b) The annotation of the floor plans to reflect the screening indicated to thesouth facing balcony of Apartment 306 that is shown on the southernelevation.

(c) The relocation of air conditioning units from individual balconies to arooftop plant area with the provision of appropriate visual and acousticbaffling to be provided.

(d) Detailed elevations of the proposed service facilities within the frontagesetback to Darebin Street, including screening or other detailing tominimise the impact of the facilities upon the streetscape.

(e) Details of the proposed “stop and go” system to manage vehicularmovements between Basement 1 and Basement 2.

(f) The provision of appropriate information to confirm accessibility ofapartments for large items of furniture, with modification to the stair welland/or lift if required.

(g) An increase in the amount of usable secluded private open spaceprovided for Dwellings 107, 201, 207-209, 301 and 307-309, such thateach dwelling is either provided with either:

(i) A minimum of 8m2 with a minimum width of 1.6m; or

(ii) A minimum open space width of 1.0m, with no reduction in thewidth of remaining balcony areas.

The modifications shall not result in a reduction in the minimum setbackof the proposed balconies to Powlett Street.

(h) The provision of appropriate details to verify that at least seven (7)dwellings are to incorporate compliance with Council’s Livable HousingGuidelines;

(i) The landscape plan modified to include details of:

(i) Planting throughout the site, including within all balcony planterboxes;

(ii) The location and details of paving, steps, retaining walls, watertanks, clotheslines, fence design details and other landscape worksincluding cut and fill.




4.1

(iii) Location, details and cross section drawings of all Water SensitiveUrban Design features in accordance with the endorsedSustainable Management Plan and STORM report, with referenceto connection details on the engineering plans

(j) The allocation of parking spaces, which is to include:

(i) One space for each one- and two-bedroom dwelling;

(ii) A minimum of one space for each three-bedroom dwelling;

(iii) Three staff parking spaces for the medical centre; and

(iv) A minimum of two shared visitor parking spaces.

(k) Engineering plans showing a properly prepared design with computationsfor the internal drainage and method for of disposal of stormwater from allroofed areas and sealed areas including:

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

(ii) The connection to the Council nominated legal point of discharge;

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

(iv) The integration, details and connections of all Water SensitiveUrban Design features in accordance with the endorsedSustainable Management Plan and STORM report and includedrainage details as a result of landscaping.

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

(l) The Tree Preservation Fencing in accordance with Condition 15 of thispermit;

(m) The Sustainable Management Plan (SMP) amended to incorporate:

(i) Reference to the use of a rooftop air conditioning plant;

(ii) Measures to discourage the use of clothes dryers.

(n) All sustainable design features indicated in the submitted SMP. Wheresustainable design features outlined in the SMP cannot be visuallyshown, include a notes table providing details of the requirements (i.e.energy and water efficiency ratings for heating/cooling systems andplumbing fittings and fixtures, etc)

General

2. The use and development as shown on the endorsed plans or described in theendorsed documents must not be altered or modified except with the writtenconsent of the Responsible Authority.




4.1

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

(a) The Construction Management Plan required by Condition 5 has beensubmitted to, and approved by, the Responsible Authority.

(b) The Section 173 Agreement required by Condition 13 has been enteredinto and registered on Title;

(c) The tree protection measures required by Condition 15 are installed tothe satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

(d) The Waste Management Plan required by Condition 17 of this permit hasbeen submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.

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

Construction Management Plan

5. Before the development starts, a Construction Management Plan must beprepared and submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval. The planmust be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Once approved, theplan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Theplan must address the following issues:

(a) measures to control noise, dust and water runoff;

(b) prevention of silt or other pollutants from entering into the Council’sunderground drainage system or road network;

(c) the location of where building materials are to be kept duringconstruction;

(d) site security;

(e) maintenance of safe movements of vehicles to and from the site duringthe construction phase;

(f) on-site parking of vehicles associated with construction of thedevelopment;

(g) wash down areas for trucks and vehicles associated with constructionactivities;

(h) cleaning and maintaining surrounding road surfaces.

Baffled lighting

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




4.1

Restrictions on Use

7. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Responsible Authority, at no timemay more than two (2) practitioners operate or conduct consultations in theMedical Centre.

8. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Responsible Authority theproposed Gymnasium, Theatre and Library/Function Room indicated on theplans supplied is to be made available for use by occupants of the buildingonly, and is not to be utilised for commercial purposes or private functions.

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

Car Parking / Access

10. Areas set aside for the parking of vehicles together with the aisles and accesslanes must be properly formed to such levels that they can be utilised inaccordance with the endorsed plans and must be drained and provided with anall weather seal coat. The areas must be constructed, drained and maintainedin a continuously useable condition to the satisfaction of the ResponsibleAuthority.

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

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

Section 173 Agreement

13. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority, prior to thecommencement of the development hereby permitted, the owner/s of the landat 91 Darebin Street, Heidelberg must enter into an Agreement under Section173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 with the Responsible Authoritywhich requires that:




4.1

Additional Car Parking Provision or Contribution

(a) A minimum of ten additional car parking spaces are to be provided by theowner/permit holder within the Heidelberg Major Activity Centre close tothe subject site in association with the increased medical component ofthe use to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority prior tocommencement of the use.

Where suitable spaces are not provided, Council will accept a cashpayment in-lieu of providing the car parking. The contribution details areas follows:

(i) The amount to be provided must be to the satisfaction of Councilbut will be no greater than the average direct cost of providing forten car spaces within the Heidelberg Major Activity Centre close tothe site including land and construction cost;

(ii) Unless otherwise agreed in writing by Council, the cash payment isto be provided within two years from the date of the permit.

Parking Provision for Residential Apartments

(b) The owner acknowledges that and will bring to the attention of all tenantsof the residential components of the subject site that there should be noexpectation of obtaining permanent car parking, whether or not, in thevicinity of the development hereby approved and that there will be noentitlement to on street parking by way of parking permits. Tenants areencouraged to utilise alternative means of transport or park within existingparking restrictions.

Waste Collection

(c) The owner acknowledge that all refuse and recycling collection will occurby way of a private contractor in accordance with the approved WasteManagement Plan.

A memorandum of the Agreement is to be entered on title and the cost of thepreparation and execution of the Agreement and entry of the memorandum ontitle is to be paid by the owner.

Tree Protection / Landscaping

14. Except with the further written consent of the Responsible Authority, novegetation (other than that indicated on the endorsed plan, or exempt fromplanning permission under the provisions of the Banyule Planning Scheme)shall be damaged, removed, destroyed or lopped.

15. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority, prior to thecommencement of works (including demolition) on the site Tree PreservationZones must be established around Trees 4, 5 and 6. You must contactCouncil’s Development Planning Arborist on 9457 9808 once the TreePreservation Fencing is erected so that an inspection of the fencing can becarried out. Once installed and inspected the Tree Preservation Zones must bemaintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, and meet thefollowing requirements:




4.1

(a) Extent

Tree Preservation Zones are to be provided to the extent of the TreeProtection Zone indicated in the arboricultural report supplied with theapplication.

(b) Weed control

Any weeds located within the Tree Preservation Zone are to be removedand the area mulched with 100mm of composted coarse gradewoodchips.

(c) Fencing

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

(ii) The posts must be strong enough to sustain knocks from on siteexcavation equipment.

(iii) The fences must not be removed or relocated without the priorconsent of the Responsible Authority.

(d) Signage

Fixed signs are to be provided on all visible sides of the TreePreservation Fencing, stating “Tree Preservation Zone – No entry withoutpermission from the City of Banyule”.

(e) Irrigation

The area must be irrigated during the summer months with 1 litre of cleanwater for every 1 cm of trunk girth measured at the soil / trunk interfaceon a weekly basis.

(f) Access to Tree Preservation Zone

(i) No persons, vehicles or machinery are to enter the VegetationProtection Zone except with the consent of the ResponsibleAuthority;

(ii) No fuel, oil dumps or chemicals are allowed to be used or storedwithin the Vegetation Preservation Zone and the servicing and re-fuelling of equipment and vehicles must be carried out away fromthe root zones;

(iii) No storage of material, equipment or temporary building is to takeplace within the Vegetation Preservation Zone;

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

NOTE:

Requests for consent of the Responsible Authority (City of Banyule) pursuant tothis Condition should be directed to Council’s Arborist – Development Planningon 9457 9808. Consent for the conduct of works within the Tree ProtectionZone, where granted, may be subject to conditions. Such conditions mayinclude a requirement that:




4.1

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

• All root excavation be carried out by hand digging or with the use of ‘Air-Excavation’ techniques;

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

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

16. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority, thelandscaping areas shown on the endorsed plans must be used for landscapingand no other purpose and any landscaping must be maintained to thesatisfaction of the Responsible Authority, including that any dead, diseased ordamaged plants are to be replaced.

Waste Management

17. Prior to the commencement of development, a Waste Management Plan mustbe submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Such plan mustspecify that collection is to be by way of private contractor and detail:

(a) The location and dimensions of waste areas and allocation forcommercial and residential waste.

(b) The number of bins to be provided and capacity.

(c) Details of method and frequency of cleaning and maintenance of wasteareas.

(d) Details of ventilation.

(e) Details of unwanted goods storage.

(f) Method of waste and recyclables collection including the need to providefor private waste collection services.

(g) Hours of waste and recyclables collection.

(h) Measures to minimise impact upon local amenity.

(i) Method of presentation of bins for waste collection.

(j) Strategies for how the generation of waste and recyclables from thedevelopment will be minimised.

When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permitand must be complied with at all times. Waste collection from the developmentmust be in accordance with the plan, to the satisfaction of the ResponsibleAuthority.

18. The waste bin area must be provided prior to the commencement of the usepermitted by this permit, maintained and used to the satisfaction of theResponsible Authority and must not be used for any other purpose.




4.1

19. No receptacles for any form of rubbish or refuse (other than public waste bins)may be placed or allowed to remain in view from a public road or thoroughfareexcept during collection. Odour must not be emitted from any suchreceptacle(s) so as to cause offence to any person(s) outside the subject land,to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Time Limits

20. In accordance with section 68 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, thispermit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

(a) The development is not commenced within two years of the date of thispermit;

(b) The development is not completed within four years of the date of thispermit.

In accordance with section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, theResponsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is madein writing:

(a) Before the permit expires, or

(b) Within six months afterwards, or

(c) Within 12 months afterwards if the development started lawfully beforethe permit expired.

PERMIT NOTES

(A) Expiry of Permit

In the event that this permit expires or the subject land is proposed to be usedor developed for purposes different from those for which this permit is granted,there is no guarantee that a new permit will be granted. If a permit is grantedthen the permit conditions may vary from those included on this permit havingregard to changes that might occur to circumstances, planning schemeprovisions or policy.

(B) Additional approvals required

Building Permit Required

A Building Permit must be obtained prior to the commencement of any worksassociated with the proposed development.

Building over Easements

No structure (including but not limited to sheds, retaining walls, eaves, watertanks, paving and landings) shall be built over any easement on the subjectland except with the consent of the relevant Responsible Authority.




4.1

Access to Council Reserve

No permission can be granted either temporary or otherwise by Council and/orits employees with respect to access to the adjacent Council owned land(including the road reserve) for any purposes relating to the proposal (eg.parking of surplus vehicles, delivery of materials etc.), without application beingmade for the requisite permit (ie. Local Law Permit).

Supervision of works undertaken on Council Assets

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

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

• A “Drainage Connection Permit” for any works other than within a roadreserve. .

Asset Inspection Fee

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

(C) Ongoing restrictions

Tree Protection Zones

Requests for the consent or approval of tree protection measures pursuant toCondition 13 should be directed to Council’s Arborist – Development Planningon 9457 9808. Consent for the conduct of works within the Tree ProtectionZone, where granted, may be subject to conditions. Such conditions mayinclude a requirement that:

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

• All root excavation be carried out by hand digging or with the use of ‘Air-Excavation’ techniques;

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

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




4.1

(D) Action on/for completion

Completion of Development

Immediately upon completion of the development permitted by this permit, theowner or developer of the subject land must notify Council’s DevelopmentPlanning Section that the development is complete and complies with allrequirements of the permit. The development will then be inspected to ensurecompliance.

An early inspection process will ensure that the subdivision approvals includingthe Statement of Compliance can be issued without delay.

Street Numbering

Please note that property addresses are allocated by Council. This is usuallyformalised at the time of the issue of a certified plan.

Residential Noise (spa pump/pool pumps/air-conditioning unit/vacuum unit etc)

The operation of the (spa pump/pool pumps/air-conditioning unit/vacuum unitetc) shall comply with the Environment Protection (Residential Noise)Regulations 2008. Prohibited times of use (if audible from a habitable room ofa neighbouring property) as specified by the Regulations are:

Monday to Friday before 7am and after 10pmWeekends and public holidays before 9am and after 10pm.

The operation of the (spa pump/pool pumps/air-conditioning unit/ vacuum unitetc) must not cause a nuisance pursuant to the Public Health and WellbeingAct 2008. A nuisance may include issues such as noise, odour or any otherthing deemed to be a nuisance under the Act. It is recommended that the (spapump/pool pumps/air-conditioning unit/ vacuum unit etc) is not located withinclose proximity to neighbouring properties and where practicable, enclosed.

Planning Permit Application: P1135/2015

Development Planner: Jackie Bernoth

Address: 91 Darebin Street HEIDELBERG

Proposal: Development of the land with a multi-level mixed usedevelopment (up to 6 storeys) including use fordwellings; removal of vegetation; and a reduction in thestandard car parking requirements

Existing Use/Development: Single dwelling

Restrictive covenant: Nil

Applicant: Vivendum Projects Pty Ltd

Notification (Advertising): Two signs on siteNotices to surrounding properties

Objections Received: 22




4.1

Ward: Griffin

Cultural Heritage ManagementPlan (CHMP) required:

No

Planning controls: Control Permittriggered?

Special Use Zone (SUZ3) YesVegetation Protection Overlay (VPO5) NoDesign and Development Overlay (DDO5) YesClause 52.06: Car parking Yes

Policies considered: Clause 11: SettlementClause 12: Environmental and Landscape ValuesClause 15: Built Environment and HeritageClause 16: HousingClause 21.04: Land UseClause 21.05: Natural EnvironmentClause 21.06: Built Environment (Diversity area)Clause 21.08: Local PlacesClause 22.03: Safer Design Policy

The proposal incorporates the demolition of the existing dwelling on the site andconstruction of a building comprising of six (6) levels above two basement parkinglevels as viewed from Darebin Street. When viewed from Powlett Street theproposed ground floor would be located approximately 2m beneath footpath level,meaning that the building would essentially present as being five storeys tall. Thebuilding is lozenge shaped in nature from Level 2 upwards, and features whiterendered balustrading to the balconies at Levels 1-4, with a dark façade and clearbalustrading to Level 5, which emphasises the form of the lower section of thebuilding.

• It is proposed that the building would accommodate:• 37 dwellings with 42 parking spaces allocated to these;• 21 storage compartments (at ground floor level);• A gym, theatre and library/function room at ground floor level; and• A 104m2 medical suite, which will be allocated five parking spaces.

All vehicular access to the site will be from Darebin Street, where the existingcrossing will be widened to 5.5m. Pedestrian access will be provided from DarebinStreet, with a separate access for the medical suite. Detail in relation to room, carparking and private open space provision is contained in Attachment 1 to this report.


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 anydirect or indirect interest in a matter to which the advice relates.





4.1

SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

Locality Plan

The subject site is located on the south-eastern corner of Darebin and PowlettStreets. It is currently occupied by a substantial single storey brick dwelling withassociated outbuildings, and obtains vehicular access from both roadways. Thedwelling sits within an established garden, and the site supports a number of trees, ofwhich three are assessed by the applicant’s arborist. Advice is also provided inrelation to the abutting street trees in Powlett Street, as follows:

ID Species Height(m)

DBH(cm)

StructuralRoot Zone

(m)

TreeProtectionZone (m)

Retentionvalue

1 Geijera parviflora(Wilga)

11 24 1.8 2.9 Low

2 Schinus molle(Peppercorn)

7 15 1.5 2.0 Low

3 Acer palmatum(Japanese Maple)

6 39 2.3 4.7 Low

4 Quercus canariensis(Algerian Oak)

12 66 2.9 7.9 High

5 Quercus canariensis(Algerian Oak)

10 57 2.7 6.8 High

6 Quercus robur (EnglishOak)

9 56 2.7 6.7 High




4.1

The site slopes by 3.3m from the south-western corner to the south-eastern corner,with a 2m slope along the Darebin Street frontage. It is elevated above the DarebinStreet footpath by approximately 2m at the highest point, with site cut along thewestern boundary of the dwellings at 85 Darebin Street emphasising the change inlevels between the two properties.

The surrounding area is one of transition between the medical facilities to the east,which include multi-level development with minimal setbacks, and suburbanresidential development, with varying levels of redevelopment, to the north and west.A detached dwelling extending to three levels, with an overall height of 8.3m islocated to the south of the site, whilst the property to the east is developed withseven single- and double-storey attached dwellings.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

The application was advertised by means of erecting two signs on site (one on eachstreet frontage) and by posting notices to the owners and occupiers of surroundingproperties. A total of 22 objections have been received to date, including objectionsfrom residents nearby, those who work nearby, and others from further afield. Twoobjections are identical, as are a separate group of seven objections. Grounds ofobjection are summarised as follows:

CAR PARKING AND ACCESS

• A reduction in car parking is unacceptable in an area already compromised forcar parking;

• No visitor parking means more parking on Powlett Street;

• Insufficient parking is provided for the proposed medical use;

• Increase in traffic results in a reduction in residential amenity;

• Increase in traffic and congestion in the broader area (including RosannaRoad) as a result of the proposal;

• The plans are inconsistent in relation to whether there is visitor parkingprovided or not;

• An additional 10 parking spaces should be provided(five for visitors and anadditional five for the medical suite);

• The traffic report does not make reference to the existing long queues of trafficwaiting to enter Upper Heidelberg Road, which often result in a 15-20 minutewait in traffic at present;

• It is naïve to think that visitors will only need to be accommodated at night orover the weekend;

• Darebin Street is often filled to capacity at present;

NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER AND URBAN DESIGN

• Destruction of Darebin Street streetscape;

• Impact on heritage listed housing and surrounding residences;

• Proposal is not designed to be sympathetic with the neighbourhood characterof Darebin Street and Powlett Street;




4.1

• The proposed ultra-modern design is at odds with the traditional and historicneighbourhood character of the immediate area;

• The façade, bulk, height and design of the building is inconsistent with theresidential interface, including neighbouring heritage houses and the WarringalCemetery;

• The proposal will reduce the visual importance of the significant Norfolk IslandPine at 17 Powlett Street;

• A more appropriate development on this site would be double storey;

• Will have an overbearing impact on the heritage dwelling at 90 Darebin Street;

• The development would be more at home in the Gold Coast than Heidelberg;

• Insufficient space for landscaping to offset the proposed vegetation removal;

BUILDING HEIGHT AND SIZE

• The proposal is 20m tall, whilst the maximum height outlined in the zone is10m.

• The proposal is an overdevelopment of the site and shows disregard for theneighbourhood;

• The proposal is physically removed from recently approved large scale medicalsuites and apartments, and is clearly located within a residentialneighbourhood.

• The 10m height stipulated in the Special Use Zone was designed to ensure thatnearby residents retained some views. The height of the building will preventthis;

• The proposal does not include floor-ceiling heights which would allow thebuilding to be converted to alternative (medical) uses;

• Excessive height robs ratepayers at the residential interface of any views,leading to an onset of depression in residents accustomed to the views;

• Proposed site coverage and number of apartments (in addition to the height) isan overdevelopment;

• Nearby developments at 12 Powlett Street and 11 Martins Street should not beused as a precedent as they are currently before VCAT;

• Due to the size of the proposal the proposed boundary setbacks, includingbalcony setbacks, are insufficient;

AMENITY IMPACTS

• Overshadowing and loss of light and privacy to surrounding residences (from11 Hillside Road;

• Loss of views;

• The proposal will impact upon views from the Warringal Cemetery;

• The proposal does not indicate the location of air conditioning units and otherservices, and the visual impact of these on neighbours is unknown;

• No construction management plan has been provided;




4.1

• The plans fail to address the emissions of fumes from the car park, or theimpact on air quality or light spill

• The application shows a disregard for the amenity of properties in the vicinitywhich are located within the General Residential 1 Zone;

• The proposal will overshadow ‘Powlett Street Common’;

• Will prevent all light access to the house and garden at 16 Powlett Streetbetween March and September;

• Loss of sunlight 6to 16 Powlett Street will result in health issues, increasedutility bills and an inability to install rooftop solar panels;

• Unacceptable noise impacts to 16 Powlett Street from balconies, communalarea and rooftop plant and equipment, which would be exacerbated by anyunits on balconies;

• Loss of all privacy to the house and garden at 16 Powlett Street;

• Light spill from the proposal has not been addressed, and will have a negativeimpact on adjacent residences;

• Overlooking and overshadowing to 89 Darebin Street (expressed by a residentof Stradbroke Ave);

• Does the development meet with Council’s Livable Housing Guidelines?

• Poor laundry facilities are provided for the proposed apartments.

OTHER

• This area is specifically designated for medical services;

• The construction of so many dwellings on this land will impact upon the abilityof Precinct 6 to be developed with dwellings, as an oversupply of apartments isanticipated in Melbourne;

• Community consultation process and outcomes should be upheld, not ignored,by Council;

• Loss of property value for residences (from 11 Hillside Road, 32 PowlettStreet);

• The application does not specify whether there are any plans for transmissionor similar communication towers and how these will be controlled;

• Before the application is considered Council needs to confirm the status of the‘Powlett Street Common’, including whether it is within the Public Park andRecreation Zone;

• Will jeopardise the health of the Norfolk Island Pine at 17 Powlett Street(including a concern at a loss of sunlight to this tree);

• The building is not stepped in response to the terrain;

• Does not comply with the vision of the Emerging Latrobe Employment Cluster;

• The plans include incorrect information in relation to the location of the site, ofthe location of previous Tribunal decisions and the applicable speed limit;

• The proposal is wrong and unjustified;




4.1

• Loss of social interaction and faith in Council, and increase in isolation;

• Will create a precedent for development elsewhere in Banyule.

One objector notes that they like the appearance of the building, and suggests that itwould be appropriate on a larger site where greater boundary setbacks could beprovided.

CONSULTATION

A consultation meeting was held between the applicant, objectors, the WardCouncillor and a Council officer on 10 May 2016. Issues discussed at the meetingwere:

• The mix of uses proposed;

• The height of the building;

• The allocation and provision of car parking;

• Traffic within Darebin Street and surrounds.

The majority of residents at the meeting expressed a view that the building wasattractive, but too large for the location. The applicant indicated that they do notshare this view, and no resolution was reached.

A meeting was also held between the permit applicant, Council staff and Councillor atwhich it was agreed that the applicant would provide a contribution towards theprovision of public parking within the Heidelberg area.

REFERRAL COMMENTS

Advice received from Council’s Engineering and Building Sections, as well as theDevelopment Planning Arborist is outlined in Attachment 1. Of significance:

• The Traffic and Transport Engineering Section indicates that the proposedreduction in the standard parking requirement is acceptable. However, apreference is to be given to the provision of eight visitor parking spaces on site,rather than the provision of resident parking spaces which meet the planningscheme requirements.

• Council’s Building Permits and Inspections Unit advises that a floor-ceilingheight of 2.4m is acceptable for medical consulting rooms, however a height of3.0m is required where operations are to be conducted.

PLANNING CONTROLS

A planning permit is required for:

• The construction of the proposed building;

• A proposed reduction in the standard parking requirement from 60 spaces to47 spaces;

• Use of the lower floors of the building for dwellings as indicated.




4.1

Whilst the application was advertised as also including the removal of a tree,inspection of the tree in question (Tree 3 in the arboricultural report) confirms that apermit is in fact not required for its removal.

It is noted that neither the Residential Neighbourhood Character Policy nor Clause 55(ResCode) apply in the Special Use Zone. The provisions of some sections ofResCode provide some guidance, however, in assessing the impact of the proposalupon surrounding properties. The Design and Development Overlay specificallyanticipates that the street setback, sunlight, daylight and overlooking provisions ofClause 55 will be referenced.

The Design and Development Overlay indicate a 10m maximum height is applicablefor this site, with setbacks outlined in Clause 55 applicable to the street setbacks.This would indicate that a setback of 7.0m to Darebin Street and 3.0m to PowlettStreet would be appropriate.

TECHNICAL CONSIDERATION

A detailed assessment of the proposal against the Guidelines for Higher DensityResidential Development is included in Attachment 2. However, the key issues whicharise from this assessment and an assessment against the Design and developmentOverlay and Clause 52.06 (Car Parking) are as follows:

• The proposed mix of land uses

• Building envelope

• Impact upon neighbouring properties

• Car parking provision

PROPOSED MIX OF LAND USES

The proposal incorporates a single occupancy of 104m2 for Medical Centre, with theremainder of the proposal being residential in nature. The purposes of the SpecialUse Zone in which the site is located include to “encourage the consolidation ofmedical services within this precinct”. Accordingly, whilst a planning permit isrequired to use land less than 10m above ground level for a Dwelling within the Zone,no permit is required to use land for a Medical Centre. Council’s Municipal StrategicStatement also refers to a desire to encourage Medical and related uses within thisprecinct, with a policy direction being that development within the Precinct shouldneither detract from the retail function of the Burgundy Street precinct, nor theresidential development potential of the fringes of the Activity Centre.

Council’s Building Permits and Inspections Unit has advised that the minimum floor-ceiling height required for the majority of medical centres matches that of habitablespaces within dwellings, meaning that additional sections of the building could beutilised for medical purposes (subject to obtaining the relevant planning permits)should the demand be generated in the future.




4.1

It is considered that the proposed construction of 37 apartments on this site will notunreasonably impact upon the potential demand for dwellings on land on thenorthern side of Darebin Street or to the west of the site. The site’s location on thefringe of the Special Use Zone, and the availability of land for medical purposeswithin the Zone also indicates that the use of the site for primarily residentialpurposes at this point in time will not result in an inappropriate infiltration of medicaluses into the surrounding residential and retail areas.

On this basis, the relatively high proportion of the site to be utilised for residentialpurposes is considered to be acceptable.

BUILDING ENVELOPE

Height

The proposal incorporates a height of 17.4m to 19m above natural ground level (or17m – 19.8m above street level), with the slope of the site meaning that the buildingis at its highest along the eastern façade. This represents a height of 2.5 – 3 storeysover the preferred maximum of 10m for this precinct, with the 16m height to PowlettStreet being comparable with both the existing hospital car park at 230-232 BurgundyStreet and the approved development at 12 Powlett Street (the latter is currentlysubject of an objector appeal).

The upper levels of the proposal are apparent from Darebin Street, where the top twolevels will be visible save from the footpath and parking lane on the southern side ofthe street, and from surrounding properties. The impact upon Powlett Street is lesspronounced, with the slope of the land reducing the apparent height of the buildingfrom both the street and properties on its western side.

By way of absolute comparison, the height to AHD of the proposal andexisting/approved development in the vicinity is as follows:

Proposal 90.2230-232 Burgundy Street (Hospital Car Park) 85.910 Martin Street (constructed) 92.19-11 Martin Street & 12 Powlett Street (currently before VCAT) 90.5

It is considered that in light of surrounding development and the slope of the landaway from Powlett Street the height of the proposal above street level is acceptable.The use of curved balconies, additional recession, clear balustrades and appropriaterender colours to the upper level façade results in an upper portion which achievesan appropriate level of visual and physical recession. The absolute height of thebuilding is also considered to be acceptable, and will not result in an unacceptableimpact upon view-lines from key vantage points, including the intersection of UpperHeidelberg Road and Burgundy Street/the Bell Street off-ramp.

Street setbacks

Both the DDO and the Heidelberg Structure Plan outline that in this location abuilding should be set back in accordance with Clause 55 (ie. 7m to Darebin Streetand 2m to Powlett Street), however the Structure Plan also refers to the potential toprovide an additional 6m in height provided that an additional setback of 1.5m toeach storey (3m height) is provided.




4.1

By comparison the proposal incorporates the following setbacks:

Darebin Street Powlett StreetLevels G-3 6m to façade, minimum of 4m

to balconies3.5m to façade, minimum of1.5m to balconies

Level 4 7.7m to façade, minimum of 4mto balconies

4.3m to façade, minimum of1.5m to balconies

Level 5 Minimum of 8.85m to façadeand 6.55m to balcony

Minimum of 5.6 to façade, 3.5mto balconies

The proposal incorporates a 1m reduced setback to the proposed façade and 3m tothe balconies when compared with the adjoining development to the east. It is noted,however, that other development in the immediate vicinity has setbacks in the orderof 5m. In this context, and given the use of sections of clear balustrading and thebreak in the mid-point of the balconies results in a built form which is acceptable interms of presentation to and setback from Darebin Street. The proposed setback atthe upper levels includes an appropriate amount of recession from the street whencompared with the levels beneath.

With the exception of relatively small sections of the curved balconies, the proposalcomplies with the setbacks outlined to Powlett Street for Levels 1-3, with thebalconies intruding into the setbacks at Level 4 and 5. The curvature of thebalconies, the narrow break provided between them mid-way along the façade, andthe topography of the land combine to form an acceptable outcome.

IMPACT UPON NEIGHBOURING PROPERTIES

It is considered that, subject to minor modification, the proposal will not result in anunacceptable impact upon the amenity of adjoining properties:

Shadowing

The proposed southern and western boundary setbacks assist in reducing theamount of shadow cast by the proposal upon the adjoining properties at 16 PowlettStreet and 85-89 Darebin Street. As a result, and due to the orientation of the land,the proposal will result in:

• Minimal shadowing to the adjoining property at 16 Powlett Street at 9am andnoon on 22 September;

• Overshadowing of the entire yard of Units 5 and 6, 85 Darebin Street at 3pm on22 September;

• Shadowing of approximately half of the rear yard of 16 Powlett Street at 3pmon 22 September.

The information supplied indicates that the existing fencing on site also currentlyshades the entirety of the private open space at Units 5 and 6, 85 Darebin Street.




4.1

It is considered that these shadow impacts are acceptable in this setting, and do notoverly restrict future development of the adjoining property at 16 Powlett Street. It isnoted that whilst the adjoining property owner has raised concern about the level ofshade cast by the proposal over 16 Powlett Street during winter, winter shade is notordinarily considered when assessing a planning application. Existing buildings,landscaping and fencing also currently cast significant levels of shade to the yardareas concerned.

Overlooking

The plans indicate screening to selected balconies on the eastern side of theproposed building. This is restricted to Levels 1-3, and does not include thebalconies which wrap around the north of the building or the entirety of balconies tothe dwellings located at the southern end of the building.

An assessment of the plans indicates that:

• The use of appropriately angled louvres would allow longer-range views fromBalconies 107 and 207 to the south-east whilst ensuring appropriate levels ofprivacy are maintained by 16 Powlett Street and 5/85 Darebin Street.

• Screening is necessary to the Communal Roof Terrace;

• Screening to the narrow (1.2m – 1.4m wide) section of east facing balcony atLevel 5 is not considered to be necessary, given the horizontal and verticalseparation of the balcony from the adjoining property and the anticipated lowutilisation of this section of balcony.

• Screening to restrict overlooking should be provided to:

o The south facing Apartment 207 dining room window;

o The south-east facing section of balcony to Apartment 207;

o Extend the proposed screening to Balcony 306 to the south and south-east (but not necessarily the curved section facing south-west)

o The balconies of Apartments 401 and 404, from a point approximately14m from the Darebin Street frontage, along the eastern façade and to apoint approximately 10m from the Powlett Street frontage.

Screening should be designed to focus views toward the broader area, rather thanpreventing outlook. In some instances, use of planter boxes or similar to preventaccess to the outer edge of a balcony may be sufficient to screen overlooking.

The plans should also be annotated to reflect the screening indicated to the southfacing balcony of Apartment 306 that is shown on the southern elevation.

Noise

The proposal will not result in an unacceptable impact upon surrounding propertiesby means of vehicular noise. Any permit issued should include a requirement toshow facilities, with these to be commonly located and screened, so as to preventindividual air conditioning units resulting in amenity impacts to both existing andfuture residents.




4.1

CAR PARKING PROVISION

The proposal incorporates the provision of 47 parking spaces, which is sufficient toprovide:

• Two parking spaces for each three-bedroom dwelling;

• One parking space for each one- and two-bedroom dwelling;

• Five parking spaces for the proposed two practitioner medical centre.

It is anticipated that the parking provided for the medical centre will be sufficient toprovide some, but not all, of the required patient car parking, with staff fully cateredfor.

Council’s Traffic and Transport Engineering Unit have indicated a preference for theprovision of on-site visitor parking, expressing a view that a lower provision of on-siteresident and staff parking may encourage lower car ownership rates amongst thoseoccupying the building. Both the permit applicant and objectors have advised ofconcern in relation to this approach, and it is noted that whilst long-term parking islimited in availability in the area, there is currently some capacity within the short-term parking on street near the site to accommodate additional visitor vehicles.

Given the topography of the area (which reduces the accessibility of the site to publictransport and other services), existing parking restrictions in the area, and thedemand for longer term parking in particular, it is considered appropriate to provideparking for occupants in preference to visitors. Overflow visitor parking may beaccommodated on-street. It is considered, however, that the patient parkingallocated to the Medical Centre use could be utilised by residential visitors of anevening and during the weekend, allowing for a more efficient use of these spacesand a lowering of demand on-street. It is also noted that the permit applicant hasindicated a willingness to contribute to the provision of public parking within theActivity Centre, which will assist with demand in the longer-term.

ADDITIONAL OBJECTOR CONCERNS

Comments in relation to concerns raised by objectors which have not beenaddressed above, or in the attached assessment against the Guidelines for HigherDensity Residential Development are as follows:

TRAFFIC IMPACTS

Council’s Traffic and Transport Unit have not raised concern in relation to theadditional traffic generated by the proposed development. Whilst it is appreciatedthat the intersections of Darebin Street with both Upper Heidelberg Road andRosanna Road may experience periods of heavy demand at points in the day,inspections of the area indicate that the street is not currently operating at fullcapacity.

HERITAGE AND NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER

Heritage Impacts

it is not considered that the proposal will have any detrimental impact upon thehistoric significance of the dwelling at 90 Darebin Street, or upon the significance orhealth of the Norfolk Island Pine at 17 Powlett Street.




4.1

Site coverage

The proposed 60% (approximate) site coverage to the ground floor level of theproposal is not considered to be excessive in the context of the character of the areain which it is located. Acceptable areas for planting are maintained to the perimeterof the site.

AMENITY IMPACTS

Loss of views

The loss of views as a result of development is rarely a valid planning consideration.It has been a long held planning principle that there is no right to a view from aproperty in a general urban setting. Concerns with the bulk and scale of the dwellinghave been addressed within the report.

Construction Management

Whilst the issue of construction management is a short term amenity issue thatordinarily cannot be considered as part of the planning process, given that once adevelopment has been completed the issue is no longer relevant, it is acknowledgedthat disruption during construction can cause residents amenity concerns. It isrecommended that in this instance a Plan be required to be submitted to andapproved by Council prior to the commencement of works.

Light spill

It is considered that light spill has the potential to impact negatively upon surroundingproperties, but can be addressed relatively simply by permit condition.

Poor laundry facilities are provided

The plans do not clearly designate laundries, and whilst the use of cupboardlaundries or laundry facilities integrated into kitchens, the Sustainable ManagementPlan should include reference to the means proposed to discourage use of clothesdryers.

OTHER

Property values

It is a long standing planning principle that the perceived loss of property value byobjectors is not a matter which can be sustained when assessing an application forplanning permit.

Potential for communication towers on roof

Any modification to the proposal to include mobile phone towers would requireseparate consideration, and does not form part of the proposal.

Council needs to confirm the status of the ‘Powlett Street Common’

The area of land referred to by the residents is currently zoned General Residential,and formally forms part of the Powlett Street road reservation. Separate consultationin relation to the future use and development of this area is scheduled to occur in the2016-17 financial year.




4.1

The building is not stepped in response to the terrain

Stepping of the floor level of a building containing a basement is difficult, particularlywhere, as in this case, the majority of the fall is across the width of the site, ratherthan its length. It is considered that, notwithstanding the proposed single floor platethe proposal response appropriately to its site.

Non-compliance with the Emerging Latrobe Employment Cluster

It is unclear how the proposal is contrary to the vision of the Latrobe EmploymentCluster, which has been identified as an area of redevelopment from Banksia Streetto Latrobe University.

Inaccuracies in information submitted

Any inaccuracies in the information submitted, including references to incorrectproperty addresses or any incorrect speed limit information, etc., have not influencedthe preparation of this report.

Loss of social interaction and increase in isolation

It is unclear how the proposal will result in a loss of social interaction or increase inisolation for existing residents of the area. By contrast, an increase in the number ofresidents, and surveillance of the street, has the potential to increase opportunitiesfor interaction.

Precedent

It is a long standing planning principle that the perception of precedent (eg.developments resulting in new future developments nearby) is not a matter whichcan be sustained when assessing an application for planning permit. Eachapplication must be assessed on its own merits in context of its location.

CONCLUSION

It is considered that the proposed use and development of the site is suited to thesite’s interface location between the medical precinct to its south and east and theresidential precinct to its north and west. Whilst the building is taller than anticipatedby the Design and development Overlay affecting the site, the additional height doesnot result in an unacceptable impact upon either the abutting streetscapes or theneighbouring properties. Approval is recommended.

ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 Attachment 1 - Background information - P1135/2015 pt1 96

2 Attachment 2 - Assessment against Higher Density Design Guidelines -P1135/2015 pt1

101

3 Attachment 3 - Advertised Plans 111



4.24.2 INFRASTRUCTURE VICTORIA 30 YEAR

STRATEGY - DRAFT SUBMISSION

Author: Bailey Byrnes - Transport Planning Team Leader, City Development

Ward: All

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Infrastructure Victoria has recently released an options paper ‘All ThingsConsidered’, which considers the short, medium and long term infrastructure needsacross the state. This encompasses a wide range of themes, including recreation,energy, transport, environment and health services, and will feed into a future30 year infrastructure strategy for the State.

There are a number of cultural, sporting, recreation, education, environment andtransport infrastructure initiatives in the paper that directly and indirectly affectBanyule. It is considered appropriate that Council make a submission toInfrastructure Victoria.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council make a submission (Attachment A) to Infrastructure Victoria in relationto the options paper ‘All Things Considered’ released in May 2016, outlining:

- The importance of a ‘whole of government’ approach to infrastructure planning.- The safety, congestion and amenity impacts of through traffic on Rosanna

Road and Greensborough Highway, and the importance of an orbital NorthEast Link in alleviating these concerns.

- Support for the public and active transport infrastructure initiatives identified inthe options paper.

- The importance of a framework on the use of community space shared useagreements, and the integrated use of these facilities.

- Community and transport infrastructure accessibility and the promotion ofuniversal design.

- Support for a number of environment and water initiatives, including furtheropportunities for stormwater harvesting.

CITY PLAN

This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction to “maintain and improveBanyule as a great place to live”.

BACKGROUND

Infrastructure Victoria is currently preparing a 30-year infrastructure strategy forVictoria. The work will consider Victoria’s needs and challenges over the short,medium and longer term, and identify a number of projects and the fundingrequirements and opportunities to deliver them.


INFRASTRUCTURE VICTORIA 30 YEAR STRATEGY - DRAFT SUBMISSIONcont’d


4.2

The preparation of the 30-year infrastructure strategy has included the followingsteps:

Developing goals through considering the economic, social and environmentalobjectives against which Victoria’s infrastructure needs will be assessed andconsult on these objectives.

Assessing Victoria’s current infrastructure assets and capabilities. Identifying Victoria’s short, medium and long-term infrastructure needs. This will

include review of existing agency strategies and plans, population projections,expert reports and economic data.

Options – assess options to meet those needs including future trends,demands and technology changes, demand management and regulatoryreform and considering whether to invest in new infrastructure or make betteruse of existing infrastructure. This is where the process is currently up to.

Strategy – a draft strategy will be published for a final round of public input priorto the release of the final strategy.

Following the development of the goals and vision for the strategy, InfrastructureVictoria have released an options paper ‘All Things Considered’ which puts forwardover 200 initiatives that could address Victoria’s infrastructure needs in the future.These initiatives encompass a wide range of ideas, across nine sectors and thewhole State. They include ways to better manage demand, better utilise our existingassets and building new infrastructure only where it is most required.

Formal submissions are invited on the options paper, with the consultation periodclosing on 17 June 2016.

LEGAL CONSIDERATION


HUMAN RIGHTS CHARTER


In developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered inaccordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights andResponsibilities. It is considered that the subject matter does not raise any humanrights issues.

DISCUSSION

A draft submission to Infrastructure Victoria has been prepared and included asattachment 1. It has been prepared in consideration of a number of Council’sadopted plans and strategies, including the Banyule Integrated Transport Plan,Recreation Strategy and the Northern Regional Trails Strategy.




4.2

The submission focuses on a number of cultural, sporting, recreation, education,environment and transport infrastructure initiatives that directly and indirectly impactBanyule. This includes highlighting the importance of a ‘whole of governmentapproach’ to the planning and delivery of infrastructure, and providing suitableframeworks for the investment of transport, community and cultural facilities.

Initiatives identified within the options paper that have been discussed in the draftsubmission include:

- The rationalisation and refurbishment of community space.- The use of community space shared use agreements, and the integrated use of

these facilities.- Community and transport infrastructure accessibility and the promotion of

universal design- The North East Link- Active Transport, including increasing investment in established areas,

updating regulations and expanding the walking and cycling network- Community Transport through alternative use of taxis and hire cars- Improving public transport through employment clusters- Reforming the bus network and increasing SmartBus services.- Stormwater harvesting and water quality management.

The North East Link was considered within the Infrastructure Victoria options paper;however the congestion, safety and amenity impact on Rosanna Road andGreensborough Highway were not noted within the additional commentary. The draftsubmission highlights the current stress on Banyule’s arterial road network, andrecommends the future Infrastructure Strategy be updated to reflect these concerns.The submission also reinforces Council’s position for a North-East Link as a directorbital link from the Metropolitan Ring Road to Eastlink.

There was no discussion within the options paper on the upgrading of publictransport modal interchanges, such as in Heidelberg or Greensborough, assupported by the Banyule Integrated Transport Plan. Given the importance ofimproving these facilities in providing effective and efficient connection pointsbetween public transport modes, it is appropriate that this initiative be pushed forconsideration as part of the final 30 year infrastructure strategy.




CONCLUSION

Council has the opportunity to lodge a submission in relation to the InfrastructureVictoria Options Paper. Submissions from Council are due by 17 June 2016. Thesubmission has been prepared and will be submitted by this date.




4.2

ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 Infrastructure Victoria Options Paper - Council Submission June 2016 149

Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life


5.15.1 PETRIE PARK AND RATTARY RESERVE

MASTER PLAN

Author: Lucia Brennan - Recreation Planner, Community Programs

Previous ItemsCouncil on 7 March 2016 (Item 2.1 - Petrie Park and Rattray Reserve Draft Master

Plans)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In January 2015, Council appointed SGL Consulting Group Pty Ltd (SGL) to workwith the community and Council to develop a master plan for Petrie Park and RattrayReserve, Montmorency.

The objective of the project was to prepare a master plan for Petrie Park and RattrayReserve to ensure the best outcomes for the community, with improved facilities,better linkages and access, and a long term sustainable plan for the precinct.

Extensive consultation occurred throughout 2015 and 2016 with community andsporting groups at Petrie Park and Rattray Reserve, local schools and businesses,Councillors, Council officers and local residents of Montmorency to assist with thedevelopment of the master plan.

Ten (10) submissions were received during the final community consultation phase,largely in support of the plan, with some minor suggestions; however there was nomajor drive for change.

Key themes primarily related to ‘Access and Egress’, ‘Pathways’ and ‘CommunityBuildings’. There is one (1) change which has been included into the final plan forPetrie Park relating to ‘Pathways’ and that is to consider a slight re-alignment of theinformal pedestrian entry from Ripper St into Petrie Park. This will be explored duringdetailed design of the path network.

The estimated cost to implement all elements of the master plan including a 10%contingency is $3,082,260 excluding GST. This includes a Council contribution of$1,000,000 to the proposed multi-purpose community facility within Petrie Park.

The final master plan meets the objectives of the master plan project, hasacknowledged and responded to community feedback and once adopted, will helpguide reserve and facility improvements in the future.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Adopt the (attached) Master Plan for Petrie Park and Rattray Reserve.

2. Refer projects and cost estimates within the Master Plan to future capital workbudgets.


PETRIE PARK AND RATTARY RESERVE MASTER PLAN cont’d


5.1 CITY PLAN

This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction to “engage meaningfullywith our community”.

BACKGROUND

In January 2015, Council appointed SGL Consulting Group Pty Ltd (SGL) as the leadconsultant to work with the community and Council to develop a master plan forPetrie Park and Rattray Reserve, Montmorency. SGL prepared the plan inpartnership with Practical Ecology and Michael Smith and Associates LandscapeArchitects and Urban Design during the development of the Master Plan.

Petrie Park is a well-developed and heavily utilised recreation reserve, on whichexists a sports field, several buildings and a substantial neighbourhood level familyplay space. Diagonally to the south-east and almost adjacent to Petrie Park isRattray Reserve. In contrast to the very active and highly patronised Petrie Park,Rattray Reserve has significantly less patronage. Rattray Reserve is best describedas a piece of remnant bushland covering approximately 1.9 hectares. The reserve ismade up of two Ecological Vegetation Communities, Box-Stringybark Woodland andValley Grassy Forest, and contains over 150 indigenous flora species. It has limitedthrough traffic and is bounded by the rear fences of residential properties on three ofits four sides. The location of both reserves is between Mountain View Rd andRattray Rd, Montmorency.

There are several community groups, organisations, businesses and Councilservices that exist within Petrie Park/Rattray Reserve. Some of the activities/groupsinclude scouts, bowls, football, cricket, soccer, pigeon racing, group fitness training,calisthenics, community bushland management, maternal and child health services,gaming and ANZAC commemorations and other associated activities within theMontmorency-Eltham RSL branch.

Petrie Park in particular has many different and varied groups operating from thisspace across a variety of times. Some of the groups have growing needs and arelooking to further develop or expand their facilities and/or times of use whilst otherspaces may not be used to their full potential which was explored throughout theconsultation process.

LEGAL CONSIDERATION









5.1Locality Plan

Petrie Park, Montmorency. (Note: Rattray Reserve is to the south east)

Rattray Reserve, Montmorency. (Note: Petrie Park is to the north west)




5.1 CONSULTATION

During the development of the draft master plan, extensive consultation occurredwith Petrie Park and Rattray Reserve user groups, the community and CouncilOfficers. Information received through household surveys, stakeholder interviews,external reference group workshops and three community drop-in events all assistedin developing a draft master plan that reflected the needs of the local community.

The draft master plan was adopted for the purpose of final community consultationand was released for a 6 week period from 8 March – 19 April 2016. Members of thecommunity were informed of the draft plans and invited to provide writtensubmissions. The draft master plan was advertised via the Leader Newspaper(Banyule in brief – 15 March), Council’s website and Facebook page, signs at PetriePark and Rattray Reserve and direct email to the user groups.

CURRENT SITUATION

Ten (10) submissions were received during the final community consultation phase;four of these were from key user groups at Petrie Park and Rattray Reserve and sixfrom individual members of the community. Responses were largely in support of theplan with no major drive for change. The relatively low response rate can besurmised that the community on a whole are very supportive of the draft plans andthat the majority of feedback was captured in the early consultation phase andreflected in the draft plan.

A summary of the key themes with officer comments is included in Attachment One.A copy of the full submissions has been distributed to Councillors and discussedduring a Councillor Briefing. Key themes primarily relate to ‘Access and Egress’,‘Pathways’ and ‘Community Buildings’ and have been detailed below:

• Access and Egress - support for and against (two for and one against) creatingan access point in Rattray Reserve from Allens Rd. As the plan indicates thisaccess will be a 12 month trial, it is suggested that this key direction remain.

• Pathways – request to shift priority of funding to implement path improvementworks on Mountain View Rd from Yrs 5-7 to Yrs 1-4. Council’s traffic engineershave also received an independent traffic assessment on behalf of St FrancisXavier Primary School relating to connecting pathways along Mountain ViewRd. The draft plans suggest detailed design for the path improvement work inYrs 1-4. Officers suggest the detailed design scope should take into accountbroader connectivity issues along Mountain View Rd and the implementation ofthe path improvement works on Mountain View Rd remain in Yrs 5-7.

• Pathways – suggestion for a slight realignment of the informal pedestrian entrypath at Ripper St into Petrie Park. It is suggested that this be included as aconsideration during detailed design of the pathways.

• Community Building – although support for the proposed multi-purpose buildingwas provided during the early consultation phase, the final submissions fromthe Diamond Valley Pigeon Racing Club indicated they would like to remain inthe current building. Scout Victoria’s final submission also raised concernregarding sharing social spaces and toilets within multi-purpose buildings fortheir members. Officers believe the specific needs of the users groups can beaddressed during the feasibility study therefore it is suggested that the keydirection to conduct a feasibility study for a multi-purpose community buildingremain.




5.1

Given this feedback, officers have updated the final Petrie Park master plan relatingto ‘Pathways’ to include a slight re-alignment of the informal pedestrian entry fromRipper St into Petrie Park. The final draft master plan is available in AttachmentTwo.


The estimated cost to implement all elements of the master plan including a 10%contingency is $3,082,260 excluding GST. This includes a Council contribution of$1,000,000 to the proposed multi-purpose community facility within Petrie Park.

Banyule City Council will need to seek partnerships and funding opportunities withvarious external stakeholders in order to achieve several of the proposed worksidentified in the master plans.




CONCLUSION

Petrie Park and Rattray Reserve are highly valued reserves for the Montmorencycommunity and provide very different opportunities for the local community.

The final master plan meets the objectives of the planning project, has acknowledgedand responded to community feedback and once adopted, will help guide reserveand facility improvements to serve the local community for decades to come.

ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 Petrie Park and Rattray Reserve - Summary of Key Themes 157

2 Petrie Park and Rattray Reserve Master Plan - Final Report - June 2016 159

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely


6.16.1 ADOPTION OF BANYULE'S CITY PLAN 2013-

2017 (YEAR 4)

Author: Peter Utri - Manager Organisational Systems, Corporate Services

Previous ItemsCouncil on 18 April 2016 (Item 6.3 - Preparation of City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 4))

Council on 30 May 2016 (Item 5.1 - Proposed City Plan & Budget - Consideration ofSubmissions Received)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report is presented for the adoption of Banyule’s City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 4),which strives to achieve Council’s Vision for its community of: ‘Banyule, a green,liveable and prosperous city, sustaining a healthy and engaged community.’

The City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 4) outlines the strategic intent, direction and prioritiesfor Banyule City Council under the objectives of People, Planet, Place, Participationand Performance. It helps guide the services Council provides to the community.The Plan is reviewed and updated each year after comprehensive consultation withthe community, Councillors and staff. It is framed through a legislative context andrelies on evidence of industry best practice. This annual review process ensuresCouncil continues to deliver the most appropriate services and projects for thecommunity. Feedback has helped Council to plan specific key initiatives and prioritiesfor Year 4 of the City Plan, which encompasses the 2016/17 financial year.

The Proposed City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 4), including the Proposed StrategicResource Plan 2016–2020, has been available for community consideration andcomment during 2016 in two key stages:

• Initial draft City Plan - from 22 March to 5 April 2016.• Final Proposed City Plan (public exhibition period) - from 19 April 2016 to

19 May 2016. (At the Council Meeting on 18 April 2016, Council resolved togive notice for ‘Preparation of City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 4)’. This resolutionincluded a public exhibition period, and the process was commenced for thereceipt of written public submissions.)

During both stages, the drafts were available via Council’s website and ServiceCentres, and at local libraries and neighbourhood houses. The draft plan was alsopromoted through The Banner newsletter and via local papers.

A report was presented to the 30 May 2016 Council Meeting to enable Council toformally consider written submissions received regarding the Proposed City Plan2013-2017 (Year 4) and Proposed Budget 2016/2017. This separate meetingprovided an opportunity for Council to receive, hear and consider the submissions inrespect of Council’s intention to adopt the City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 4) on14 June 2016.

The attached City Plan contains the Strategic Resource Plan (SRP) for Banyule CityCouncil for the next 4 year period. The SRP outlines how Council will manage ourfinancial and non-financial resources, including human resources, over the next fouryears to achieve our strategic objectives.


ADOPTION OF BANYULE'S CITY PLAN 2013-2017 (YEAR 4) cont’d


6.1

All initiatives outlined in the City Plan are matched by a resource allocation throughCouncil’s Annual Budget, either in full or phased over the life of the StrategicResource Plan.

The adoption of this Plan fulfils Council’s obligations and compliance with sections125 and 126 of the Local Government Act 1989. The City Plan is the Council Plan forthe purposes of the Act.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. Council, having considered all submissions received and having complied withthe requirements of sections 125 and 126 of the Local Government Act 1989,adopt the Banyule City Council’s City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 4) as attached tothis report.

2. A copy of Banyule’s City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 4) be provided to the Ministerfor Local Government prior to financial year-end (ie. 30 June 2016)

3. The submitters be advised that Council has considered their submissionsrelating to Banyule City Council’s City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 4) and that theybe notified of the outcome of their submission

4. Submitters be thanked for their contributions.

CITY PLAN

This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction to “develop and deliverbest value services and facilities”.

City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 4)

Council’s Proposed City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 4) outlines priorities and helps guidethe services that we provide to the community. The City Plan is informed by andused by Councillors, Council staff, community members, relevant stakeholders,agencies, the State Government, and residents.

The Strategic Objectives as described in Banyule’s Proposed City Plan 2013-2017(Year 4), being Banyule’s Council Plan, are:

People – Community strengthening and supportPlanet – Environmental sustainabilityPlace – Amenity and built environmentParticipation – Community involvement in community lifePerformance – Use our resources wisely

Each year Council reconsiders the areas of emphasis outlined for its four year plan.These views have been considered to develop City Plan key initiatives for 2016/17.

• Fiscal sustainability – practice prudent financial management and responsibilitywithin a new rate capping environment




6.1

• Effective communication – improve how we inform, engage and listen to thecommunity

• Environmental focus – protect and improve our environment and embracesustainable practices

• Community building – work with the community to encourage participation,partnerships, and reach its potential

• Investing in infrastructure – ensure our city’s infrastructure meets communityneeds, today and tomorrow

• Prudent planning – use comprehensive planning frameworks, processes andreporting to inform strategic decision making

• Good governance – employ the best possible processes to operatetransparently, efficiently and make informed decisions

• Advocacy – represent the community to secure services and funds from otherlevels of government, organisations and agencies.

The City Plan contains initiatives and services that reflect the intent of Council toprovide a comprehensive suite of outcomes for its community. This is in line with itsstated strategic intent and the priorities as reflected in consultation with thecommunity.

BACKGROUND

The City Plan is Banyule City Council’s Plan as required by Section 125 of the LocalGovernment Act 1989. The Plan forms Council’s key strategic platform for thedelivery of services and areas of focus for advocacy to its Community.

The Plan contains Council’s response to section 126 of the Local Government Act1989, in so far that it incorporates Council’s Proposed Strategic Resource Plan2016–2020.

This is the final year of Council’s four year City Plan 2013-2017, initially preparedfollowing the Council election in October 2012 and revised annually.

The development of the Proposed City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 4), attached to thisreport, has been formed by the information gathered through an extensivecommunity engagement and planning process. The framework is developed andsupported by current policy and responds in a strategic sense to the expressed andlatent needs of our community.

The process to develop this plan included Councillor Planning sessions duringNovember-December 2015 and February 2016, to review progress being madeagainst the City Plan 2013-2017, identify challenges, and review focus areas andpriorities.

CONSULTATION AND RESEARCH

An overview of our consultation approach

Council is committed to engaging with local communities, and continually improvingthe ways that people can have their say about the places they live, work and play,and the services they use. Community feedback, along with things such as legislativechanges, reviews of service standards, budget information and industry trends allcontribute to shaping Council’s direction.




6.1

Council is proud of its commitment to consultation and engagement, which supportsconversations and greater understanding between Council and the community, andincreases civic engagement and participation in community life.

The four year City Plan 2013-2017 was developed initially in 2013 after extensivecommunity consultation. Each year Council reviews and modifies the City Plan. Theconsultation approaches are designed so that community feedback and pertinentstrategic information is included in the City Plan as it is reviewed and updated eachyear.

Banyule’s 2016 Engage, Discuss, Respond Consultation report outlines Council’sconsultation and engagement approach and captures a range of consultation andengagement projects that have been conducted over the last eighteen months.

Consultation for Year 4 of the City Plan

In developing Year 4 of the City Plan Council has evolved its consultation approach.During the past 18 months we conducted a broad range of consultations on a varietyof issues including Year 3 of our City Plan and other important strategic plans and anumber of smaller local projects. We also worked closely with our communityadvisory committees who represent the needs of particular community groups.

In addition to relying on consultation to inform specific projects we also use theoutcomes of all our community consultation to feed into the development of Year 4 ofour City Plan.

We have also conducted a specific community engagement activity betweenNovember 2015 and March 2016 where our community had the opportunity toprovide feedback on how they felt about Council’s performance and to share ideasabout how to make Banyule an even better place to live.

Consultation and Research

Council uses a broad range of consultation and data sources to inform thedevelopment of the City Plan. This means that Council can hear from and representa broader range of people’s views. This is especially true for those who do not likegoing to meetings or completing surveys, or where other ways of engaging are moreappropriate.

Individual and face to face feedbackCouncil welcomes and encourages community feedback and people can share theirviews at any time. Community feedback can be made via a distributed return paidpostcard, letter, telephone, website or email. The feedback received, and thecustomer requests generated, are a key source of information to assist in improvingservices.

Council also delivers an ‘Out & About’ program to foster better links and informationflow with the community. Under this program, members of the customer service team(supported by service unit staff) attend community centres and events to promoteCouncil and community programs and services, as well as educate the community onhow to best access the services and opportunities available to them. This program isvery successful and has a particular focus on groups who have difficulty in accessingCouncil information or services, for example senior citizens groups.




6.1

Council has appointed specific Advisory Committees which provide strategic adviceto Council that represents the views of particular groups in the community. Thedemographic data is referenced and analysed to assist in understanding how thecommunity is changing and to plan for appropriate services. All of this information,combined with things such as legislative changes, reviews of service standards,budget information and industry trends, help to shape the updated City Plan.

The information gathered and the feedback received is incorporated into theProposed City Plan 2013–2017 (Year 4) and reflected in the body of that documentthrough proposed key initiatives. These are included to provide clear and practicalexamples of the intent of Council’s strategic direction and the in which way they aredemonstrable of links to community based themes that have be identified.

These initiatives enable community to comment in detail on whether Council hasfairly represented the priorities and needs of its community.

Evaluation and improving the consultation process

Each year Banyule evaluates the consultation process to look for ways to improvehow it consults and engages with the community. Council also works closely withother Council departments to share the information gained from this consultation.

Additional sources of data that inform Council decision making

Council uses a variety of methods to involve the community in the decisions Councilmakes. These include public forums such as workshops, advisory committees,surveys, focus groups, and community comment mechanisms, email feedback viaour website and individual feedback such as formal submissions.

Networks, Advisory Committees and Working GroupsNetworks, reference groups and advisory committees provide independent commentfor Council and officers on various policies and strategies that are developed andimplemented. They cover the areas of leisure and sport, culture, and environmentand consist of a broad base of interested people within the community.

In addition to the standing networks and committees, short-term working groups ofcommunity members are established for specific projects. These can range fromorganising a festival to giving community perspective on major works.

Statutory ProceduresUnder the Local Government Act 1989, Council is required to call for formalsubmissions on matters such as proposed discontinuance of roads, special chargeschemes and adoption of local laws. This is also the case for the lease of Councilfacilities.

Surveys and WorkshopsCouncil conducts surveys during the development of policies, service reviews or formonitoring community satisfaction with Council’s services. The size of the survey canrange from a local neighbourhood to the entire municipality. One-on-one personalinterviews are often conducted with traders in the development of shopping centrestrategies. Focus groups are another research method used from time to time tostrengthen existing or proposed services. Workshops are another way Banyuleengages with and hears community voices. Workshops are often used to help gainmore in-depth views on specific topics.




6.1

Local Government Planning and Accountability Framework

Banyule City Council adheres to the Local Government Planning and ReportingBetter Practice Guide in the development of its strategic planning process:

This Guide is designed to assist councils to best meet requirements under the LocalGovernment Act 1989 as they relate to the planning and accountability framework. Itprovides councils with relevant and practical information to assist in the developmentof key planning and reporting documents required under the Local Government Act1989 and as prescribed in the Local Government (Planning and Reporting)Regulations 2014 (the Regulations). These include the Council Plan (City Plan),Strategic Resource Plan, Annual Budget and Annual Report. The Guide also outlinesthe role of the Victorian Auditor-General and highlights the benefits of a relationshipwith a Community Plan.

In April 2014, legislation was introduced to include the requirement for Councils toreport against the Local Government Performance Reporting Framework (LGPRF).The Local Government (Planning and Reporting) Regulations 2014 support theoperation of the new planning and reporting framework for Councils under the LocalGovernment Amendment (Performance Reporting and Accountability) Act 2014.

Key measures as part of the LGPRF are included in Banyule’s set of StrategicIndicators in the City Plan. These include indicators and measures of serviceperformance, financial performance and sustainable capacity, along with a checklistof 24 governance and management requirements.

The results of these indicators (whose targets live in the Banyule Budget) will bereported in Council’s Annual Report 2015/2016, in line with the legislativerequirements. Council will review these and adjust targets and indicators asappropriate on an annual basis. Council will continue to work with the StateGovernment and Local Government industry sector in the further development andimplementation of the LGPRF.

Consultation on the Initial Proposed City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 4)

The initial Proposed City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 4), including the Strategic ResourcePlan 2016–2020, has been available for community consideration via Council’swebsite and Service Centres, and at local libraries and neighbourhood houses, from22 March to 5 April 2016. The proposed plan has also been promoted through TheBanner newsletter and in local papers.

Public Notice and Formal Submissions Process

At the Council Meeting on 18 April 2016, Council resolved to give notice for‘Preparation of City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 4)’. Subsequently, Council commencedthe public exhibition period in accordance with the Local Government Act 1989.

Advertisements were placed on Council’s website and in ‘The Age’ and localnewspapers, and copies of the proposed City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 4) were madeavailable for community comment to 19 May 2016. The proposed City Plan wasavailable electronically via Council’s website and was physically available at severalkey locations throughout the municipality, together with the proposed Budget2016/2017.




6.1

Two public meetings regarding the proposed City Plan and Budget were heldbetween 6:00pm and 7:00pm on the following dates at the following locations.

Date Venue

Thursday 28 April 2016 WaterMarc Community Meeting Room, 1 Flintoff Street,Greensborough

Thursday 5 May 2016 Tom Roberts Room, 275 Upper Heidelberg Road,Ivanhoe

The submissions were presented to Council at its meeting 30 May 2016. Thisseparate meeting provided an opportunity for Council to receive, hear and considerthe submissions in respect of Council’s intention to consider adopting the proposedCity Plan 2013-2017 (Year 4) and Budget 2016/2017 in June 2016.


The public exhibition period is a statutory requirement under the Local GovernmentAct 1989, and enables members of the community to make formal submissionsunder section 223 of the Act. Written submissions were invited to be submitted from19 April 2016 to 19 May 2016.

The required statutory notice appeared on Council’s website on Tuesday 19 April2016, and in ‘The Age’ on Wednesday 20 April 2016. This was supported with acopy of the public notice being placed in local papers the following week, along with aBanyule in Brief advertorial during April.

The public notice informed the community of Council’s intention to consider adoptionof Banyule’s Proposed City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 4) in accordance with Sections125 and 126 of the Local Government Act 1989, at a Council Meeting on Tuesday,14 June 2016.

A copy of the proposed City Plan was then made available for inspection andcommunity comment from 19 April 2016 to 19 May 2016 (a four week period). It wasavailable via Council’s website and customer service centres, local libraries andneighbourhood houses (together with the proposed Budget 2016/2017).

Submissions received by Council in accordance with Section 223 of the LocalGovernment Act 1989 were considered by Council on 30 May 2016 prior to the finalCouncil consideration of the adoption of the City Plan on Tuesday, 14 June 2016.



In developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered todetermine if it raises any human rights issues. In particular, whether the scope ofany human right established by the Victorian Charter of Human Rights andResponsibilities is in any way limited, restricted or interfered with by therecommendations contained in this report. It is considered that the subject matter ofthe City Plan does not raise any human rights issues but enhances the human rightsof our community.




6.1

As a part of Council’s commitment to community engagement, the City Plan (andBudget) has been developed through extensive consultation and engagement. Thisprocess of community involvement has promoted and facilitated specific rightsoutlined in the Charter, namely the right to take part in public life and the right tofreedom of expression.

ADVOCACY

Council works closely and in partnership with community, groups, local agencies andother levels of government to advocate for improved services, infrastructure andsocial outcomes. Council also seeks opportunities for equitable funding and servicearrangements.

This report has an important link with

Banyule’s ‘Participation’ objective:

Participation: Community involvement in community life –Govern effectively by appropriately engaging the community in issues thataffect them, and advocate for the broader interest of the community.

CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS

Following the Council meeting of 30 May 2016 to hear and consider the submissionsreceived, a detailed summary of the considerations of the submissions has beenincluded in the report relating to the Adoption of the Council Budget 2016/2017 alsoto be considered at the Ordinary Council Meeting on 14 June 2016.

Of the thirty–eight (38) submissions received, four (4) specifically commented on theproposed City Plan. After consideration of these submissions no material variationswere added to this proposed City Plan.

In addition, a number of submissions related to both the City Plan and the Budget.These were primarily focused on initiatives that related to budget items, and havebeen included in the budget considerations.

All submitters will be informed as to the outcome of their submission in writing afterthe adoption of the City Plan and Budget as to the outcome of their submissions.


The attached City Plan contains the Proposed Strategic Resource Plan 2016-2020for Banyule City Council for the next 4 year period.

The Strategic Resource Plan outlines how Council will manage its financial and non-financial resources, including human resources, over the next four years to achieveits strategic objectives.

The Strategic Resource Plan consists of the following:

• The ‘Performance – Use our resources wisely’ objective. This includes keydirections for achieving the objective, and focus areas for the next four years

• The ‘Management of our Human Resources’ section, which includesstatements describing the human resources required for the next four years




6.1

• The Financial Resources section, which includes information on financialposition, financial statements and commentary on these.

The plan also takes into account services and initiatives contained in plans adoptedby Council, as well as other information prescribed by the regulations.

The Strategic Resource Plan is prepared in accordance with the requirements of theLocal Government Act 1989 and the Local Government (Planning and Reporting)Regulations 2014, which commenced operation on 18 April 2014.This sits well withBanyule’s objective of ‘Performance – Use our resources wisely’.

In addition, the Strategic Resource Plan describes how Council manages its financialresources in a sustainable manner. Prudent management enables Council’s staffing,physical resources and community services to be maintained in a way that meets thecommunity’s current and future needs. This includes developing sustainable incomestreams and financial independence, and rates that support the services andinfrastructure for the Banyule community.

Our Linkage between City Plan and Budget

The Annual Budget is developed within Council’s overall strategic planningframework. This framework guides the Council with information that aids in identifyingcommunity needs and aspirations over the long-term, converting these into medium(Council Plan) and short-term (Annual Budget) objectives, key directions, initiatives,activities and allocates resources in a considered manner with this information.

Throughout the City Plan and through the Budget the manner in which Council seeksto achieve its objectives is described in three key ways:

• Services – This is the main stay of Council’s work for the community. Itcaptures the substantive service activities of Council that provide an outcomefor the key direction within an objective.

• Partnerships and Shared Resources – This outlines some of the keypartnerships with the Community, other levels of government and agencies todeliver on the key directions.

• Key Initiatives – A summary list of initiatives which shows the Communitypractical examples of the type of work that Council will be undertaking in2016/2017. These initiatives are often targeted to achieve extra efforts inparticular areas of emphasis, based on community feedback or particularissues that arise.

Accountability to the Banyule community is ensured through Audited Financial andPerformance Statements (containing our key performance indicators) and Council’sstatutory annual report to the community. Regular reporting on key issues andstrategies to Council also shines light and clarity of our decision making processes.

Essential in the planning and application of the use of Council’s resources isengagement with our community. Banyule undertakes an ongoing and iterativeprocess of engagement across all parts of the community in many forms.

Council utilises community information along with key demographic data, duereference to legislative context and industry benchmarks to assess the appropriatelevel of service for the Banyule community.




6.1

Council compares these services against both national and international standards ofquality, efficiency and effectiveness. There are direct and obvious links between thebroad range of information Council gathers and the activities funded to meet itsstrategic intent. Council also reviews this annually and re-assesses activities andareas of emphasis for the community on this basis.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The City Plan is underpinned by a key strategic framework. Each strategic objectiveis underpinned by comprehensive supporting policies, strategies and plans. Council’skey policy and strategic documents informing the City Plan are continuously reviewedto ensure relevance and responsiveness to community needs and best industrypractice:

• Banyule People: Health and Wellbeing Policy & Strategy• Banyule Planet: Environmental Sustainability Policy & Strategy• Banyule Place Policy & Strategy• Banyule Participation Policy & Strategy• Banyule Performance Framework: Banyule Management System

The key policy and strategic documents include the rationale and policy context foreach of the key directions that have been set to achieve Council’s objectives.

City Plan’s Relationship with the Municipal Public Health and Wellbeing Plan

The City Plan and the Banyule People: Health and Wellbeing Policy & Strategy meetBanyule’s obligation for the provision of a Municipal Public Health and WellbeingPlan under the Victorian Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008.

This City Plan is used as a vehicle for the strategic planning of the health andwellbeing of our community from Council’s responsibility perspective.

The City Plan is reviewed on an annual basis with a further lens relating to the healthand wellbeing outcomes of the community. This is done to ensure compliance underthe Victorian Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008, and to help improve healthoutcomes

Banyule City Council’s work in Health PromotionBanyule has chosen to meet our obligations to plan for the health and well-being ofour communities within our existing City Plan. The benefit of our approach is thathealth and wellbeing is integrated into the decisions Council makes, for example inthe services we provide and how places and spaces are designed. Integrating ourlegislated obligations for a Municipal Public Health and Wellbeing Plan within our CityPlan has cut down on an additional, unnecessary layer of administration.

However, by representing these actions at a higher level our actions andachievements are not readily apparent as these are incorporated within lower levelplans, e.g. the Recreation Plan, Community Safety Plan, and Inclusion Access andEquity Plans.




6.1

Whilst it remains beneficial for Council to recognise that there is a health andwellbeing impact in most decisions that are made on behalf of our Community (e.g.service delivery, the development of infrastructure, open spaces, etc.), it is useful toidentify some health promotion priorities to be able to better track and monitorprogress. We also need to ensure that we are taking action on the key areas that weknow make a difference in the long (and short term) to people’s health and wellbeing,and in particular the issues that have been shown to lead to the most deaths andillness. These are typically related to what are called ‘lifestyle diseases’ and areidentified within state and federal government priorities.

Over the next 6 months we are mapping current Council activity in each of thefollowing issues:

• Physical Activity• Nutrition• Heatwave• Sunsmart• Alcohol, Tobacco and other drugs• Mental health – including social connection and social support activities

Separate summaries and action plans will be developed for each of these six issues.

These action outcomes are reported separately to the Victorian Department of Health& Human Services.




CONCLUSION

Year 4 of the City Plan has refined Council’s endeavours to deliver on the expressedneeds of the Banyule community. The prioritisation of themes within Council’s keyobjectives have been reassessed and reordered with far greater emphasis on:

• Fiscal sustainability – practice prudent financial management and responsibilitywithin a new rate capping environment.

• Effective communication – improve how we inform, engage and listen to thecommunity.

• Environmental focus – protect and improve our environment and embracesustainable practices.

• Community building – work with the community to encourage participation,partnerships, and reach its potential.

• Investing in infrastructure – ensure our city’s infrastructure meets communityneeds, today and tomorrow.

• Prudent planning – use comprehensive planning frameworks, processes andreporting to inform strategic decision making.

• Good governance – employ the best possible processes to operatetransparently, efficiently and make informed decisions.




6.1

• Advocacy – represent the community to secure services and funds from otherlevels of government, organisations and agencies.

Council continues to demonstrate through this Plan, its comprehensive framework ofintegrated objectives, focus areas and key initiatives which are being implementedfor the benefit of the community.

These planning drivers cover a broad range of service delivery areas, internalsupport activities, important advocacy issues and deliver strong leadership for thecommunity with good open governance.

This final year of the 4 year strategic plan, refines the blueprint for Council’s wayforward to achieve its Vision: Banyule, a green, liveable and prosperous city,sustaining a healthy and engaged community.

ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 Proposed City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 4) (Under Separate Cover)



6.26.2 ADOPTION OF BANYULE'S BUDGET FOR THE

PERIOD 1 JULY 2016 TO 30 JUNE 2017

Author: Tania O'Reilly - Manager Finance & Procurement, Corporate Services

Previous ItemsCouncil on 18 April 2016 (Item 6.4 - Preparation of Budget for Period 1 July 2016 to

30 June 2017)

Council on 30 May 2016 (Item 5.1 - Proposed City Plan & Budget - Consideration ofSubmissions Received)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report is presented for the adoption of Banyule City Council’s Budget for2016/2017 in accordance with the Local Government Act 1989.

The Budget works to deliver the strategic directions of the City Plan, to provide arange of high quality services, programs and initiatives that meet community needs,and to achieve Council’s Vision for the community of:

Banyule, a green, liveable and prosperous city, sustaining a healthy andengaged community.

The development of the Proposed Budget 2016/2017 is based on informationgathered from an ongoing and iterative community engagement process and industrybest practice accounting standards. The Budget is developed and supported bycurrent policy and responds in a direct way to the expressed needs of the communityas outlined in the City Plan.

Council is required to make informed decisions on behalf of its community for thesustainable governance of the municipality. These decisions are based on a sound,considered and prudent financial management basis. The setting of the budget, thelevels of service provided, and the careful stewardship of the community’s resourcesand assets are paramount in the establishment of this budget.

The Proposed Budget 2016/2017 presented for adoption by Council (attached)incorporates consideration of public submissions to the exhibited proposed Budget ata Council Meeting on Monday, 30 May 2016.

Following the public exhibition period changes have been incorporated into theProposed Budget 2016/2017. The changes are based on the outcome of Council’sconsideration of submissions received and attention of items that have been referredfor inclusion in the proposed Budget 2016/2017 within in the interim period (i.e. priorto Council adopting the proposed Budget).

Council’s Proposed Budget 2016/2017 responds to the community priorities forBanyule as set out in the City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 4) and ensures the delivery ofthe right services in the right way in response to the community’s expressed needs.The Budget will ensure Council’s finances remain sustainable and that appropriateresources are allocated to meet the services and capital requirements of the City.Council has prepared its Proposed Budget 2016/2017 focusing on long term financialsustainability.


ADOPTION OF BANYULE'S BUDGET FOR THE PERIOD 1 JULY 2016 TO 30JUNE 2017 cont’d


6.2

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. Council having considered all submissions received and having complied withthe requirements of sections 127, 129 and 130 of the Local Government Act1989, adopt the attached Proposed Budget 2016/2017 with the followingamendments:

a) The outcomes of Council’s consideration of public submissions for theProposed Budget 2016/2017.

b) Items that have been referred to the Proposed Budget 2016/2017 byreports to Council which require additional funding not considered duringthe budget development process.

c) Other minor modifications including a revision of fees and charges inrelation to Animal Registrations and residential parking permits.

2. In accordance with sections 158 and 161 of the Local Government Act 1989,Council declare the Rates, Levies and Annual Service Charges for the2016/2017 rating year commencing 1 July 2016 and ending 30 June 2017 asdetailed in the Proposed Budget 2016/2017.

3. All submitters be advised Council has considered their submissions (as per theattached summary table) relating to the Proposed Budget 2016/2017, thesubmitters be advised of the outcome of the consideration as it relates to theirspecific submission, and they be thanked for their contributions.

4. Council give public notice of the adoption of the Budget 2016/2017 inaccordance with section 130 (2) of the Local Government Act 1989.

5. A copy of the adopted Budget 2016/2017 be provided to the Minister for LocalGovernment in accordance with section 130 (4) of the Local Government Act1989.

6.

CITY PLAN

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

BACKGROUND

Budget Development Process

The Proposed Budget 2016/2017 has been prepared to deliver the Proposed CityPlan 2013-2017 (Year 4) objectives, which set the overall strategic direction forBanyule.

The Proposed Budget 2016/2017 has been prepared with a focus on responsiblefinancial management and in accordance with the Local Government Act 1989 (theAct) and Local Government (Planning and Reporting) Regulations 2015 (theRegulations), and Accounting Standards.




6.2

The Proposed Budget 2016/2017, attached to this report, is for the Year 1 July 2016to 30 June 2017 and is prepared in accordance with the Act and Regulations. TheProposed Budget includes financial statements being a Comprehensive IncomeStatement, Balance Sheet, Statement of Changes in Equity, Statement of CashFlows and Statement of Capital Works. These statements have been prepared forthe year ended 30 June 2017 in accordance with the Act and Regulations, and areconsistent with the annual financial statements which are prepared in accordancewith applicable Australian Accounting Standards.

The Proposed Budget 2016/2017 includes information about the rates and charges tobe levied, the capital works program to be undertaken, the human resources requiredto deliver Council services, and other financial information required in order forCouncil to make informed decisions about its financial future.

Council must have its Budget adopted by 30 June each year in order to have all itsfinancial resources in place for the ensuing year of work for the community.

CONSULTATION

The Proposed Budget 2016/2017 is developed within Council’s overall strategicplanning framework. This framework guides the Council with information that aids inidentifying community needs and aspirations over the long-term, converting theseinto medium (Council Plan) and short-term (Annual Budget) objectives, keydirections, initiatives, activities and allocates resources in a considered manner withthis information.

A four year City Plan 2013-2017 has been developed through extensive communityengagement and feedback. The foundation of this work has led Council to includesignificant areas of emphasis in its planning. On an annual basis Councilreconsiders the areas of emphasis outlined for its four year plan.

Public Notice Process

Notice was given to the public of Council’s intention to formally:

1. Adopt the budget2. Declare differential rates, service charges and any municipal charge3. Require interest to be charged on unpaid rates and charges.

The notice included Council’s intention to adopt this Budget at a meeting of Councilon Tuesday, 14 June 2016.

Advertisements were placed on Council’s website and in ‘The Age’ and localnewspapers. Copies of the Proposed Budget 2016/2017 were made available forcommunity comment to 19 May 2016 (together with the Proposed City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 4))




6.2

Public meetings to explain the budget were held between 6:00pm and 7:00pm on thefollowing dates at the following locations:

• Thursday, 28 April 2016: WaterMarc Community Meeting Room, 1 FlintoffStreet, Greensborough

• Thursday, 5 May 2016: Tom Roberts Room,275 Upper Heidelberg Road,Ivanhoe

Further information about consultation and the public notice process for the Budget iscontained within the attached Proposed Budget 2016/2017 document in Appendix B‘Budget process’, and in section 1 – ‘Linkage to the City Plan (Council Plan)’. Theconsultation and public notice process is also captured in the City Plan and Budgetreports that were presented to Council at its meeting on 18 April 2016, and in thereport included under separate cover in this agenda (Adoption of City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 4)).

Consideration of Submissions

A summary of submissions received to 19 May 2016 was included in the report toCouncil at its meeting on 30 May 2016 (Item 5.1: Proposed City Plan & Budget –Consideration of Submissions Received).

Following the public exhibition period, a total of thirty-eight (38) formal submissionshad been received (to 30 May 2016) in relation to the proposed Budget and CityPlan. The submissions received by Council cover a wide and varied range ofcommunity proposals, both in support and in addition to the proposed Budget andCity Plan.

The Council meeting on 30 May 2016 provided an opportunity for Council to receive,hear and consider the submissions in respect of Council’s intention to adopt the CityPlan 2013-2017 (Year 4) and Budget 2016/2017 at a Council Meeting on 14 June2016. Six (6) submitters requested to be heard in support of their submission at the30 May 2016 Council Meeting.

The outcome of Council’s consideration of the 38 submissions is documented in the‘Summary of Consideration of Submissions Received on the Proposed Budget2016/2017 (and Proposed City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 4))’ attached to this report.

LEGAL CONSIDERATION

Under Sections 127, 129 and 130 of the Local Government Act 1989, Council isrequired to prepare, exhibit and adopt an annual budget for each financial year.

The required statutory notice advertisement appeared on Council’s website onTuesday, 19 April 2016 and in ‘The Age’ on Wednesday, 20 April 2016. A copy of thepublic notice was also placed in local papers the following week, along with aBanyule in Brief advertorial during April.

A copy of the Proposed Budget 2016/2017 was available for inspection on Council’swebsite and at the Ivanhoe, Rosanna and Greensborough Service Centres fromTuesday, 19 April 2016. It was also made available at local libraries, together withthe proposed City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 4).




6.2

Written submissions were invited to be submitted from 19 April 2016 to 19 May 2016.In accordance with the provisions of Section 223 of the Act, Council consideredpublic submissions to the exhibited Proposed Budget 2016/2017 on Monday, 30 May2016 prior to considering adoption of the Proposed Budget 2016/2017 on Tuesday,14 June 2016. Submitters were provided with the opportunity to be heard by Councilin support of their submissions.


It is considered that the subject matter does not raise any human rights issues.Victoria's Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities (the Charter) outlines thebasic human rights of all people in Victoria. The Charter requires that governments,local councils and other public authorities comply with Charter and to considerrelevant Charter rights when they make decisions.

In developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered todetermine if it raises any human rights issues. In particular, whether the scope ofany human right established by the Victorian Charter of Human Rights andResponsibilities is in any way limited restricted or interfered with by therecommendations contained in this report. It is considered that the subject matterdoes not raise any human rights issues.

The preparation and adoption of Council’s Budget actually facilitates the protection ofmany of our communities human rights as funding for many Council projects,programs and initiatives is directly related to protecting and enhancing the humanrights of the community. Council continues to work on behalf of its community toensure the upholding of human rights for all.

BUDGET 2015/2016 CONTEXT

Proposed Budget 2016/2017 Highlights

The Proposed Budget 2016/2017 focuses on strengthening the long-term financialsustainability of Banyule. During the preparation on this Budget, great care has beentaken to ensure Council continues delivering relevant services to the communitywhile renewing and upgrading infrastructure.

Banyule’s financial position remains strong and Council is in a good position tominimise the impact of rate capping on the community as it comes into effect on 1July 2016. It will however be a challenging new environment for Council to deliverservices and maintain and build infrastructure with increasing costs well in excess ofthe growth in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) which the Victorian State Governmenthas determined as its yardstick. This is compounded by significant financial pressurefrom cost shifting and reduced funding from both the state and federal governments.Council will continue to be resourceful and look for efficiencies to manage and deliverthe highly-valued services and facilities for the benefit of the community.

Some of Council’s main focus areas and important initiatives that are planned to befunded in the Banyule Council Proposed Budget 2016/2017 include:

• Maintaining and upgrading roads, buildings, drains and footpaths• Delivering vital services and support programs across the municipality• Protecting and nurturing open spaces, parklands and street trees




6.2

• Redeveloping recreational centres, sportsgrounds and club pavilions• Implementing environmentally friendly practices, solar power and water saving

initiatives• Encouraging diverse and inclusive communities• Providing engaging community festivals, events and activities.

General Rates

Council will increase rates by 2.50 per cent in line with the State Government’s FairGo Rates System. Rates and charges will contribute $93.81 million to addressageing infrastructure, improve the amenity and quality of community assets anddeliver vital services across the breadth of the City.

Investing in infrastructure

The Proposed Budget 2016/2017 has an allocation of $47.95 million to deliver capitalworks projects. The Council will enhance our open spaces and sporting facilities,create community hubs and continue to renew vital infrastructure.

Capital Works funded by the Proposed Budget 2016/2017 include:

• Infrastructure $12.58 million• Property $30.65 million• Plant and Equipment $4.56 million

Of the total capital works budget $30.81 million is invested into asset renewal, $9.44million in asset expansion and $4.84 million towards asset upgrade. $2.86 millionhas been proposed to fund new assets.

• There is significant investment into our parks, gardens, playgrounds and

shared paths, including a regional play space at Anthony Beale Reserve

• Upgrade to sporting grounds, facilities and pavilions, including Ivanhoe Park

pavilion

• Construction of the Ivanhoe Community Learning Hub will commence

• Ongoing maintenance and upgrade of our roads, bridges and drainage• Complete construction of One Flintoff, Council’s new staff accommodation and

community facilities in Greensborough• Implement the Banyule Integrated Transport Plan 2015-2035.

We continue to install solar hot water and solar panels on Council buildings, and ournew civic offices currently being built above WaterMarc in Greensboroughincorporates environmentally sustainable design to reduce greenhouse gasemissions and will eliminate the need to travel between offices.




6.2

Investing in initiatives

The Proposed Budget 2016/2017 has an allocation of $6.12 million to deliver Councilinitiatives.

Community programs continue to be developed and delivered. Environmental policyand programs renewed; community gardens established; desalination andrevegetation of stormwater treatment systems maintained and the ongoingmanagement of parks and reserves.

Programs such as the Youth Foundation and 3081 neighbourhood renewal supportprograms continue to evolve in-line with community feedback. Council investmentinto the best value plus program, digitisation projects; long term plans and strategiescontinue to bring greater value to the Organisation and Community.

Council continues to implement its Urban Forest Strategic Plan and encourage thecommunity to adopt practices to reduce waste, recycle and live more sustainablythrough education programs and leading by example.

A major focus of Council is to promote and support good health for people of differentages, life stages and backgrounds. Council also assists local businesses andshopping precincts to thrive, while the neighbourhood houses and libraries continueto connect people and offer a vast array of learning opportunities. Council provides arange of popular community events and activities, and investing in recreation, leisureand arts, helping to support a vibrant, connected community.

Delivery of Services

To achieve the objectives of the City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 4), Council will continueto plan, deliver and improve high quality, cost effective, accessible and responsiveservices. The following services are funded (gross expenditure including initiatives)in the Proposed Budget 2016/2017:

People: Community Strengthening and Support Health, Aged and Community Planning ($11.78 million) Leisure, Recreation and Cultural Services ($14.74 million) Youth and Family Services ($10.12 million)

Planet: Environmental Sustainability Transport, Sustainability and Municipal Laws – Environmental Sustainability

($0.61 million) Parks and Gardens ($10.09 million) Operations – Waste Management and Cleansing ($13.54 million)

Place: Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment Capital Projects ($4.99 million) Assets and Infrastructure ($4.07 million) Urban Planning and Building ($5.61 million) Transport, Sustainability and Municipal Laws –Municipal Laws, Transport &

Development Engineering ($4.81 million) Property and Economic Development ($1.82 million)




6.2

Participation: Community Involvement in Community Life Governance and Communication ($4.47 million) Executive ($2.05 million)

Performance: Use Our Resources Wisely Operations – Plant and Fleet Management, and Emergency Management

($3.70 million) Human Resources ($2.96 million) Organisational Systems ($6.17 million) Finance & Procurement ($4.44 million)

Council continues to manage its resources responsibly and efficiently and theProposed Budget has been devised so that it can deliver a significant capital worksprogram in 2016/2017. It looks to balance competing demands on providingcommunity services, maintaining and renewing infrastructure with the community’scapacity to pay for it.

The Proposed Budget 2016/2017 works in concert with the directives of the City Plan2013-2017. Councillors and staff are committed to achieving these medium and long-term objectives that ensure we are building a better Banyule.

Changes to the Proposed Budget 2016/2017

Subsequent to adopting the Proposed Budget 2016/2017 on 18 April 2016 forcommunity feedback, Council are proposing a number of changes that have animpact on the Budget for next year. The Proposed Budget2016/2017 has been amended to reflect the following considerations:

1. The outcome of Council’s consideration of public submissions for the ProposedBudget 2016/2017. A summary of the consideration of the submissionsreceived and heard at the 30 May 2016 Council Meeting is presented in asummary table attached to this report. Full copies of all submissions weremade available to Councillors prior to the 30 May 2016 Council Meeting.

2. Items that have been referred to the Proposed Budget 2016/2017 by reports toCouncil which require additional funding not considered during the budgetdevelopment process.

3. Other minor modifications including a revision of some fees and charges.




6.2

Changes resulting from Council consideration of public submissions:

Nature of change to proposed Budget 2016/2017 Financial implication

Increase/ (decrease)

City Planobjective

Lighting and Traffic infrastructure works

(Design lighting laneway from Norman Streetto Upper Heidelberg Road, Ivanhoe)

$20,000 initiative

operating expenditure

People

Installation of fencing at AK Lines Reserve

(AK lines black mesh fence)

$10,000capital expenditure$5,000contribution income

Place

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander CulturalDevelopment Worker’

(Ongoing part time aboriginal communitydevelopment officer)

$50,000 initiative


Participation

The Wellness Walk 2016 - SponsorshipArrangements.

(Wellness Walk sponsorship)

$25,000 initiative


Participation

Bell Street Mall Traders Association – Special Ratesand Charges Scheme and public lighting in the Mall.

(Bell Street Mall lighting cost contribution)

$6,000 initiative


Place

Kalparrin Early Childhood Intervention Service(ECIS) - Building and Refurbishment Project

(Kalparrin Addition facilities early years centre)

$150,000

capital expenditure

Place

Changes resulting from Council reports and other ancillary amendments:



City Planobjective

50th Anniversary of the Battle of Long Tan during2016)

$28,500 initiativeoperating expenditure

People

Council advocacy $100,000 initiativeoperating expenditure

Place

Construction of pedestrian infrastructure at StationStreet and Grove Road intersection

$62,500capital expenditure

People

Council Elections ($47,943)operating expenditure

Performance

Defence Force School of Signals to exercise its rightto march in Banyule City Council by granting ofFreedom of Entry (FOE)

$11,000 initiativeoperating expenditure

People

Depreciation (additional capital spend) $2,000operating expenditure

Performance

Flintoff Street multi-deck carpark ($33,000)operating income

Place

Grants Commission ($31,259)operating income

Participation

Greensborough war memorial park sculpture project $75,000capital expenditure

People

Jets Studio support ($20,815)operating expenditure;

People




6.2



City Planobjective

($80,932)operating income

Loyola College car parking enforcement package $10,000 initiativeoperating expenditure

People

Nillumbik Immunisation Service $141,000operating expenditure$199,995operating income

People

Road safety program – Traffic treatments on McCraeRoad


People

Safety improvement at Rushworth Street andReeves Street Watsonia


People

Surveillance policy implementation $40,000capital expenditure

People

Seniors festival morning tea $8,000operating expenditure

People

The Fees and Charges Schedule (Appendix A to the Budget) has been amended asfollows:

Description InitialProposed Budget2016/2017

AmendedProposed Budget2016/2017

Animals (Local Laws & Domestic Animals Act1994)

Registration full fee dogs + state levy $111.50 $108.00

Registration fee restricted, declared dangerous ormenacing dogs + state levy

$111.50 $108.00

Registration full fee cats + state levy $92.00 $90.00

Registration fee kitten under 6 months microchipped+ state levy

$32.00 $30.00

Registration fee for cats registered prior to 11 April2013, microchipped or de-sexed + state levy

$32.00 $30.00

Parking matters

Resident schemes/first permit $25.00 -

Resident schemes/second permit $40.00 $25.00

First visitor permit (concession) - $10.00

The Statement of Human Resources has also been updated for a total increase of1.70 equivalent full time (EFT) staff for the following:

New business - Nillumbik Immunisation Service Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Development Worker (public

submission).




6.2

PROPOSED RATES AND CHARGES

The Rates, Levies and Annual Service Charges for the 2016/2017 rating year arecontained within the attached Proposed Budget 2016/2017 and are formally declaredby Council within the report recommendation.


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 anydirect or indirect interest in a matter to which the advice relates.


CONCLUSION

This Proposed Budget 2016/2017 meets the requirements of Section 127 of theLocal Government Act 1989 which requires Council to prepare a budget for eachfinancial year. The information in the budget includes:

• Banyule’s budgeted financial statements,• A description of services and initiatives to be funded in the budget• A statement about how these initiatives will contribute to achieving the strategic

objectives specified in the City Plan• Major initiatives, being initiatives identified by Council as priorities• Service performance measures, indicators and targets• Details of differential rates and charges to be declared• Other information required under Section 158 and Section 161of the Local

Government Act 1989, and the Local Government (Planning and Reporting)Regulations 2014.

The Proposed Budget for 2016/2017 is aligned to the long-term strategies as outlinedin the City Plan 2013–2017 (Year 4), and is in line with Council's commitment tosustainable budgeting and responsible financial management.

Following the adoption of this Budget, copies of the Budget will be sent to theMinister for Local Government and will be made available to the public at Council’sservice centres and on Councils website.

ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 Summary of Consideration of Submissions Received on the ProposedBudget 2016/2017 (and Proposed City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 4))

181

2 Proposed Banyule City Council Budget 2016/17 (Under Separate Cover)



6.36.3 RETURN OF THE 2016 GENERAL RE-

VALUATION

Author: Peter Kemm - City Valuer, City Development

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

At its meeting held on 2 March 2015, Council resolved to cause a General Re-Valuation of all rateable and non-rateable leviable properties situated within the Cityof Banyule.

Consistent with the Victorian Government’s 2016 Valuation Best PracticeSpecification Guidelines and the Valuation of Land Act 1960, Council’s City Valuerhas coordinated and completed a comprehensive re-valuation process.

Having re-valued 52,885 properties, the Capital Improved Value of all rateable andnon-rateable leviable properties within the municipality has increased approximately21% since the last re-valuation which took effect in 2014.

The 2016 General Re-Valuation is now required to be received and adopted byCouncil no later than 30 June 2016, being prior to the commencement of the ratingyear in which the valuation is first used. Once adopted, a copy of the re-valuationmust be submitted to the Valuer-General to enable Council and other rating agenciesincluding the State Revenue Office to perform their functions.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Receive and adopt for rating purposes, the 2016 General Re-valuation of allrateable and non-rateable leviable properties within Banyule City Councilpursuant to Section 13DC(1) of the Valuation of Land Act 1960, effective1 July 2016;

2. Authorise the City Valuer to provide an official copy of the 2016 General Re-valuation to the Valuer-General together with a declaration that the valuation,comprising all rateable and non-rateable leviable properties identified byCouncil is the final and complete valuation for the Municipality ofBanyule City Council, as at the level of value date 1 January 2016;

3. Supply to the State Revenue Office, for their taxing and rating requirements, acopy of the 2016 General Revaluation in accordance with the Valuation of LandAct 1960.

CITY PLAN

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


RETURN OF THE 2016 GENERAL RE-VALUATION cont’d


6.3BACKGROUND

In accordance with the provisions of Section 11 of the Valuation of Land Act 1960 (asamended) (“the Act”), Council at its meeting held on 2 March 2015, resolved to causea General Re-valuation of all rateable and non-rateable leviable properties in the Cityof Banyule.

This re-valuation is known as the 2016 General Revaluation, and has beendetermined on the basis of property value as at 1 January 2016, in accordance withSection 11(a) of the Act.

Pursuant to Section 11(b) of the Act, this valuation is to be returned to Council nolater than 30 June 2016, being prior to the commencement of the rating year in whichthe valuation is first used.

Council is required by law, to undertake the general valuation on a constant biennialcycle in accordance with the Valuation of Land Act 1960.

LEGAL CONSIDERATION

For purposes described in the Local Government Act 1989 and in accordance withprovisions in Section 11 of the Valuation of Land Act 1960, Council is the valuationauthority for the municipal district. As such, it is required to undertake a General Re-Valuation every two years.





CURRENT SITUATION

A total of 52,885 properties have been assessed as part of the 2016 GeneralValuation. A total of 12,924 residential and non-rateable assessments have beenvalued by Council’s contract Valuer, Property Technology Professionals Pty Ltd and39,961 commercial, industrial, specialised and residential assessments have beenassessed by Council’s City Valuer.

The valuations are Banyule’s ninth made under the Valuer-General’s 2016 ValuationBest Practice Standards. The process has involved comprehensive collection andverification of property data, largely carried out by computer assisted valuationmethodology.

The pending valuation reflects values as at 1 January 2016 and reflects changes inthe real estate market during the past two years, between valuation dates.


RETURN OF THE 2016 GENERAL RE-VALUATION cont’d


6.3 The Site Value, Capital Improved Value and Net Annual Value totals for all rateable

properties are tabled below.

Table 1: Summary of Valuation for 2016

Number ofRateable

Properties

Site Value Capital ImprovedValue

Net Annual Value

52885 $27,098,387,800 $38,685,329,720 $1,978,946,206

The Capital Improved Value of all rateable properties within Banyule has increasedfrom $31,294,019,100 (as at 2014) to an amended total of $38,685,329,720 as atmarket levels of 1 January 2016. This represents an increase of $7,391,310,620 orapproximately 21% increase in the assessed market value of all rateable propertieswithin Banyule.


The amended Capital Improved Value which features in table 1 (above), is to beused in Council’s proposed budget for the 2016/17 financial year.

It should be noted that a General Re-valuation does not provide Council anopportunity to generate additional rate income. The General Re-valuation is a meansto enable Council to reapportion its rate income across the municipality inaccordance with property value movements.

TIMELINES

The next step in facilitating the 2016 General Re-Valuation requires Council to submitto the Valuer-General a declaration of impartiality that the valuation comprising allrateable and non-rateable leviable properties has been conducted. This must becompleted before the end of the 2015/16 financial year.




CONCLUSION

Having complied with the Victorian Government’s 2016 Valuation Best PracticeSpecification Guidelines, Council’s City Valuer has met all requirements necessaryunder legislation. As such, Council’s endorsement of the statutory declaration relatingto the return of the re-valuation should be supported.

ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 Statutory Declaration of the return of the 2016 General Revaluation for theMunicipality of Banyule

197



6.46.4 ITEMS FOR NOTING

Author: John Milkins - Environmental Sustainability Co-ordinator, CityDevelopment; Daniel Kollmorgen – Manager Transport, Sustainability & MunicipalLaws, City Development; Michelle Herbert – Senior Transport Engineer, CityDevelopment; & Amanda Cuxson – Development Planning Team Leader, CityDevelopment

RECOMMENDATION

That Council note the following:

1. Banyule Environment Advisory Committee (BEAC) April 2016 Notes.

2. Banyule Environmental Advisory Committee (BEAC) May 2016 Notes.

3. Response received on the Chandler Highway Widening resolution of Council.

4. Response received on the Planning Penalties for Illegal Tree removalresolution of Council.

The following Minutes or Reports are presented for noting:

1 Report/Committee Name: Banyule Environment Advisory Committee (BEAC)Notes April 2016

Officer: Daniel Kollmorgen, John MilkinsBrief explanation: BEAC discussed the following matters:

16.01 Beyond Paris : Hazelwood advocacyBEAC recommended that Council considerwriting to the State government urging the rapiddecommissioning of Hazelwood and investmentin renewable energy sources.

14.23 Urban Forest StrategyManager Parks and Gardens to facilitate ameeting with DF & colleagues and the UrbanForest Strategy consultants to discuss thescientific basis of carbon sequestration figuresin the local Australian context

16.08 Ethical Paper PledgeBEAC to consider the presentations and

submissions and provide a recommendation toCouncil at its May meeting

16.09 Great Forest National ParkBEAC to consider the presentations and

submissions and provide a recommendation toCouncil at its May meeting

2 Report/Committee Name: Banyule Environmental Advisory Committee (BEAC)


ITEMS FOR NOTING cont’d


6.4 Notes May 2016

Officer: Daniel Kollmorgen, John MilkinsBrief explanation: 16.01 Beyond Paris:Beyond Zero Emissions Case

StudyBEAC recommended that Council consideropportunities to support a suburb or defined areaof the municipality in seeking to achieve the statusof a high ambition community (zero carbon / zeronet carbon emissions)

16.08 Ethical Paper PledgeBEAC recommended that Council sign the EthicalPaper Pledge, noting that Council’s paper usageis already in accord with the pledge.

16.09 Great Forest National ParkBEAC supports the proposal for a Great ForestNational Park and recommended that Council alsoindicate its support for the creation of a GreatForest National Park due to the direct and indirectbenefits to Banyule residents. BEAC noted thatthe precautionary principle should be applied tofacilitate benefit realisation in the areas of :

• biodiversity• water quality• drinking water supply• tourism opportunities• wildlife corridor connectivity• mental health• clean air• the uniqueness of the old growth tall

forests of SE Australia• inter and intragenerational equity• natural heritage

16.11 Sister City proposalBEAC encouraged the development of communityto community links with the Swedish town ofVäxjö, and will review further information to beprovided on MOUs that might facilitate Council toCouncil links.

16.12 Plastic Bag Free VictoriaBEAC recommended that Council develop apolicy addressing the use of single use plastics atevents conducted on land, roads or buildingmanaged by Council.

3 Report: Chandler Highway Widening resolution

Officer: Michelle HerbertBrief explanation: Council at its meeting 9 May 2016 resolved the

following:




6.4“That Council:

1. Writes to the Yarra City Council and Darebin CityCouncil acknowledging their respective resolutionson the proposed widening of Chandler Highway,Alphington including the new six lane bridge over theYarra River; and

2. Writes to the Minister for Roads and Road Safety inrelation to the six lane Chandler Highway proposal:

a. Identifying that it is inconsistent with thephilosophy of the Banyule IntegratedTransport Plan which looks to prioritisewalking cycling and public transport overprivate cars and minimise any road wideningin support of private cars; and

b. Seeking a review of the scope of the projectwith the concerns raised Yarra City Counciland Darebin City Council being fullyinvestigated and considered.

3. Call for a briefing from the State Governmentseeking full detail designs before any decision.

4. Notes concerns by Cities of Yarra and Darebinhowever given the traffic impacts on Banyule,Council cannot give its support at this time.

5. Ask Local State members of Parliament for theirposition on this matter.”

Council has to date received a response (letterattached) from The Hon Bruce Atkinson MLC,Member for Eastern Metropolitan Region and MrColin Brooks MP.

4 Report/Committee Name: Planning Penalties for Illegal Tree removal resolution

Officer: Amanda CuxsonBrief explanation: Council at its meeting 7 September 2015 resolved the

following:

“That Council:1. Write to the Minister for Planning

expressing concern that the penaltiesunder the Planning Environment Act 1987are not an adequate deterrent when illegaltree removal is undertaken to obtain adevelopment advantage.

2. Continue to apply the Planning andBuilding Enforcement Framework insituations where illegal tree removal isundertaken.

3. Consider further proactive enforcementcampaigns to discourage tree removalincluding reinforcement of the planningrequirements and penalties in Councillor




6.4

ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 Banyule Environment Advisory Committee BEAC April 2016 Meeting notes 198

2 Banyule Environment Advisory Committee (BEAC) May 2016 Notes 201

3 Chandler Highway Widening - Hon Bruce Atkinson MLC response 204

4 Chandler Highway Widening - Mr Colin Brooks MP 205

5 Planning Infringement Penalties For Illegal Tree Removal - The HonRichard Wynne

206

Ward News, social media and editorialopportunities.”

Council has received a response (letter attached)from The Hon Richard Wynne, Minister for Planning.



6.56.5 REAPPOINTMENT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE

OFFICER

Author: Gina Burden - Manager Governance & Communication, CorporateServices

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Banyule CEO Employment Matters Committee (committee), comprising allCouncillors and an independent Chair, recently met and have requested the statutoryprocess commence to reappoint the existing Chief Executive Officer (CEO).

The purpose of this report is to commence the statutory process of approving thereappointment of a CEO for Banyule City Council as required by the LocalGovernment Act 1989 which includes a public notification process.

RECOMMENDATION

That public notice in the Heidelberg and Diamond Valley Leader Newspapers begiven that, at the Council Meeting on 25 July 2016, a resolution will be made thatSimon McMillan be reappointed as Council’s Chief Executive Officer from15 December 2016.

CITY PLAN

This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction to “enable goodgovernance and accountability with minimal risk”.

BACKGROUND

Section 94(1) of the Local Government Act 1989 (the Act) requires Council to appointa person as CEO of the Council. The contract of employment of the current CEO,Simon McMillan, expires on 14 December 2016.

The Banyule CEO Employment Matters Committee, comprising all Councillors andan independent Chair, recently met and have requested the statutory processcommence to reappoint the existing CEO.


REAPPOINTMENT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER cont’d


6.5 LEGAL CONSIDERATION -

In accordance with Section 94(3) and (4) of the Act:

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

2. This does not apply if:(a) in the 6 months immediately before the person's contract as Chief

Executive Officer is due to expire, the Council passes a resolution toreappoint that person as its Chief Executive Officer; and

(b) at least 14 days before the resolution is passed, public notice was givenof the intention to put the resolution; and

(c) the public notice contained—(i) a statement that the passing of the resolution would result in the

reappointment of the Chief Executive Officer without the positionbeing advertised; and

(ii) any other details required by the regulations.

DISCUSSION

In accordance with the requirements under the Act, the process to reappoint theexisting CEO requires a Council resolution to give public notice. The reappointmentof the CEO will be considered at the Council meeting to be held on Monday,25 July, 2016.

To meet the timelines of Section 94(4), a public notice (published in a newspapergenerally circulating in the municipal district of the Council chosen for the purpose bythe Council) must be published at least 14 days prior to the 25 July meeting dateadvising of Council’s intention to consider the motion to reappoint the CEO. Counciltherefore needs to resolve to publish the public notice.




ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Sealing of Documents


7.17.1 SEALING OF DOCUMENTS

Author: Arun Chopra - Manager Capital Projects, Assets & City Services

RECOMMENDATION

That the Common Seal of the Banyule City Council be affixed to the Deed of Release- ADCO Constructions (Vic) Pty Ltd.

The following documents require signing and affixing of the Common Seal of Council:

1 PARTY\PARTIES: ADCO Constructions (Vic) Pty Ltd and Banyule CityCouncil

OFFICER: Simon McMillanFILE NUMBER: F2014/3957DOCUMENT: Deed of Release for Contract No. 0778-2014ADDRESS: Ivanhoe Aquatic Centre; Waterdale Road, IvanhoeWARD: GriffinBRIEF EXPLANATION: Council awarded the contract for redevelopment of

stage 1 of Ivanhoe Aquatic Centre on 17 February2014. As part of the contract, both ADCOConstruction and Banyule City Council are to sign aDeed of Release confirming the final contract sumand payment before the final payment is released toADCO Construction. This is to ensure that thecontractor has no further claim against Council forwhat so ever reason and the final payment sum is fulland final payment to the contractor of all amounts dueand payable now or in the future in connection withthe contract and also includes any works executed byany of its sub-contractors and suppliers.

ADCO’s authorised signatories signed the deed on10 May 2016.

Simon McMillan, Chief Executive Officer, and oneCouncillor are now to sign the document beforeCouncil’s Common Seal is affixed.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Notice of Motion


8.18.1 DEDICATION AND LAUNCH OF NEW

RESERVE CELEBRATING VIN HEFFERNANOAM

Author: Cr Craig Langdon

Ward: Olympia

TAKE NOTICE that it is my intention to move:

“That a Report be presented to Council which considers the holding of an appropriateevent for the launch of the new park proposed to be located at the former school siteat 52 Haig Street, Heidelberg Heights.”

Explanation

As part of the new development at the former Haig Street Primary School site, a newcommunity reserve will be created. This reserve has been designed with the input ofthe local community.

The preferred name of the reserve is Vin Heffernan Park as resolved by Council on30 May 2016. Vin was a Heidelberg City Councillor 1966-84, Mayor 1979-80 andserved as the state member for Ivanhoe from 1985 until 1996 and was also Ministerfor Small Business and Youth Affairs from 1992 until 1996.

As many people know, Vin was a local identity and a tireless community volunteerwho was recognised by receiving an OAM in 1983 for work with youth. Vin was alsoLife Governor of West Heidelberg Community Centre, launched Bernie Geary YouthScheme 1980, Founder and Chairperson of Heidelberg Heritage Committee 1981.

It is proposed that the new reserve will contain a unique designed quality colourinterpretative piece with storyboard and photographs which highlights the life of VinHeffernan, as well as a plaque which will state:

Vin Heffernan Park is dedicated to all the former students, parents, SchoolCouncil, Principals, teachers, and staff of the Haig Street Primary School(1925-2011).

This park is named after Vin Heffernan OAM Councillor - City of Heidelberg(1966-1985) Mayor (1979-80) State Member for Ivanhoe (1985 - 1996)Minister for Small Business and Youth Affairs (1992-1996). The Schoolrecognised his commitment and support for students and the localcommunity by naming their Library in his honour.

The wording of the plaque was considered by Council at its meeting of 20 October2014.

Notice of Motion

DEDICATION AND LAUNCH OF NEW RESERVE CELEBRATING VINHEFFERNAN OAM cont’d


8.1

The event would also recognise the names of the new streets in the developmentwhich commemorate former City of Heidelberg Mayors and Councillors:

• Skeggs Crescent (Bruce Skeggs OAM, Councillor 1985-91, Mayor 1990-91,State Member for Ivanhoe 1973-82).

• Sweeney Lane (Fredrick Sweeney, Councillor 1954-63, Mayor 1959-60).• Tuttleby Lane (Clifford Tuttleby, Councillor 1948-51 and Mayor).• Ashley Lane (Stan Ashely, Councillor 1954-62 and Mayor).• Baker Crescent (Jean Baker OAM, Councillor 1968-92, Mayor 1973-74 and

1982-83).• Cleland Lane (Percy Cleland MBE, Councillor 1964-73, Mayor 1968-69).• Heffernan Walk.• Weinberg Walk (Councillor 1972-87, Mayor 1980-81).• Pizzey Walk (Councillor 1972-78, Mayor 1976-77, and Commissioner City of

Banyule 1994-97).

An event to event to launch and showcase the new reserve and street names thatincludes local surrounding community, families of those being commemorated, andhome purchasers from the new development should be held.

It is proposed to invite a representative or colleague from Vin Heffernan’s time as aMinister in Government.

CR CRAIG LANGDONOlympia Ward

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Notice of Motion


8.28.2 NORTH EAST LINK ADVOCACY



“That Council:

1. Write to Nillumbik Shire Council seeking their support in advocating to the StateGovernment and VicRoads to share their planning work to date on the NorthEast Link and engage with both Councils in future planning for the project.

2. The Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer of the Nillumbik Shire Council beinvited to meet with the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer of Banyule CityCouncil to discuss how best to collaborate on this matter.”

Explanation

Council notes from recent State Government comments associated with the StateBudget, the growing importance on the North East Link for Melbourne, and thatplanning for the project is required.

The exact alignment of any North East Link has not been defined. There arepotentially significant impacts for both Nillumbik Shire Council and Banyule CityCouncil, dependent on the alignment chosen.

It would be helpful for both Councils to work together to understand more about theState’s planning for the North East Link to date, and to advocate for greaterengagement into the future.


ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Notice of Motion


8.38.3 BANYULE ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT

ISLANDER REMEMBRANCE



“1. That Council formally recognise and honour that many Aboriginal and TorresStrait Islanders served in the Australian Defence force since becomingAustralia.

2. That a report be prepared for Council on how we can best recognise andhonour the Aboriginal and Torres Strait service men and women. That thisreport consider:

a) Council consider making an apology for any grief, pain or suffering thislack of recognition may have caused to its local residents.

b) whether a new cenotaph should be established at the Spiritual Walkhonouring the Aboriginal or Torres Strait islanders who lost their liveswhile defending Australia and in particular and local residents (a honourroll)

c) how to assist the local RSLs if they too wish to recognise the service ofthe Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders;

d) what Federal or State Funding is available to assist Council and the localRSLs on this endeavour;

e) whether an annual Local Remembrance Service is held as part of theReconciliation week (not to be held at the same time as the VictorianService);

f) the views of the Council's Aboriginal Advisory Committee and theVictorian Aboriginal Remembrance Committee be considered on thismatter; and

g) the possible design and cost of building a new Cenotaph (if no Federal orState Government) funding is available.

3. That Council write to all the Local RSLs advising them of this resolution andseeking their commitment to also recognise and honour the many Aboriginaland Torres Strait Islanders who served.”

Explanation

In 2006 Aunty Dot Peters and then President of the Healesville RSL, Sam Haliminitiated first remembrance service to honour Aboriginal service men and women.

Victoria was the first State to host a service to honour Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander service men and women. All other States now host services.

Notice of Motion

BANYULE ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER REMEMBRANCEcont’d


8.3

On May 31st during Reconciliation Week the Department of Veterans' Affairs, TheVictorian RSL, Legacy and the Shrine of Remembrance combined to host the 11thannual Victorian Aboriginal Remembrance Service to honour the Aboriginal men andwomen who served and who are serving in the Australian Defence force from theBoer War until today.

The State Governor, State Minister and Shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs whereall in attendance as were many other dignitaries and several Mayors from withinMelbourne.

The Service heard of many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders who served andpromoted within the military ranks or received recognition for acts of bravery.Unfortunately upon their return they were not even recognised or even placed onhonour rolls. This also occurred at many cenotaphs. Records show that some evenreturned his medals out of frustration of the lack of respect and recognition.

The rules of joining the Defence forces varied over the years and where oftenchanged in time of crisis. At one stage the rule stated you had to be of majorityEuropean heritage to enrol. It was not until the 1967 that all indigenous Australianswould receive the full privileges of citizenship.

Banyule Council has an opportunity to be at the forefront of Local Governmentacross Australia and formally recognised that many Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslanders served in the military (many with distinction) since the Boer War and indoing so can right these wrongs.


ATTACHMENTS

Nil

ATTACHMENTS

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 14 JUNE 2016Page 95

4.1 91 Darebin Street, HEIDELBERG - Construction of a multi level mixed usedevelopment

Attachment 1 Attachment 1 - Background information - P1135/2015 pt1............... 96

Attachment 2 Attachment 2 - Assessment against Higher Density DesignGuidelines - P1135/2015 pt1 ......................................................... 101

Attachment 3 Attachment 3 - Advertised Plans.................................................... 111

4.2 Infrastructure Victoria 30 Year Strategy - Draft Submission

Attachment 1 Infrastructure Victoria Options Paper - Council SubmissionJune 2016 ..................................................................................... 149

5.1 Petrie Park and Rattary Reserve Master Plan

Attachment 1 Petrie Park and Rattray Reserve - Summary of Key Themes ........ 157

Attachment 2 Petrie Park and Rattray Reserve Master Plan - Final Report -June 2016 ..................................................................................... 159

6.2 Adoption of Banyule's Budget for the period 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017

Attachment 1 Summary of Consideration of Submissions Received on theProposed Budget 2016/2017 (and Proposed City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 4)) .............................................................................. 181

6.3 Return of the 2016 General Re-valuation

Attachment 1 Statutory Declaration of the return of the 2016 GeneralRevaluation for the Municipality of Banyule ................................... 197

6.4 Items for Noting

Attachment 1 Banyule Environment Advisory Committee BEAC April 2016Meeting notes................................................................................ 198

Attachment 2 Banyule Environment Advisory Committee (BEAC) May2016 Notes.................................................................................... 201

Attachment 3 Chandler Highway Widening - Hon Bruce Atkinson MLCresponse ....................................................................................... 204

Attachment 4 Chandler Highway Widening - Mr Colin Brooks MP....................... 205

Attachment 5 Planning Infringement Penalties For Illegal Tree Removal -The Hon Richard Wynne ............................................................... 206

Item: 4.1 Attachment 1: Attachment 1 - Background information - P1135/2015 pt1


Att

ach

men

t1

4.1

91 Darebin Street HEIDELBERG Attachment 1

PROPOSAL IN DETAIL

Apartment Bedrooms Open space Open space locationG01 Two 39 m2 Ground level, Darebin St frontageG02 Two 44 m2 Ground level, eastG03 Two 36 m2 Ground level, eastG04 Two 79 m2 Ground level, east & south101 Two 23 m2 Ground level, west102 Two 40 m2 Ground level, north & balcony, west103 Two 29 m2 Balcony, north & east104 Two 12 m2 Balcony, east105 One 12 m2 Balcony, east106 Two 12 m2 Balcony, east107 Two 10 m2 Balcony, east108 Two 63 m2 Balcony, west109 Two 23 m2 Balcony, west201 Two 12 m2 Balcony, west202 Two 30 m2 Balcony, north & west203 Two 29 m2 Balcony, north & east204 Two 12 m2 Balcony, east205 One 12 m2 Balcony, east206 Two 12 m2 Balcony, east207 Two 10 m2 Balcony, east208 Two 13 m2 Balcony, west209 Two 12 m2 Balcony, west301 Two 12 m2 Balcony, west302 Two 30 m2 Balcony, north & west303 Two 29 m2 Balcony, north & east304 Two 23 m2 Balcony, east305 One 18 m2 Balcony, east306 Two 47 m2 Balcony, east & south307 Two 13 m2 Balcony, west308 Two 12 m2 Balcony, west401 Three 133 m2 Balcony, north, east & west402 Two 19 m2 Balcony, west403 Two 19 m2 Balcony, west404 Three 113 m2 Balcony, south, east & west501 Three 72 m2 Balcony, north, east & west502 Three 44 m2 Balcony, west503 Three 68 m2 Balcony, south, east & west

Due to the varied width of the proposed balconies (which reduces down to as low as 700mm inplaces), the usable open space areas for Dwellings 107, 201, 207-209, 301 and 307-309 is in theorder of 6 m2 each.

In addition to the open space areas nominated, a 34m2 communal roof terrace is indicated at Level4.

Dwelling Density 1:m2

Impervious Site Coverage 78%



Att

ach

men

t1

4.1

PLANNING CONTROLS IN DETAIL

SPECIAL USE ZONE SCHEDULE 3

The purposes of Schedule 3 to the Special Use Zone are:

• To implement the Heidelberg Precinct Structure Plan.

• To encourage the consolidation of medical services within this precinct.

• To enable a mix of uses within developments that provides dwellings within upperlevels of buildings.

• To protect the amenity of patients and residents within and around this precinct.

A permit is required to use land for a dwelling, unless it is located more than 10m above groundlevel. No planning permit is required for a medical centre (save for any reduction in thestandard parking provision).

Decision guidelines include:

• All floor to ceiling heights within buildings, must be adequate to enable theconversion of other uses, (such as a dwelling) to Medical Centre.

• Whether the proposed development provides an appropriate level of amenity tonearby dwellings, medical centres and hospitals.

DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY

Schedule 5 to the Overlay outlines that it seeks:

• To promote new development that provides a positive contribution to the built form and publicrealm by:

o Respecting the preferred scale and character of the Heidelberg Activity Centre.

o Protecting views from the public realm along and across the Burgundy Street valley.

o Incorporating a combination of articulation, materials and colours to create visualinterest.

o Providing façade treatments that are sympathetic with nearby areas of parklands andvegetation.

o Providing a sympathetic design response to nearby sites of known heritage value.

o Providing building setbacks that create a sense of openness within the streetscapeenvironment and maintain the amenity of peripheral residential and other sensitiveuses.

…

o Encouraging development to provide passive surveillance to the streetscape and otherpublic areas.

o Maintaining sunlight and daylight access to adjoining private open spaces of dwellingsin accordance with clause 55.

o Locating living areas, windows and private open spaces to minimise the potential foroverlooking in accordance with clause 55.

o Ensuring ground-level street frontages have activity and interest for pedestrians.

o Ensuring car parking is appropriately screened by buildings and landscaping.

• To promote design that enables environmentally sustainable development.

• To discourage the underdevelopment of land by not permitting buildings or entrenching usesthat are inconsistent with the preferred scale and character, identified by the maximumbuilding heights and setbacks detailed in this Schedule



Att

ach

men

t1

4.1

A planning permit is required for buildings and works pursuant to the Design and DevelopmentOverlay. The Overlay outlines for this site that:

• A preferred maximum height of 10m applies; and

• Street frontage should be consistent with Clause 55.03-1 (ResCode)

Decision guidelines with respect to built form include:

• Whether the proposed heights and setbacks are balanced, in relation to thepreferred maximum built form of the site and adjoining sites.

• Whether building height greater than the standard provides a positive contributionto the form of the building.

• Whether building height greater than the standard unreasonably reducesopportunities for adjoining buildings to make effective use of natural light.

• Whether building height greater than the standard respects the scale ofsurrounding development and the topography of the surrounding land.

• Whether the proposal provides for an appropriate scale of development in orderto accommodate the preferred mix and intensity of use.

…

• Whether building height that is less than the preferred maximum height respectsthe scale of preferred maximum built form and the topography of the land.

• Whether the facades of new development that is visible from nearby parklandsprovide treatments that are sympathetic with the parklands environment.

• Whether the development provides adequate opportunities for natural light topenetrate to lower levels of buildings.

VEGETATION PROTECTION OVERLAY

None of the trees on site have a height of 12m or more and a trunk circumference of more than400mm, meaning that no permit is required for the proposed tree removal.

CLAUSE 52.06 – CAR PARKING

Clause 52.06 outlines that parking facilities are required as follows:

Rate No. proposedParking

requirement

Dwelling

1-2 bedrooms 1 space/dwelling 32 32 spaces3 bedrooms 2 spaces/dwelling 5 10 spacesVisitor parking 1 space/5 dwellings 37 7 spaces

Total 49 spaces

Medical centre 5 spaces for the firstpractitioner, 3 spaces thereafter

2 practitioners 8 spaces

The proposal incorporates 47 parking spaces, with the reduction sought identified as being seven(7) residential visitor parking spaces and three (3) medical centre spaces.



Att

ach

men

t1

4.1

HEIDELBERG STRUCTURE PLAN

The Heidelberg Structure Plan underpins Schedule 5 to the Design and Development Overlay,and is reflective of the provisions of the Local Places Policy contained in Clause 21.08. ThePlan indicates the site as being within an area which will support both health care land usesand residential mixed use development (Plan 17). Objectives of the Plan include to improvethe image and identity of the medical precinct. It is policy that medical uses are clusteredaround the existing hospitals. Witrh respect to built form it notes:

To ensure the built form responds positively to sensitive interfaces, commercial, retailand service imperatives, landscape and topography and housing needs and characterthe following strategic objectives have been identified:

1. To ensure that new residential development is an appropriate scale and issensitive to the interface with the Yarra River open space environment andfloodplain.

2. To encourage high quality commercial buildings of appropriate height and scale.

3. To ensure Burgundy Street retains its primary retail form.

4. To ensure that new development makes a positive contribution to the existingstreetscapes and urban form.

5. To respond to and respect the character of urban form in residential areasadjoining the precinct.

6. To allow for built form that signifies the importance of the medical servicesprecinct, whilst not detracting from the high quality low scale residentialdevelopment in the precinct.

7. To encourage a more diverse housing stock to enable and facilitate people toreside in or adjacent to the centre such as in upper floors above retail orcommercial spaces in well designed mixed use buildings.

8. To develop dwellings compatible with the prevailing residential built form.

9. To use environmentally sensitive and sustainable design and buildingtechnologies.

The Plan outlines with respect to Setback Standard 4, which applies to this site and other sites witha 10m height nominated (but not to any sites which have a preferred maximum height of greaterthan 10m):

Setback Guideline 4

• Setback to be consistent with Clause 55 of the Banyule Planning Scheme.

• Façade can be as high as 10 metres.

• 2 further levels (6m) above 10 metres, setback 1.5 metres per 3 metre floor. Thismaintains the feeling of openness while, in east-west streets, it is sufficient toensure at least 3 hours of sunlight per day in the middle of winter reaches the firstfloor windows of the building across the street.

• Street façade can extend across full width of the frontage at the lower two levelsbut may have side setbacks at the 3rd level.

• Balconies should be recessed into the front of the 3rd level. A framework ofbalustrades, fin walls and verandas should extend to the front boundary to definethe street façade.

BACKGROUND/HISTORY

There have been no previous planning applications for this site



Att

ach

men

t1

4.1

REFERRAL COMMENTS

ENGINEERING SERVICES

Council’s Engineering Services Section have reviewed the proposal and advised as follows:

Stormwater detentionA minimum of 10.27m3 of on-site stormwater detention will be required to be provided.

Car parking provision

The reduction in the number of car parking spaces is acceptable provided that:

• Car parking spaces adjacent to storage cages are allocated to the dwellings to which the carparking spaces are allocated to.

• A minimum of three car parking spaces are allocated to the medical centre for long termusers.

• A minimum of eight spaces in Basement 1 (including the proposed accessible bay) areallocated to visitors to the building (to be shared between the residential and medical centrecomponents)

Car parking design

The car park generally complies with the design standards.

The applicant is to provide further details in relation to the operation of the proposed “stop andgo” system to manage vehicular movements between Basement 1 and Basement 2.

Bicycle parking

The plans indicate that the statutory requirement for bicycle parking is met. However, it would bepreferable to have the visitors’ spaces close to the main pedestrian access to the building, at streetlevel.

Waste collection

The proposed collection of waste and recyclables off the kerbside is not supported as it reduceson-street parking availability on Darebin Street.

DEVELOPMENT PLANNING ARBORIST

Council’s Development Planning Arborist has advised that the proposed tree removal isacceptable, and that the proposal incorporates sufficient separation from the existing street trees(including at basement level) to ensure their protection.

BUILDING PERMITS AND INSPECTION SERVICES

Council’s Building Permits and Inspection Services section advises that the minimum floor-ceilingheight for medical centres within the Building Code is 2.4m, with a 3.0m floor-ceiling heightrequired if operations are to be conducted.

Item: 4.1 Attachment 2: Attachment 2 - Assessment against Higher Density Design Guidelines - P1135/2015 pt1


Att

ach

men

t2

4.1

91 Darebin Street HEIDELBERG Attachment 2

ASSESSMENT AGAINST GUIDELINES FOR HIGHER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

APPLICATION NO.: P1135/2015PROPOSAL: Buildings and works to construct a multi dwelling development (up to 6 storeys) including 37

apartments within a Design and Development Overlay; removal of vegetation; and, a reduction in thestandard car parking requirements

Element 1: Urban context

Neighbourhood character and strategic context

1.1 To ensure buildings respond creatively to theirexisting context and to agreed aspirations forthe future development of the area. This shouldtake the form of an urban context report.

Complies The proposal is accompanied by an appropriate site analysis and design response,including consideration of the site, character of the neighbourhood, and its strategiccontext.

Design ResponseThe suitability of the proposal to the character of the area is influenced by the provisions ofthe Design and Development Overlay, and the existing surrounding development to thesouth and east. The boundary of the DDO is indicative of the fact that it is anticipated thatthere will be a distinct character difference between development on the eastern andwestern sides of Powlett Street, and between the northern and southern sides of DarebinStreet.

1.2 To provide a creative design response that isbased on a clear understanding of the urbancontext and neighbourhood character.

Complies

Element 2: Building envelope

Height and massing

2.1 To ensure that the height of new developmentresponds to existing urban context andneighbourhood character objectives of the area.

Complies The proposal incorporates a height of 17.4m to 19m above natural ground level (or 17m –19.8m above street level), with the slope of the site meaning that the building is at itshighest along the eastern façade. This represents a height of 2.5 – 3 storeys over thepreferred maximum of 10m for this precinct, with the 16m height to Powlett Street beingcomparable with both the existing hospital car park at 230-232 Burgundy Street and theapproved development at 12 Powlett Street (the latter is currently subject of an objectorappeal).



Att

ach

men

t2

4.1 The upper levels of the proposal are apparent from Darebin Street, where the top two

levels will be visible save from the footpath and parking lane on the southern side of thestreet, and from surrounding properties. The impact upon Powlett Street is lesspronounced, with the slope of the land reducing the apparent height of the building fromboth the street and properties on its western side.

By way of absolute comparison, the height to AHD of the proposal and existing/approveddevelopment in the vicinity is as follows:

Proposal 90.2230-232 Burgundy Street (Hospital Car Park) 85.910 Martin Street (constructed) 92.19-11 Martin Street & 12 Powlett Street (currently before VCAT) 90.5

It is considered that in light of surrounding development and the slope of the land awayfrom Powlett Street the height of the proposal above street level is acceptable. The use ofcurved balconies, additional recession, clear balustrades and appropriate render coloursto the upper level façade results in an upper portion which achieves an appropriate level ofvisual and physical recession. The absolute height of the building is also considered to beacceptable, and will not result in an unacceptable impact upon view-lines from keyvantage points, including the intersection of Upper Heidelberg Road and BurgundyStreet/the Bell Street off-ramp.

2.2 To ensure new development is appropriate tothe scale of nearby streets, other public spaces,and buildings.

Complies It is considered that the form of the proposed building, associated balconies, and choice ofmaterials and colours results in a building which will be appropriate to the developingcharacter of this section of Heidelberg.

2.3 To protect sunlight access to public spaces. Complies The orientation of the site ensures that the proposal will not have an inappropriate impactupon the level of sunlight enjoyed by Darebin Street or the Powlett Street road reservation(including the grassed section adjoining the site).

Street setbacks

2.4 To respond to existing or preferred streetcharacter.

Variationto

Standard

Both the DDO and the Heidelberg Structure Plan outline that in this location a buildingshould be set back in accordance with Clause 55 (ie. 7m to Darebin Street and 2m toPowlett Street), however the Structure Plan also refers to the potential to provide anadditional 6m in height provided that an additional setback of 1.5m to each storey (3mheight) is provided.



Att

ach

men

t2

4.1By comparison the proposal incorporates the following setbacks:

Darebin Street Powlett StreetLevels G-3 6m to façade, minimum of 4m to

balconies3.5m to façade, minimum of 1.5mto balconies

Level 4 7.7m to façade, minimum of 4m tobalconies

4.3m to façade, minimum of 1.5mto balconies

Level 5 Minimum of 8.85m to façade and6.55m to balcony

Minimum of 5.6 to façade, 3.5m tobalconies

The proposal incorporates a 1m reduced setback to the proposed façade and 3m to thebalconies when compared with the adjoining development to the east. It is noted,however, that other development in the immediate vicinity has setbacks in the order of 5m.In this context, and given the use of sections of clear balustrading and the break in themid-point of the balconies results in a built form which is acceptable in terms ofpresentation to and setback from Darebin Street. The proposed setback at the upperlevels includes an appropriate amount of recession from the street when compared withthe levels beneath.

With the exception of relatively small sections of the curved balconies, the proposalcomplies with the setbacks outlined to Powlett Street for Levels 1-3, with the balconiesintruding into the setbacks at Level 4 and 5. The curvature of the balconies, the narrowbreak provided between them mid-way along the façade, and the topography of the landcombine to form an acceptable outcome, however.

Relationship to adjoining buildings

2.5 To ensure building separation supports privateamenity and reinforces neighbourhoodcharacter.

Ability tocomply

It is considered that, subject to minor modification, the proposal will not result in anunacceptable impact upon the amenity of adjoining properties:

ShadowingThe proposed southern and western boundary setbacks assist in reducing the amount ofshadow cast by the proposal upon the adjoining properties at 16 Powlett Street and 85-89Darebin Street. As a result, and due to the orientation of the land, the proposal will resultin:

• Minimal shadowing to the adjoining property at 16 Powlett Street at 9am and noonon 22 September;

• Overshadowing of the entire yard of Units 5 and 6, 85 Darebin Street at 3pm on 22September;



Att

ach

men

t2

4.1

• Shadowing of approximately half of the rear yard of 16 Powlett Street at 3pm on 22September.

The information supplied indicates that the existing fencing on site also currently shadesthe entirety of the private open space at Units 5 and 6, 85 Darebin Street.

It is considered that these shadow impacts are acceptable in this setting, and do not overlyrestrict future development of the adjoining property at 16 Powlett Street. It is noted thatwhilst the adjoining property owner has raised concern about the level of shade cast bythe proposal over 16 Powlett Street during winter, winter shade is not ordinarily consideredwhen assessing a planning application. Existing buildings, landscaping and fencing alsocurrently cast significant levels of shade to the yard areas concerned.

Overlooking

The plans indicate screening to selected balconies on the eastern side of the proposedbuilding. This is restricted to Levels 1-3, and does not include the balconies which wraparound the north of the building or the entirety of balconies to the dwellings located at thesouthern end of the building.

An assessment of the plans indicates that:

• The use of appropriately angled louvres would allow longer-range views fromBalconies 107 and 207 to the south-east whilst ensuring appropriate levels ofprivacy are maintained by 16 Powlett Street and 5/85 Darebin Street.

• Screening is necessary to the Communal Roof Terrace;

• Screening to the narrow (1.2m – 1.4m wide) section of east facing balcony at Level5 is not considered to be necessary, given the horizontal and vertical separation ofthe balcony from the adjoining property and the anticipated low utilisation of thissection of balcony.

• Screening to restrict overlooking should be provided to:

o The south facing Apartment 207 dining room window;

o The south-east facing section of balcony to Apartment 207;

o Extend the proposed screening to Balcony 306 to the south and south-east(but not necessarily the curved section facing south-west)

o The balconies of Apartments 401 and 404, from a point approximately 14mfrom the Darebin Street frontage, along the eastern façade and to a pointapproximately 10m from the Powlett Street frontage.



Att

ach

men

t2

4.1Screening should be designed to focus views toward the broader area, rather than

preventing outlook. In some instances, use of planter boxes or similar to prevent accessto the outer edge of a balcony may be sufficient to screen overlooking.

The plans should also be annotated to reflect the screening indicated to the south facingbalcony of Apartment 306 that is shown on the southern elevation.

Noise

The proposal will not result in an unacceptable impact upon surrounding properties bymeans of vehicular noise. Any permit issued should include a requirement to showfacilities, with these to be commonly located and screened, so as to prevent individual airconditioning units resulting in amenity impacts to both existing and future residents.

2.6 To ensure areas can develop with equitableaccess to outlook and sunlight.

Complies Refer above.

2.7 To ensure visual impacts to dwellings at the rearare appropriate to the context.

Complies Whilst the proposed building is undeniably larger than the existing three level dwelling tothe rear and the single and double storey dwellings to the east, this is anticipated by theDDO affecting the land, and the proposed boundary setbacks are sufficient to allowappropriate levels of daylight access and outlook from the adjoining properties.

Views to and from residential units2.8 To maximise informal or passive surveillance of

streets and other public open spaces.Complies The proposal incorporates good levels of surveillance of both Darebin Street and Powlett

Street.

2.9 To maximise residential amenity through theprovision of views and protection of privacywithin the subject site and on neighbouringproperties.

Complies As detailed above, measures to restrict overlooking of the adjoining properties should bedesigned to direct views to the longer-distance views available, rather than restrictingoutlook from the dwellings and balconies. This can be achieved through measures suchas appropriately angled slat screens, or use of planter boxes to prevent access to theedge of balconies.

Wind protection2.10 To ensure new tall buildings do not create

adverse wind effects.Complies The proposal incorporates steps in the built form, which will assist in addressing any wind

impacts.

Roof forms2.11 To treat roof spaces and forms as a considered

aspect of the overall building design.Complies The proposed flat roof form is appropriate to the dwelling style proposed.



Att

ach

men

t2

4.1 Element 3: Street pattern and street-edge quality

Street pattern and street edge integration

3.1 To create walkable areas within a safe andinteresting public setting.

Complies The form of the building and the level of overlooking of public areas afforded from it willassist in providing a safe and interesting public setting.

3.2 To closely integrate the layout and occupationpatterns of new development with the street.

Complies Good levels of integration, including access to Powlett Street from individual private openspace areas, are proposed.

3.3 To ensure car parking does not dominate thestreet frontage.

Complies A single access point from Darebin Street is proposed.

Building entries

3.4 To create street entrances with a strong identitythat provide a transition from the street toresidential interiors.

Ability tocomply

The proposal incorporates the provision of gas and water meters and booster facilitieswithin the frontage setback to the medical component of the building. These have thepotential to have a significant impact upon the streetscape presentation of the building,and will need to be appropriately detailed.

3.5 To ensure car park entries do not detract fromthe street.

Complies The proposed narrowing of the driveway at the entrance to the car park results in an abilityto provide appropriate landscaping to soften the driveway as viewed from Darebin Street.The slope of the driveway down from the street also assists in ensuring that garaging willnot be dominant or detract from the streetscape presentation of the site.

Front fences

3.6 To avoid creating inactive frontages as a resultof fencing private open spaces.

Complies The proposal incorporates curved sections of 2.2m high fence to Powlett Street, withlandscaping to soften them as viewed from the roadway. The curvature of the fence andprovision of landscaping ensures that the fence, whilst higher than a traditional side palingfence, will be acceptable within the neighbourhood setting. Importantly, the fencing doesnot prevent surveillance of the roadway.

Fencing to Darebin Street is set 2.4m from the street, although screening to the facilitiesoutlined above may extend closer to the street (the elevations indicate a booster cabinetheight of up to 1.7m at the frontage). Again, view to the street is not prevented by thisfencing.

3.7 To ensure that front fences respect andcontribute to the neighbourhood character.

Ability tocomply



Att

ach

men

t2

4.1

Element 4: Circulation and services

Parking layout

4.1 To provide adequate, safe and efficientlydesigned parking layouts.

Ability tocomply

Council’s Traffic Engineers have advised that the porposed parking layout is acceptable,

provided that more information is provided in relation to the operation of the proposed

“stop and go” system to manage vehicular movements between Basement 1 and

Basement 2.

4.2 To provide safe and convenient access betweencar parking and bicycle areas and thepedestrian entry to buildings.

Complies The proposal incorporates an appropriate number of bicycle parking spaces. WhilstCouncil’s Traffic Engineers have highlighted a preference for visitor parking spaces to belocated close to the main pedestrian access to the building, at street level, the proposedparking spaces are located at the upper basement level and close to the point of entry.This is considered to be acceptable. Access from both car and bicycle parking areas inthe basement to the building proper is appropriate in terms of safety and convenience.

Circulation spaces

4.3 To create shared internal spaces that contributepositively to the experience of living in higherdensity development.

Complies The proposal incorporates a communal gym (at Ground Level) and ‘rooftop’ terrace (atLevel 4).

Site services

4.4 To minimise running and maintenance costs. Ability tocomply

The Sustainable Management Plan submitted with the application indicates the use of:

• Passive cooling through the use of ventilation and fans, a potential to provide aminimum star rating of 6.5 stars, with an average of 7.3 (no undertaking is given toprovide more than the minimum required by the Building Regulations – 5 starminimum, 6 star average - however).

• Individual air conditioning units for dwellings (to provide residents with greatercontrol over their own environment),

• Daylight sensors/time clocks for external lighting,

• Appropriate sensors to car park ventilation,

• A rainwater tank, with water utilised in the ground level toilets.

It is considered that, from a neighbouring amenity point of view, use of air conditioningunits on individual balconies should be replaced with rooftop plant. Similarly, the SMPshould identify measures to minimise reliance upon clothes dryers. In addition, therequirements of the SMP should be shown on the plans. This can be required by permitcondition.

4.5 To minimise water use. Ability tocomply



Att

ach

men

t2

4.1 4.6 To incorporate provision for site services in the

building design to ensure good function andease of service and maintenance.

Ability tocomply

The proposal includes preliminary information in relation to site services required at thefrontage. Additional details are required, however, to ensure that these services do notinappropriately detract from the streetscape presentation of the proposal.

The proposed lift is 1.4m in width as drawn on the plans, and the ability to transferfurniture from the ground level/basement of the building to upper levels by the stairs or(preferably) the lift should be verified.

Element 5: Building layout and design

Dwelling diversity

5.1 To provide a range of dwelling sizes and typesin higher density residential developments.

Complies The proposal incorporates a mixture of one, two and three bedroom dwellings. Council’sLivable Housing Guidelines would indicate that at least 20% of dwellings should bedesigned to cater for those with limited mobility. An assessment of the plans suppliedindicates that a majority of dwellings can be readily adapted to meet this requirementthrough the use of appropriate door widths, bathroom detailing, etc., although detailedannotations are required on the plans to ensure that occurs.

Building layout

5.2 To optimise the layout of buildings in responseto occupants’ needs as well as identifiedexternal influences and characteristics of a site.

Complies The proposal has been designed to give all dwellings access to daylight and an outlook,with no dwelling purely facing south. Saddleback bedrooms are largely avoided.Appropriate levels of storage, car and bicycle parking are also provided.

5.3 To create functional, flexible, efficient andcomfortable residential apartments.

Complies

5.4 To ensure that a good standard of naturallighting and ventilation is provided to internalbuilding spaces.

Complies

5.5 To provide adequate storage space forhousehold items.

Complies

Design detail

5.6 To promote buildings of high architecturalquality and visual interest.

Complies It is considered that the form and detailing of the proposed building is of high architecturalquality, and that it will provide visual interest in its setting.



Att

ach

men

t2

4.1Element 6: Open space and landscape design

Private and communal open space

6.1 To ensure access to adequate open space forall residents.

Ability tocomply

Due to the varied width of the proposed balconies (which reduces down to as low as700mm in places), the usable open space areas for Dwellings 107, 201, 207-209, 301 and307-309 is in the order of 6m

2each. Whilst communal open space is provided, it is

considered that this does not compensate for the provision of less than 8m2

of balconyspace to each dwelling, particularly for two and three bedroom dwellings. The shortfallshould be addressed by either an increase in balcony space to a minimum of 8m

2with a

width of 1.6m, or through an increase in the minimum balcony width to 1.0m, without areduction in street setbacks.

6.2 To ensure common or shared spaces arefunctional and attractive for their intended users.

Complies

6.3 To allow solar access to the private and sharedopen spaces of new high density residentialunits.

Complies

6.4 To integrate the design of shared and privateopen spaces into the overall building design andfaçade composition.

Complies

6.5 To provide for greenery within open spaces. Complies

Public open space

6.6 To create public open space appropriate to itscontext.

N/A

Item: 4.1 Attachment 3: Attachment 3 - Advertised Plans


Att

ach

men

t3

4.1



Att

ach

men

t3

4.1



Att

ach

men

t3

4.1



Att

ach

men

t3

4.1



Att

ach

men

t3

4.1



Att

ach

men

t3

4.1



Att

ach

men

t3

4.1



Att

ach

men

t3

4.1



Att

ach

men

t3

4.1



Att

ach

men

t3

4.1



Att

ach

men

t3

4.1



Att

ach

men

t3

4.1



Att

ach

men

t3

4.1



Att

ach

men

t3

4.1



Att

ach

men

t3

4.1



Att

ach

men

t3

4.1



Att

ach

men

t3

4.1



Att

ach

men

t3

4.1



Att

ach

men

t3

4.1



Att

ach

men

t3

4.1



Att

ach

men

t3

4.1



Att

ach

men

t3

4.1



Att

ach

men

t3

4.1



Att

ach

men

t3

4.1



Att

ach

men

t3

4.1



Att

ach

men

t3

4.1



Att

ach

men

t3

4.1



Att

ach

men

t3

4.1



Att

ach

men

t3

4.1



Att

ach

men

t3

4.1



Att

ach

men

t3

4.1



Att

ach

men

t3

4.1



Att

ach

men

t3

4.1



Att

ach

men

t3

4.1



Att

ach

men

t3

4.1



Att

ach

men

t3

4.1



Att

ach

men

t3

4.1



Att

ach

men

t3

4.1

Item: 4.2 Attachment 1: Infrastructure Victoria Options Paper - Council Submission June2016


Att

ach

men

t1

4.2

30 Year Infrastructure Strategy

All Things Considered – Options Paper

Submission to Infrastructure Victoria

By Banyule City Council

17 June 2016



Att

ach

men

t1

4.2 Table of Contents

1 Introduction...........................................................................................................................3

2 Options Discussion................................................................................................................3

2.1 Overall .............................................................................................................................................................. 3

2.2 Cultural, Civic, Sporting, Recreation and Tourism................................................................................ 3

2.3 Education and Training ................................................................................................................................. 4

2.4 Transport ......................................................................................................................................................... 4

Road Congestion and Freight ...................................................................................................................... 4

Active Transport............................................................................................................................................. 5

Mobility and Accessibility Projects.............................................................................................................. 5

Public Transport Improvements.................................................................................................................. 6

2.5 Water and Waste .......................................................................................................................................... 7

3 Conclusions............................................................................................................................7



Att

ach

men

t1

4.21 Introduction

Local government is a major provider of infrastructure within Victoria, including roads, footpaths,community halls, leisure facilities, bicycle paths, libraries, waste management and parks. All of thesefacilities have a significant contribution to public life, and there is increasing demand on providing suitableand fit-for-purpose facilities for the growing population.

Banyule City Council is pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the 30 year infrastructureoptions paper, and has provided commentary on a number of initiatives identified in the options paper inthe following sections.

The following documents provide further information on Council’s infrastructure priorities:

Council’s City Plan (2013-2017)

The Banyule Integrated Transport Plan

Northern Regional Trails Strategy

Recreation Strategy (2013 – 2017)

Arts Plan (2013 – 2017)

Joint Community Infrastructure Plan (incorporating the Darebin Creek Masterplan)

Banyule’s Draft Public Open Space Plan (2016- 2031)

2 Options Discussion

This section provides Council’s response to a number of initiatives under the topics identified in theOptions paper. Similar initiatives have been grouped together under a mutual heading with the relevantcode as appropriate.

2.1 Overall

Centralised Planning Scheme (CPS1)

State and local government planning is identifying preferred places for high growth within Melbourne’sestablished suburbs. These locations are linked with the Government’s Plan Melbourne strategy andknown as National Employment Clusters (NEC). Banyule Council has been working collaboratively withthe Metropolitan Planning Authority, Darebin Council and major stakeholders to setup a land use,development and transport planning framework for the LaTrobe NEC.

Moving forward, Banyule welcomes the MPA’s ongoing leadership for the LaTrobe Cluster’s planningand their future relationship with Infrastructure Victoria for infrastructure that enables investmentattraction to the cluster. Banyule also welcomes the MPA playing a role to do precinct planning insidethe cluster in partnership with Banyule. For the planning scheme, Banyule believes it is best placed tomanage decision-making for property development in the cluster. For the LaTrobe Cluster, there is noneed for a centralised planning scheme that divests Banyule’s responsibility as a Planning Authority and



Att

ach

men

t1

4.2 Responsible Authority. Instead, Council encourages the State to focus on priority public-sector

infrastructure investment that gives momentum to wider investment in the cluster.

Subregional infrastructure Planning (SIP)

Council strongly supports formalising and simplifying a “whole of government” approach to sub-regionalplanning. Improved relationships and partnerships between State Government, State Government bodiesand Local Government are important in ensuring the appropriate planning and delivery of infrastructureprojects.

2.2 Cultural, Civic, Sporting, Recreation and Tourism

Community space refurbishment or rationalisation (CSR)

A significant portion of community infrastructure is not fit-for-purpose and requires significantinvestment to bring it up to the appropriate standard. Further development of this concept should betreated as a high priority.

Cultural and sports major infrastructure investment framework (CSM)

Funding for community sports and cultural facilities should be guided by a transparent investmentframework, including a methodology and criteria to prioritise investment decision-making, to ensurethat infrastructure delivery can have the added benefits of supporting local sports and community artsparticipation. Council strongly supports this initiative and recommends its future development should betreated as a high priority.

Sport and recreational facility investment framework (SRF)

As the state’s population continues to grow, significant investment is required to deliver new andupgraded facilities which can meet the needs of a growing and diverse population. This initiative isstrongly supported and it is recommended further development of this concept be treated as a highpriority.

Community space shared use agreements (CSS1)

Community spare shared use agreements are vital in providing a greater number and variety ofcommunity activities to be held, particularly in areas with limited community space. Council stronglysupports improving resources and governance processes to assist in establishing shared use agreementsfor community spaces and facilities between different agencies and associations across Victoria.

Integrated shared use community and recreation facilities (RFC)

Council strongly supports the improvement in joint planning, coordination and governance processes toencourage the delivery of integrated facilities for cultural sporting and recreational activity in multi-purpose, shared use facilities.

Community infrastructure accessibility (CIM)

Council strongly supports using design principles that promote universal access, and provide a designsolution that can accommodate and include all people irrespective of mobility, gender or age. It isrecommended that further development of this concept be treated as a high priority.



Att

ach

men

t1

4.22.3 Education and Training

Lifelong learning hubs (LLH)

Council supports the provision of infrastructure that can provide learning across all age groups andbenefit all generations. It is recommended that further development of this concept be treated as a highpriority.

2.4 Transport

Road Congestion and Freight

North-East Link (NEL)

The North-East Link is Council’s highest transport priority. Banyule’s current arterial road network,including Rosanna Road and Greensborough Highway, is used as a link for freight and commuter trafficbetween the northern and western suburbs and the south eastern suburbs. Rosanna Road andGreensborough Hwy experience high levels of congestion, impacting on road user safety and theamenity of surrounding residents.

The Banyule Integrated Transport Plan (BITP) advocates for a North-East Link as a direct orbital linkfrom the Metropolitan Ring Road to Eastlink. This would provide a direct link for freight and commuterstravelling from the northern suburbs to the south eastern suburbs, and provide an alternative link forfreight accessing the Hume Highway corridor.

A future North East Link is expected to have a greater impact on Rosanna Road, GreensboroughHighway and Fitzsimmons Lane than on Plenty Road and Spring St/St Georges Road as identified in theOptions paper. It is strongly recommended the Options paper be updated to reflect this.

Road space allocation changes (RSA)

Council supports the allocation of road space to support a shift towards active and public transport,particularly within Activity Centres and on key routes to and from National Employment Clusters, suchas the La Trobe Employment Cluster. Improving public transport service reliability along these areas willprovide a greater level of service to the community.

Active Transport

Active established areas (AEA)

Council strongly supports and advocates for increased investment in cycling and walking infrastructurewithin established areas, including the completion of the Principle Bicycle Network and Strategic CyclingCorridors within and beyond Banyule. For walking and cycling to become mainstream transport modes,routes should be well connected, direct, and comfortable for people of all abilities.

Active lifestyle infrastructure provision and regulation (ALP, ALR)

Council strongly supports using design principles that promote walking and cycling in neighbourhoods,such as the Heart Foundations ‘Healthy by Design’. End of trip facilities are essential in increasing use ofactive transport in our Activity and Neighbourhood Centres, employment locations, schools and publictransport hubs, however more needs to be done to facilitate the provision of these facilities. As well asdeveloping funding mechanisms to retrofit end of trip facilities, the Victorian Planning Scheme should be



Att

ach

men

t1

4.2 updated to ensure new developments in established areas improve active transport uptake through

increased provision of end of trip facilities. The current requirements within the planning scheme arewell below standard and best practice.

Bicycle and walking data and network expansion (BWP1, BWP2, BWP3)

Council strongly supports the collection of active transport data to enhance understanding of thesetransport modes, and provide better planning of infrastructure to support increased uptake of activetransport.

Council further supports and advocates strongly for the expansion of the on- and off-street cyclingnetwork, particularly along missing links within the identified strategic cycling corridors. However,further work needs to be undertaken prior to large scale separation of pedestrians and cyclists, toensure the appropriate type of infrastructure is constructed. Outside of highly pedestrianised areas oralong major cycling routes, Council encourages road users to share the road spare, and considers thisapproach to be suitable outside of the higher trafficked areas.

Mobility and Accessibility Projects

Public transport accessibility (PTV)

Council strongly supports the provision of universal access across the public transport system, as itprovides people of all abilities with the opportunity to use public transport. Further investment isrequired to ensure railway stations and other transport interchanges are accessible, as the majority ofrailway stations within Banyule do not have suitable wheelchair access. In the interim, informationshould be made available to identify to passengers the accessibility arrangements at each station.

Public transport alternative use of taxis or hire cars (PTA)

Community transport provides an important link for transport disadvantaged members of thecommunity (those with limited or no access to cars and restricted access to conventional publictransport), allowing those with limited mobility to connect to services, jobs, and social opportunities.Council supports the development of a State Government community transport model, and considerschanging the regulations to support and encourage alternative transport services in outer suburban,regional and rural areas to provide greater opportunity to those with poor access to public transport.

Public Transport Improvements

Employment centre mass transit network (MTN)

Work is currently underway to identify the transport needs of the Latrobe National EmploymentCluster. Ensuring services are delivered to the required level of service is vital in ensuring ongoinggrowth and success of these clusters. Council strongly supports the provision of a mass transit networkthat connects heavy rail and outlying areas to the Latrobe cluster that complements the existing heavyrail system.

Doncaster Public Transport (DBI, DHR, DTS)

Council strongly supports the provision of a heavy rail link to Doncaster via the Clifton Hill Loop. WhileDART provides a direct connection from Doncaster to the CBD as a ‘park and ride’ service, this doesnot offer or provide connections for other destinations along the route, including Bulleen, Ivanhoe East,Kew and the future development at the Alphington Paper Mill site at Chandler Highway.



Att

ach

men

t1

4.2Given the future and growing prominence of the Latrobe Employment Cluster, providing a heavy rail

connection to link into the Heidelberg-Hurstbridge Link is considered to be an important link inreducing commuter traffic in the north east.

Metropolitan bus network reform and Smartbus service increase (MBN, SSP)

Council strongly supports a reform of the metropolitan bus network to improve service reliability,coverage and improved timetable coordination between bus and rail services. Expansion of the SmartBusnetwork is also supported, however it is important to tie the expansion into the emerging nationalemployment areas, not just the inner and western suburbs. The introduction of a route hierarchy is alsosupported, as it is considered to lead to a better public transport network.

Melbourne Metro 2 (MMS)

Council supports the Melbourne Metro 2 proposal, and its resulting frequency and serviceimprovements to services along the Hurstbridge and South Morang rail lines. This project wouldremove the bottleneck at Clifton Hill, and allow for the future integration of the Doncaster Rail Line

Upgrade of Public Transport modal interchanges

It is disappointing there is no discussion or initiative within the options paper on the upgrading of publictransport modal interchanges. Providing effective and efficient connection points between publictransport modes improves the attractiveness of public transport, and enhances the coverage of thepublic transport network.

Within Banyule, both Greensborough and Heidelberg railway stations are serviced by a number ofpremium bus services (SmartBus services such as the 901, 902 and 903 routes) and neighbourhood busservices. However, connections between modes at these locations are limited due to the lack ofintegration between the bus stops and the railway stations.

Upgrading modal interchanges would work well in conjunction with a number of initiatives outlinedabove and would address the following needs identified within the Options Paper:

- Address infrastructure demands in areas with high population growth.

- Respond to increasing pressures on health infrastructure, particularly due to ageing.

- Improve accessibility for people with mobility challenges.

- Meet growing demand for access to economic activity in central Melbourne.

- Improve access to middle and outer metropolitan major employment centres.

- Improve access to jobs and services for people in regional and rural areas.

Council strongly supports further consideration of this initiative as part of the final InfrastructureStrategy.



Att

ach

men

t1

4.2 2.5 Water and Waste

Stormwater Harvesting and Quality Management (SRH, SRQ)

Council supports the harvesting of stormwater for use in a range of non-potable purposes, and hasalready invested $6 million over the past five years to provide a suitable water supply for a number ofsporting reserves and parks. Further exploration of this initiative to provide large scale stormwatermanagement projects across municipal boundaries is recommended.

Wastewater system augmentation in high growth areas (WWS)

Council supports increasing capacity for sewerage and wastewater treatment to manage the futuredemand in Melbourne and regional Victoria. The development of this concept should be treated as ahigh priority, particularly in relation to providing recycled water for sporting fields and parks.

3 Conclusions

Council welcomes this opportunity to have its say and looks forward to working further withInfrastructure Victoria and the State Government to progress the initiatives identified within the optionspaper and the future infrastructure strategy.

Item: 5.1 Attachment 1: Petrie Park and Rattray Reserve - Summary of Key Themes


Att

ach

men

t1

5.1

Item: 5.1 Attachment 1: Petrie Park and Rattray Reserve - Summary of Key Themes


Att

ach

men

t1

5.1

Item: 5.1 Attachment 2: Petrie Park and Rattray Reserve Master Plan - Final Report - June2016


Att

ach

men

t2

5.1



Att

ach

men

t2

5.1



Att

ach

men

t2

5.1



Att

ach

men

t2

5.1



Att

ach

men

t2

5.1



Att

ach

men

t2

5.1



Att

ach

men

t2

5.1



Att

ach

men

t2

5.1



Att

ach

men

t2

5.1



Att

ach

men

t2

5.1



Att

ach

men

t2

5.1



Att

ach

men

t2

5.1



Att

ach

men

t2

5.1



Att

ach

men

t2

5.1



Att

ach

men

t2

5.1



Att

ach

men

t2

5.1



Att

ach

men

t2

5.1



Att

ach

men

t2

5.1



Att

ach

men

t2

5.1



Att

ach

men

t2

5.1



Att

ach

men

t2

5.1



Att

ach

men

t2

5.1

Item: 6.2 Attachment 1: Summary of Consideration of Submissions Received on theProposed Budget 2016/2017 (and Proposed City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 4))


Att

ach

men

t1

6.2



Att

ach

men

t1

6.2



Att

ach

men

t1

6.2



Att

ach

men

t1

6.2



Att

ach

men

t1

6.2



Att

ach

men

t1

6.2



Att

ach

men

t1

6.2



Att

ach

men

t1

6.2



Att

ach

men

t1

6.2



Att

ach

men

t1

6.2



Att

ach

men

t1

6.2



Att

ach

men

t1

6.2



Att

ach

men

t1

6.2



Att

ach

men

t1

6.2



Att

ach

men

t1

6.2



Att

ach

men

t1

6.2

Item: 6.3 Attachment 1: Statutory Declaration of the return of the 2016 General Revaluationfor the Municipality of Banyule


Att

ach

men

t1

6.3

Item: 6.4 Attachment 1: Banyule Environment Advisory Committee BEAC April 2016Meeting notes


Att

ach

men

t1

6.4 Banyule Environment Advisory Committee

Meeting Notes

Wednesday 13 April, 20166.30PM (Refreshments) 7PM - 9PM

Rosanna Meeting Room 1

1. Present

Community Representatives: Kate Roberts (interim Chair), Alan Leenaerts, MattHall, Denise Fernando, Maree Keenan, Peter Castaldo. Guests The Wilderness Society

Council Officers: Daniel Kollmorgen, John Milkins,

Councillor Representatives/Attendees: Cr Mark Di Pasquale, CR Craig Langdon foritem 16.01

Apologies: Jonathan Thom, John D’Aloia

2. Confirmation of March meeting notes

AL / MK

3. Disclosures of Interests

None

4. Matters arising from previous meetings

16.01 Beyond ParisBZE Case Study (AL)

AL is seeking a presentation for next meeting.

Hazelwood advocacy (AL/PC)

BEAC discussed a range of matters relevant to the operation of the Hazelwood powerstation.

AL provided the following links and examples of transition from coal:

UK announces end of coalhttp://www.bbc.com/news/business-34851718

Dutch end of coalhttp://phys.org/news/2015-11-dutch-lawmakers-coal-power.html

Belgium’s last coal power plant, Langerlo, closed on 30 March.2016

In July, Delta Energy announced it was closing the Munmorah coal power station on theNSW central coast.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34851718

http://phys.org/news/2015-11-dutch-lawmakers-coal-power.html



Att

ach

men

t1

6.4

America's Power Plant Problem - Pacific Standardwww.psmag.com/.../what-to-do-with-americas-abandoned-power-plants?...Feb 1, 2016 - More than 200 out of the 523 coal-fired power plants that were inoperation five years ago are now closed or slated for closure.

The final coal plant in Ontario, Thunder Bay Generating Station, stopped burning coal inApril 2014.[36]

India's federal energy minister is planning to stop importing thermal coal by 2018.[39]

In 2007, Germany announced plans to phase out hard coal-industry subsidies by 2018, amove which is expected to end hard coal mining in Germany.[41][42][43][44][45]

In 2014, almost 80 per cent of the electricity produced in New Zealand was Sustainableenergy.[51] On 6 August 2015,Genesis Energy Limited announced to closed its twolast coal-fueled power stations.[52]

In 2007, 154 new coal-fired plants were on the drawing board in 42 states.[60] By 2012,that had dropped to 15, mostly due to new rules limiting mercury emissions, and limitingcarbon emissions to 1,000 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour of electricity produced.[61]

Despite such pledges, a 2012 report by Oil Change International which analyzed 2011spending by the world's wealthy nations found five times as much being spent on fossilfuel subsidies than climate aid: $58 billion was spent in fossil fuel subsidies that year, ascompared with $11 billion spent by such nations towards climate adaptation andmitigation in developing countries, with figures for the U.S. at $13 billion in fossil fuelsubsidies versus $2.5 billion in climate aid for 2011.[30]

Recommendation

BEAC recommended that Council consider writing to the State governmenturging the rapid decommissioning of Hazelwood and investment in renewableenergy sources.

14.23 Urban Forest Strategy (DF)

DF raised concern that the Urban Forest Strategy listed plane trees (Plantanus) as aspecies that sequesters carbon at a high rate. There is concern that this listing is basedon European or North American data wholly inappropriate for Australian conditions, andmay lead plane trees being planted in preference to local species.

JM noted Parks and Gardens department advice that approximately 10 Plane trees havebeen planted in the last decade as infill plantings in existing Plane tree avenues. There isno intent to plant beyond these areas and, and the development of the Urban ForestManagement Plan and the Street Tree Master Plan under the overall Strategy.

Nonetheless, the underlying science must be relevant to the Australian context, whichthe consultant indicated was the case in the modelling tool used in the developmentUrban Forest Strategy.

ActionManager Parks and Gardens to facilitate a meeting with DF & colleagues and theUrban Forest Strategy consultants to discuss the scientific basis of carbonsequestration figures in the local Australian context.

http://www.psmag.com/nature-and-technology/what-to-do-with-americas-abandoned-power-plants?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+miller-mccune%2Fmain_feed+(Pacific+Standard+-+Main+Feed)

http://www.psmag.com/.../what-to-do-with-americas-abandoned-power-plants

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunder_Bay_Generating_Station

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil-fuel_phase-out#cite_note-36


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil-fuel_phase-out#cite_note-autogenerated1-41





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_energy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_energy


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_Energy_Limited

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil-fuel_power_station







Att

ach

men

t1

6.4

5. Other Business

6. 16.08 Ethical Paper Pledge (All)

Local members of the Wilderness Society (WS) were invited to speak to BEAC inreference to a Notice of Motion at Council’s meeting of 4 April 2016, which read:

That a report be presented to Council regarding the use of ethical office paper in itsoperations and any implications of signing the Wilderness Society of Victoria’s EthicalPaper pledge. Such a report is to include advice from Council’s Environment AdvisoryCommittee.

In addition to the Wilderness Society presentation, a submission to BEAC was circulatedfrom a local community member providing an alternative point of view.

BEAC discussed the WS presentation and additional submission and requested that theitem be tabled for feedback at the May meeting following consideration of the pointsraised in the material provided.

7. 16.09 Great Forest National Park (All)

Local members of the Wilderness Society (WS) were invited to speak to BEAC inreference to a Notice of Motion at Council’s meeting of April 2016, which read:

That a report be presented to Council regarding the proposal to create a Great ForestNational Park in the Central Highlands to the east of Melbourne. The report is to includeconsideration of advice from Council’s Environment Advisory Committee and EconomicDevelopment Department.

In addition to the Wilderness Society presentation, a submission to BEAC was circulatedfrom a local community member providing an alternative point of view, as well as a letterto Council from the Institute of Foresters Australia, and a recent media article.

BEAC discussed the WS presentation and additional submissions and requested that theitem be tabled for feedback at the May meeting following consideration of the pointsraised in the material provided.

Contact John Milkins on 9457 9834 for further information

Next Meeting: May 18, 2016

Item: 6.4 Attachment 2: Banyule Environment Advisory Committee (BEAC) May 2016Notes


Att

ach

men

t2

6.4Banyule Environment Advisory Committee

Meeting Notes

Wednesday 18 May, 20166.30PM (Refreshments) 7PM - 9PM

Rosanna Meeting Room 1

1. Present

Community Representatives: Denise Fernando (interim Chair), Alan Leenaerts, JonathanThom, Matt Hall, Maree Keenan, Peter Castaldo. Guests Justine Holmes (BZE), Marie-Claire Holm (CLS SHCP)

Council Officers: Daniel Kollmorgen, John Milkins,

Councillor Representatives/Attendees: CR Craig Langdon for items 16.01, 16.08CR Tom Melican for 16.09 16.11, 16.12,16.13

Apologies: Kate Roberts, John D’Aloia

2. Confirmation of March meeting notes

MK / AL

3. Disclosures of Interests

AL and PC noted that they were members of Beyond Zero Emissions (BZE).

4. Matters arising from previous meetings

16.01 Beyond ParisBZE Case Study (AL)

Justine Holmes from Beyond Zero Emissions (BZE) (http://bze.org.au/) presented toBEAC on opportunities for the development and support of Zero Carbon Communities inBanyule. A range of BZE research and publications were covered including the ZeroCarbon Australia Buildings Plan, Stationery Energy Plan, Renewable EnergySuperpower and Energy Freedom. The concept of High Ambition Communities seekingto achieve zero carbon, zero net carbon or 100% renewable source power within anominated timeframe was discussed.

RecommendationBEAC recommended that Council consider opportunities to support a suburb ordefined area of the municipality in seeking to achieve the status of a High AmbitionCommunity (zero carbon / zero net carbon emissions/100 % renewables)

http://bze.org.au/



Att

ach

men

t2

6.4 16.08 Ethical Paper Pledge (All)

Local members of the Wilderness Society (WS) were invited to speak to BEAC’s Aprilmeeting in reference to a Notice of Motion at Council’s meeting of 4 April 2016, whichread:

That a report be presented to Council regarding the use of ethical office paper in itsoperations and any implications of signing the Wilderness Society of Victoria’s EthicalPaper pledge. Such a report is to include advice from Council’s Environment AdvisoryCommittee.

In addition to the Wilderness Society presentation, a submission to BEAC was circulatedfrom a local community member providing an alternative point of view.

Over April, BEAC reviewed the presentation and submission and the item was discussedat the May meeting.

RecommendationBEAC recommended that Council sign the Ethical Paper Pledge, noting thatCouncil’s paper usage is already in accord with the pledge.

16.09 Great Forest National Park (All)

Local members of the Wilderness Society (WS) were invited to speak to BEAC inreference to a Notice of Motion at Council’s meeting of April 2016, which read:

That a report be presented to Council regarding the proposal to create a Great ForestNational Park in the Central Highlands to the east of Melbourne. The report is to includeconsideration of advice from Council’s Environment Advisory Committee and EconomicDevelopment Department.

In addition to the Wilderness Society presentation, a submission to BEAC was circulatedfrom a local community member providing an alternative point of view, as well as a letterto Council from the Institute of Foresters of Australia, and a recent media article.

Over April, BEAC reviewed the presentation and submission and the item was discussedat the May meeting.

RecommendationBEAC supports the proposal for a Great Forest National Park and recommends thatCouncil also indicate its support for the creation of a Great Forest National Park dueto the direct and indirect benefits to Banyule residents. BEAC noted that theprecautionary principle should be applied to facilitate benefit realisation in the areasof:

• biodiversity• water quality• drinking water supply• tourism opportunities• wildlife corridor connectivity• mental health• clean air• the uniqueness of the old growth tall forests of SE Australia• inter and intragenerational equity• natural heritage



Att

ach

men

t2

6.4

5. Other Business

16.11 Sister City proposal (Marie Claire Holmes Community Leaders, SustainableHomes & Communities Program)

Marie Claire Holmes from the Community Leaders course running under Council’sSustainable Homes & Communities Program presented to BEAC on the opportunity for asister city relationship with the Swedish town of Växjö. This town has made significantprogress with climate change adaptation and mitigation and has a strong TransitionTown community.

ActionJM to circulate a Sister City MOU example between a local Melbourne Council and aEuropean town.

RecommendationBEAC encouraged the development of community to community links with the Swedishtown of Växjö, and will review further information to be provided on MOUsthat mightfacilitate Council to Council links.

16.12 Plastic Bag Free Victoria (DK)

BEAC reviewed a recent Surf Coast Shire Policy relating to Plastic wise events on Councilmanaged land.

RecommendationBEAC recommended that Council develop a policy addressing the use of single useplastics at events conducted on land, roads or buildings managed by Council.

16.13 Draft Banyule Open Space Strategy (JM)

JM circulated a link to the draft Banyule Open Space Strategy for BEAC’s review and inputat the June meeting. http://www.banyule.vic.gov.au/Council/Community-Consultation/Draft-Open-Space-Plan-2016-to-2031

Contact John Milkins on 9457 9834 for further information

Next Meeting: June 8, 2016

http://www.banyule.vic.gov.au/Council/Community-Consultation/Draft-Open-Space-Plan-2016-to-2031

http://www.banyule.vic.gov.au/Council/Community-Consultation/Draft-Open-Space-Plan-2016-to-2031

Item: 6.4 Attachment 3: Chandler Highway Widening - Hon Bruce Atkinson MLC response


Att

ach

men

t3

6.4

Item: 6.4 Attachment 4: Chandler Highway Widening - Mr Colin Brooks MP


Att

ach

men

t4

6.4

Item: 6.4 Attachment 5: Planning Infringement Penalties For Illegal Tree Removal - The HonRichard Wynne


Att

ach

men

t5

6.4

Item: 6.4 Attachment 5: Planning Infringement Penalties For Illegal Tree Removal - The HonRichard Wynne


Att

ach

men

t5

6.4