Banyule Council Meeting Agenda 3 February 2014

Ordinary Meeting of Council

Council Chambers, Service Centre

275 Upper Heidelberg Road, Ivanhoe

3 February 2014 commencing at 7.45

Following the public forum commencing at approximately 7.30pm and may be extended to 8pm if necessary.

AGENDA

The Mayor’s Acknowledgement of the Wurundjeri People “Our Meeting is being held on the traditional lands (country) of the Wurundjeri people and I wish to acknowledge them as the traditional owners and pay my respects to their Elders.”

Apologies and Leave of Absence

Confirmation of Minutes Ordinary Meeting of Council held 16 December 2013

Disclosure of Interests

1. Petitions

Nil

REPORTS:

2. People – Community Strengthening and Support

Nil

3. Planet – Environmental Sustainability

Nil

4. Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.1 Plenty Road Precinct Development Opportunities ................................................... 3

4.2 Greensborough Principal Activity Centre Review of Heights and Setback Requirements ............................................................................................ 7

4.3 Multi Unit Development at 19 Magnolia Road, Ivanhoe ......................................... 12

AGENDA (Cont’d)

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 3 February 2014 Page 2

4.4 Notice of Intention to Sell Land: 33-35 Elwers Street Watsonia North 1-3 McKenzie Court Greensborough 3 Sommerleigh Crescent Greeensborough ........................................................... 25

4.5 Notice of Intention to Sell Land: 52 Haig Street Heidleberg Heights ........................................................................ 33

5. Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life

Nil

6. Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.1 Assembly of Councillors ........................................................................................ 39

7. Sealing of Documents

7.1 Sealing of Documents .......................................................................................... 41

8. Notices of Motion

8.1 Accessibility and Amenity of Watsonia Station for People with Disabilities ............................................................................................................ 43

8.2 Emergency Markers - Darebin Creek Trail ............................................................ 44

8.3 Australian Made Campaign ................................................................................... 45

8.4 Live Streaming of Council Meetings ...................................................................... 46

8.5 Half Masting of Flag at the Municipal Offices, Town Hall Ivanhoe ......................... 47

9. General Business

10. Urgent Business

Closure of Meeting to the Public That in accordance with Section 89(2) of the Local Government Act 1989, Council close the Meeting to members of the public and adjourn for five minutes to allow the public to leave the Chamber prior to considering the following confidential matters.

11. Confidential Matters

11.1 contractual matters



Matters Discussed in Camera That all confidential matters and reports related to the above items remain confidential unless otherwise specified.

Closure of Meeting

4.1

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment


4.1 PLENTY ROAD PRECINCT DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES

Author: David Cox - Strategic Planning Co-ordinator, City Development

Ward: Grimshaw

File: F2013/1365

Previous Items Council on 21 October 2013 (Item 8.1 - Plenty Road Precinct)

SUMMARY

To describe the investigation that has been done to consider residential development for properties near Plenty Road, between Grimshaw Street and the municipal boundary near LaTrobe University, and recommend that further progress can be made by Council’s C100 proposal to introduce the Victorian Government’s new residential zones.

OFFICER DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 requires members of Council staff, and persons engaged under contract to provide advice to Council, to disclose any direct or indirect interest in a matter to which the advice relates. Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter.

CITY PLAN

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

BACKGROUND

At its meeting on 21 October 2013 it was resolved (CO2013/376), “that Council:

1. Investigates greater density development outcomes for residential properties abutting and in the vicinity of Plenty Road in Bundoora, between Grimshaw Street and to the edge of the City of Banyule close to LaTrobe University.

2. Organises a meeting with the Ward Councillor, the Mayor, officers and residents

and property owners of this locality to discuss ways of ensuring better development outcomes for the area.”

Council’s strategic direction for residential development near Plenty Road emerged in 2010, when the planning scheme was improved with a Residential Areas Framework at Clause 21.06 of the Municipal Strategic Statement. This happened after Council adopted its 2009 Housing Strategy, to support varying degrees of housing change across the City. Then in 2012 Council adopted a new Neighbourhood Character Strategy. This happened after further investigation was done to identify Accessible Areas for housing growth. These areas include properties within proximity to major public transport corridors, such as Plenty Road.

4.1


PLENTY ROAD PRECINCT DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES cont’d


Investigation for Plenty Road continued into 2013, when guidelines for development went into a new planning scheme policy at Clause 22.02. These guidelines see properties along Plenty Road in an Accessible Area, where more housing growth is preferred. In such areas development may have greater site coverage for new buildings, if coupled with planting and space for trees. On 18 November 2013 Council adopted its new zone mapping, to support the preparation of a planning scheme amendment for introducing the new residential zones. This resolution (CO2013/388) has positioning Council to more clearly achieve its Residential Areas Framework for housing growth, before the Government removes the existing Residential 1 Zone (R1Z) on the 1 July 2014.

C100 NEW RESIDENTIAL ZONES PROPOSAL - PLENTY ROAD PRECINCT

On the 8 January 2014 Banyule’s proposal for new zones, known as Amendment C100, was sent to the Victorian Government. This proposal applies the General Residential Zone (GRZ) in Bundoora, replacing the existing R1Z. The C100 mapping for the GRZ, translates Accessible Areas into locations for different scheduled requirements. Separate schedules provide a more effective mechanism to translate and describe important requirements for residential development. The following map is an extract from Council’s C100 proposal. It shows the mapping location for the separate GRZ schedules around the Plenty Road Precinct.

Figure 1: C100 Mapping for Bundoora, showing the Plenty Road Precinct.

4.1




The C100 mapping shows that a separate GRZ1 schedule can be applied to properties along and near Plenty Road, to reflect the location of an Accessible Area for more housing growth. In the:

GRZ1 area, which includes the Plenty Road Precinct, there is flexibility for the design of residential development - including greater site coverage and heights to 10m. This flexibility anticipates that a medium-density residential proposal will fulfill the Victorian Government’s mandatory ResCode requirements, as well as Council’s requirement for tree planting in front gardens. Proposals also need to consider the Clause 22.02 policy guidelines as well.

GRZ2 area, which is further away from Plenty Road, Council’s requirement for tree planting in front gardens and restricting site coverage to 40% would exist. These requirements would work alongside ResCode as well. Proposals also need to consider the Clause 22.02 policy guidelines. This includes a wider suite of tree siting and landscaping guidelines.

More information about the proposed planning scheme differences between GRZ1 and GRZ2 are shown in Attachment 1. The complete C100 details and mapping is available from Council’s website, from: http://www.banyule.vic.gov.au/Services/Planning/New-Residential-Zones-for-the-Planning-Scheme. This approach means that there will be greater potential for medium-density residential development in the Plenty Road Precinct, in GRZ1, in comparison to other parts of Bundoora where GRZ2 will apply.

HUMAN RIGHTS CHARTER

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

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Council’s 18 November 2013 resolution is enabled by public consultation for the Victorian Government’s new residential zones in Banyule. This consultation is being initiated from public notices in local newspapers and The Banner. This will happen throughout January and February 2014. Council’s website has also been updated to include the C100 details and information is available from Council’s Service Centres as well. Public notices are giving an opportunity for residents and property owners to contact Council, to discuss their residential area. To enable discussion for the Plenty Road Precinct, residents and land owners will also receive an invitation to discuss this area as well.

http://www.banyule.vic.gov.au/Services/Planning/New-Residential-Zones-for-the-Planning-Scheme

http://www.banyule.vic.gov.au/Services/Planning/New-Residential-Zones-for-the-Planning-Scheme

4.1




WHERE TO NEXT

Public consultation for new residential zones at the Plenty Road Precinct, is being done as part of wider consultation for all of Banyule’s residential areas. Now that C100 has been given to the Minister for Planning, Council can actively lobby the Victorian Government for a fast-tracked outcome. After February 2014, written comments from interested parties (including residents and landowners along Plenty Road) will be summarised and reported to Council. This will give Council an opportunity to consider future strategic work, once an outcome for C100 has been achieved.

CONCLUSION

Council has adopted mapping for residential areas across the City, including the Plenty Road Precinct in Bundoora. This mapping and proposed planning scheme changes for C100 are pursuing a locally tailored approach for future residential development. This approach gives an opportunity for greater residential housing densities with the Plenty Road Precinct, where GRZ2 is proposed, and is aligned with Council’s 2013 Neighbourhood Character Strategy. Once public consultation for the new zones is done, written comments will be summarised, considered and then reported to Council. A fast-tracked and favourable outcome for C100 in 2014 would enable Council to start applying the proposed GRZ provisions, including for the Plenty Road Precinct. Receipt of written comments will position Council to consider the need for any future strategic work to build upon C100.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Receive consultation feedback for the Plenty Road Precinct, as part of future reporting for progressing new residential zones across the City.

2.

ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 Outline for GRZ1 and GRZ2 Schedules 50

4.2



4.2 GREENSBOROUGH PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE REVIEW OF HEIGHTS AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS

Author: David Cox - Strategic Planning Co-ordinator, City Development

Ward: Bakewell

File: BS16/070/084

Previous Items Council on 18 February 2013 (Item 9.5 - Greensborough Principal Activity

Centre review of height and setback requirements)

SUMMARY

To give a project scope for Council to consider a future review of the Greensborough Principal Activity Centre for heights and setbacks within precincts 2, 5 and 6. It is recommended that the project be considered for funding in the 2014/15 budget process.



CITY PLAN

This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction to “support thriving commercial and retail activity”.

BACKGROUND

Council has resolved (CO2013/46) that a project scope be prepared for reviewing building guidelines in the Banyule Planning Scheme (BPS) for Greensborough. The review was sought because there are three precincts in the planning scheme’s Activity Centre Zone (ACZ) for Greensborough, where better guidance could be achieved for maximum building heights and minimum floor level setbacks. Instead more restrictive and somewhat unclear guidelines are in the Banyule Planning Scheme, in comparison to what was initially anticipated by the 2006 Greensborough Structure Plan (GSP) vision. This vision is:

“The Greensborough Principal Activity Centre will be a famous for its extraordinary natural attributes, an urban area connected to the natural beauty of the Lower Plenty River Valley. New development will provide visual linkages as well as an extension of the green landscape between the Valley and the activity centre. A “Green Edge” will define the centre’s entrances and reflect the landscape setting, while greenery and landscaping treatments throughout will provide both cohesiveness and define the role of parts of the centre. The activity centre will be recognised for its sense of community, sustainability and connectivity to and within the centre. A cohesive public realm will be created with new public

4.2


GREENSBOROUGH PRINCIPAL ACTIVITY CENTRE REVIEW OF HEIGHTS AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS cont’d


spaces including the centrally located town square, where people of all ages can meet, relax or enjoy public events. Health and wellbeing will be the focus of the transformed centre with the Aquatic Centre, spa facilities and a host of health and wellbeing services being accommodated in the centre. The diversity of higher density mixed use development will cater for the varied needs of the Greensborough population, including providing new opportunities for people to live in the centre. The centre will provide expanded retail, commercial, entertainment, leisure and civic uses to service the needs of the local and regional area. Visitors and residents will be encouraged to walk the centre or use public transport rather than use their cars.”

Council resolved that a future review should focus on the following precincts:

Precinct 2: Henry Street East

Precinct 5: Southern Residential

Precinct 6: Flintoff Street. These precincts are shown within the dashed outline shown below.

Figure 1: Precincts 2, 5 and 6 in the Greensborough Framework

4.2




HUMAN RIGHTS CHARTER

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

PROJECT SCOPE - STATEGIC CONTEXT

The strategic context for doing a review is given by the 2006 GSP vision, as well as relevant Council policies and strategies. These include the:

City Plan, which has objectives to maintain and enhance the quality of Banyule’s public spaces, buildings and infrastructure for people to live, work, shop, play and move around our city.

Municipal Strategic Statement in the planning scheme, which has objectives for greater housing diversity, encourage sustainable design, the identity of activity centres and for a safe, attractive and high quality built environment.

Neighbourhood Character Strategy, which recognises the important landscaping and vegetated character for residential properties and streets in Greensborough, including properties in Precinct 5 shown in Figure 1.

Activity Centres Car Parking Policy and Strategy, which gives direction to creating a tailored car parking plan for Greensborough. Such a plan can provide improved clarity for on-street car parking, as well as off-street provision and contributions by land developers.

This context is also influenced by:

Victorian Government policy, strategies and advice for activity centre planning. This includes the emerging new metropolitan planning strategy.

Existing and future planning scheme provisions for land that abuts the precincts being reviewed. This includes future introduction of new residential zones near Precincts 2 and 5.

Capturing updated information for the Greensborough Activity Centre, since the creation of the 2006 Structure Plan. This includes property market and land economic information to consider implications which have arisen since 2006.

Collectively, the above means that the review should consider:

1. Property market and economic analysis for long-term floor space and dwelling change to consider implications for local economic development, including future demand for housing growth.

2. Urban and landscape design analysis for integrated building and landscape outcomes, to support a high quality built environment for floor space and dwelling growth

3. Reviewing Council’s Neighbourhood Character Policy for residential properties and streets in Precinct 5, to ensure a reviewed Greensborough ACZ that builds on previous residential design guidelines.

4.2




4. Identifying future work that may be done to benefit the Greensborough Activity Centre. Whilst the priority for implementation will progress on a planning scheme amendment, other future work could include scope and timing of a Greensborough Car Parking Plan and its separate implementation into the planning scheme, possibly through a Parking Overlay.

During the review consultation would be held with local residents, property owners and stakeholders with an interest in Precincts 2, 5 and 6. This consultation would occur through a staged work program that achieves deliverables and enables interested people to give their input and comment during staged progress. Final consultation actions would be worked up and progressed after a lead consultant has been appointed. PROJECT SCOPE - DELIVERABLES Given the above strategic context, a review of the Greensborough ACZ should achieve the following staging of deliverables.

Deliverable 1: Background Document to give the market, economic, urban and landscape design analysis, along with other background information to inform the review and initiate initial consultation.

Deliverable 2: Structure Plan Addendum that leverages of the Background Document to give reviewed guidelines for Precincts 2, 5 and 5. This addendum would use Deliverable 1 to create reviewed urban and landscape design guidelines and would be completed after consultation is done on a draft.

Deliverable 3: Implementation Plan and Amendment Preparation to describe priorities for further funding and give the proposed planning scheme changes. These changes would include using Deliverable 2 to draft planning scheme details for a reviewed ACZ and include it as a Reference Document in the planning scheme.

A outline of costs to achieve these deliverables is shown below.

Table 1: Project Cost

Deliverable Cost

1. Background Document $50 000

2. Structure Plan Addendum $50 000

3. Implementation Strategy & Amendment Preparation $10 000

TOTAL $110 000

PROJECT SCOPE - TIMING

Council’s approval to a future annual budget to give an allocation for the ‘Greensborough Activity Centre Zone, Precincts 2, 5 and 6 Review’ would enable progress. Should funding be made available in 2014/15, current commitments mean that the earliest this project could start is in early 2015.

CONCLUSION

A review of built form guidance for precincts 2, 5 and 6 of the Greensborough Structure Plan has been scoped. This scope gives a cost estimate of $110,000 for a

4.2




project that could start in early 2015, if approved by Council for its 2014/15 annual budget.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council: 1. Approve the project scope for a ‘Greensborough Activity Centre Zone, Precincts

2, 5 and 6 Review’.

2. Use the approved project scope, to inform a budget proposal for the ‘Greensborough Activity Centre Zone, Precincts 2, 5 and 6 Review’, so it can be considered in the 2014/15 budget process.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

4.3



4.3 MULTI UNIT DEVELOPMENT AT 19 MAGNOLIA ROAD, IVANHOE

Author: Joel Elbourne - Development Planning Coordinator, City Development

Ward: Griffin

File: P47/2013

SUMMARY

This application considers an application for the construction of three double storey dwellings at 19 Magnolia Road, Ivanhoe.

Planning Permit Application: P47/2013

Development Planner: Joel Elbourne

Address: 19 Magnolia Road IVANHOE

Proposal: Development of the site with three double storey dwellings

Existing Use/Development: Single dwelling

Applicant: Mr Andrew Ramage

Zoning: Residential 1 Zone

Overlays: Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO5)

Restrictive covenant: Nil

Notification (Advertising): Sign on site Notices to surrounding properties

Objections Received: 16

Ward: Griffin

Housing Change Area: Incremental

Neighbourhood Character Area:

Garden Suburban (GS3)

Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) required:

No

The proposal originally advertised (see Attachment 1) incorporated the construction of three double storey dwellings, which would be attached at the lower level and detached at the upper level. The dwellings would share a driveway along the southern boundary of the site, with private open space provided to the north of Dwellings 1 and 2 and to the south and west of Dwelling 3. Each dwelling would be provided with living areas, a bedroom and bathroom at the lower level, with two bedrooms and a bathroom at the upper level. The dwellings would each be provided with a double garage.

4.3


MULTI UNIT DEVELOPMENT AT 19 MAGNOLIA ROAD, IVANHOE cont’d


Open space Car parking provision

Bedrooms

Dwelling 1 40.0m2 Double garage 3 Dwelling 2 40.0m2 Double garage 3 Dwelling 3 80.6m2 Double garage 3

Dwelling density 1:320.5m2

Site coverage 38.1%

Impervious site coverage 59.1%



SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

Figure 1: Aerial photo of subject site.

The subject site is located on the west side of Magnolia Road, approximately 130m north-west of the intersection with Upper Heidelberg Road and is depicted in Figure 1. The site is rectangular in shape, and has the following dimensions:

Frontage 16.08m Depth 59.79m

Site area 961.4m2 The site slopes by approximately 2m from the frontage down to the rear. It currently contains a detached single storey clinker brick dwelling with a hipped tiled roof. The

4.3




dwelling is the northern-most of a group of four similar dwellings in the street. Existing vegetation on the site is low-scale in nature, with yard areas being predominantly lawn and paving. The surrounding area is characterised by detached, predominantly single storey, dwellings set within mature gardens. Dwellings are generally of brick construction, although there are buildings incorporating both weatherboard and rendered surfaces. There are also established examples of both double storey construction and multi dwelling development in the street, with these varying as to their impact upon both the streetscape and the character of the area generally.

BACKGROUND/HISTORY

There have been no previous planning applications or investigations with respect to the property.

PLANNING CONTROLS

The planning controls applicable to the site are outlined in table 1 below: Table 1: Applicable Planning Controls Control Clause Permit Triggered Residential 1 Zone 32.01 Yes Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO5) 42.02 No Car Parking 52.06 No

POLICIES CONSIDERED

Relevant policies considered in the assessment of this proposal are outlined in table 2 below: Table 2: Relevant Planning Scheme Policy Policy Clause SPPF Settlement 11 Environmental and Landscape Values (including sub clauses) 12 Built Environment and Heritage (including sub clauses) 15 Housing (including sub clauses) 16 LPPF Land Use 21.04 Natural Environment 21.05 Built Environment (Incremental Area) 21.06 Residential Neighbourhood Character Policy (GS1) 22.02 Safer Design Policy 22.03

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

Formal notification of the application was given by means of erecting a sign on the site and posting notices to the owners and occupiers of surrounding properties. A total of 16 objections have been received. Grounds of objection are summarised in Attachment 2, and relate to:

Precedent

Neighbourhood character and design

Landscaping

Amenity

4.3




Traffic and parking

Stormwater and flooding

Services

Energy efficiency

Other

CONSULTATION

A consultation meeting was held between the applicant, objectors, the Ward Councillor, Mayor and a Council officer on 25 September 2013. The applicant and objectors each expressed their view of the advertised plans and there was some discussion in relation to the matters which would be considered by Council in assessing the application. No resolution or firm design suggestions were arrived at at the time however. Following the consultative meeting the applicant and their clients met with a Council officer, and officer concerns with the application were discussed. The discussions, along with discussions at the consultative meeting, resulted in the submission of the amended plans included as Attachment 3, showing:

A 3m separation between Dwellings 1 and 2 at ground floor level;

Provision of a deck in lieu of the paved area to the south of Dwelling 3;

Minor modifications to the layout of the dwellings at ground floor level;

An increase in the setback between Dwellings 1 and 2 and decrease in the setback between Dwellings 2 and 3 at the upper level;

A reduction in the minimum frontage setback of the upper level of Dwelling 1 from 13.217m to 12.217m (the ground floor setback being retained at 9.048m;

Use of a simplified pallet of materials, incorporating face brick and render (ie. Utilising render in lieu of the sections previously indicated as weatherboard).

Public notification of the amended plans was conducted by posting notices to all objectors and parties previously notified of the application. Two additional submissions were received reinforcing their objections to the proposal.

REFERRAL COMMENTS

ENGINEERING SERVICES

Council’s Engineering Services Section have reviewed the proposal and raised no major concerns. Formal comments are available on file. Standard conditions relating to access, parking areas and drainage requested should be included on any approval issued. ARBORIST

Council’s Development Planning Arborist has advised that the proposed 8% encroachment into the Tree Protection Zone of the adjoining Blue Gum is acceptable subject to permit conditions in relation to the manner of construction beneath the tree.

4.3




ESD CONSULTANT

Council’s Environmentally Sustainable Design Consultant made suggestions with respect to the potential for the development to be improved with respect to energy efficiency, treatment of stormwater and the like. Formal comments are available on file.

TECHNICAL CONSIDERATION

RESPONSE TO POLICY FRAMEWORK

It is considered that the proposal, as amended, is an acceptable response to the character of the surrounding neighbourhood, providing a balance between increasing the density of development on the site and providing appropriate areas of open space to allow for planting to complement the garden character of the neighbourhood. The key issues for consideration for Council with respect to the application are whether the proposal:

Incorporates an appropriate intensity of development;

Retains appropriate levels of amenity for the adjoining neighbours;

Provides appropriate space for landscaping; and

Incorporates a dwelling style which is appropriate in the context of its surroundings.

These issues will be addressed in turn below, however complete assessment against both Council’s Neighbourhood Character Policy and Clause 55 (ResCode) are included as attachments. The plans supplied indicate that the proposed site coverage is 39.9%, however this would appear not to have been updated when the plans were revised, and analysis indicates that the site coverage now proposed is approximately 34%. The site coverage proposed is not significantly greater than the 30% coverage provided by the existing buildings on the site, and is lower than the 40% maximum sought by the Neighbourhood Character Policy and much less than the 60% sought by Clause 55. This is indicative of a development which allows sufficient space for the planting of vegetation which, in time, will grow to complement the character of the neighbourhood. It is also noted that a dual occupancy development could be expected to have a similar, or greater, site coverage than that proposed, particularly if single storey construction were proposed. Whilst the proposal incorporates an additional number of occupants of the site, it provides appropriate levels of car parking and private open space to accommodate the needs of those residents. It is noted that the proposal results in some variations to Council’s Neighbourhood Character Strategy which are discussed below. While such variations are generally sought to be minimised, particularly in the context of a site located within an Incremental Change Area, it is considered that, on balance, the proposal will result in an appropriate outcome. NEIGHBOUR AMENITY As detailed in the attached Clause 55 assessment, the proposal will not result in an unacceptable loss of amenity to the adjoining properties.

4.3




SPACE FOR LANDSCAPING Both the Neighbourhood Character Policy and Clause 55 refer to the need to provide landscaping which is appropriate for the character of the surrounding area. In this case, the Policy would seek:

The planting of at least two medium-large trees;

The provision of separation between dwellings to allow for the planting and future growth of small-medium sized trees and understorey vegetation; and

Setbacks from one side or rear boundary to allow for the planting of appropriate vegetation.

The proposal incorporates space for the planting of medium-large trees within the frontage setback and private open space for Dwelling 2, with small-medium sized trees and other vegetation elsewhere on the site. Rather than provide space for landscaping along one side boundary, the proposal incorporates landscaping space along sections of both side boundaries. A 2.6m setback is proposed from the rear boundary, although this is substantially affected by an easement and as such not suited to tree planting. It is considered that the layout of the proposal, incorporating a greater setback from the southern boundary to cater for the existing Blue Gum on the adjoining property, is a more appropriate response to the particular constraints of this site than an alternative design which provides separation between the dwellings, but construction closer to the south boundary. Similarly, the use of large (5.74m and 5.88m) setbacks from the north and south boundaries for lengths of approximately 9m provides greater resident amenity and scope for tree planting than a narrower strip along the full length of a side or rear boundary. STYLE AND FORM OF DEVELOPMENT

Objectors have raised concern with respect to the impact of the proposal upon the character of the surrounding area, and as part of these concerns have been critical of the architectural style of the proposal. However, as detailed in the attached Neighbourhood Character Policy assessment, the proposal incorporates use of roof forms, eaves, and materials which are appropriate to its context. The use of such forms and a smaller upper level footprint, whilst raised as an issue of concern by some objectors, is encouraged by the Policy.

CONCLUSION

It is considered that the proposal for three dwellings at 19 Magnolia Road Ivanhoe meets the objectives of the Banyule Planning Scheme, is acceptable in the neighbourhood context, and will not result in an unacceptable increase in detriment to the surrounding properties. It is recommended that the application be approved.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council having complied with Section 52, 58, 60, 61 and 62 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, resolve to issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit in respect of Application No. P47/2013 for development of the site with three double storey dwellings at 19 Magnolia Road IVANHOE subject to the following conditions:

4.3




Plans (1) Before the development permitted by this permit starts, amended plans to the

satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the readvertised plans submitted to Council on 21 October 2013 but modified to show:

(a) The south facing habitable room windows at the upper level altered to have the lower pane either fixed or top-hung.

(b) Deletion of the eave to the north wall of the Kitchen and Laundry of Dwelling 3 so as to provide adequate daylight to the Master Bedroom window;

(c) An increase in the width of the service courtyard for Dwelling 1 to at least 3m;

(d) Details of the proposed fencing between the frontage setback and the private open space of Dwelling 1;

(e) Modifications necessary to obtain a STORM rating of 100;

(f) The water tanks nominated as having a minimum capacity of 3000L or higher, and to be connected to the toilets and garden. This may result in a relocation of the water tank for Dwellings 2 and 3. A lower tank capacity may be approved if accompanied by evidence that a STORM rating of 100 can be maintained as a result.

(g) The Tree Preservation Fencing and annotations with respect to specific construction measures required for tree protection in accordance with Condition 12 of this permit;

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

(i) Landscaping as required by Condition 2 of this permit;

(j) Engineering plans showing a properly prepared design with computations for the internal drainage and method for of disposal of stormwater from all roofed areas and sealed areas including the use of an On-site Stormwater Detention (OSD) system;

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

(a) Provision of at least one large tree canopy tree (mature height of at least 15m) planted at a semi-advanced state (minimum pot size 40 litre) within the frontage setback area;

(b) Provision of at least one medium-large tree large canopy trees (mature height of at least 10m) planted at a semi-advanced state (minimum pot size 40 litre) within the private open space area of Dwelling 2;

(c) Provision of additional tree and shrub planting throughout the site, including a small tree within the private open space areas of Dwellings 1

4.3




and 3 and adjacent to the internal driveway fence of Dwelling 2;

(d) Landscaping detailed to minimise the visual impact of the front fence to Dwelling 1 from the street;

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

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

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

(h) A drought tolerant planting theme;

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

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

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

General (4) Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority the

development permitted by this permit must not be commenced until the tree protection measures required by Condition 12 are installed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

(5) Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority the proposed

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

Urban Design / External Appearance (6) The walls of the development on the boundary of adjoining properties must be

cleaned and finished in a manner to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

(7) Outdoor lighting must be designed, baffled and located to the satisfaction of the

responsible Authority such that no direct light is emitted outside the boundaries of the subject land.

Car Parking / Access (8) Areas set aside for the parking of vehicles together with the aisles and access

lanes must be properly formed to such levels that they can be utilised in accordance with the endorsed plans and must be drained and provided with an

4.3




all weather seal coat. The areas must be constructed, drained and maintained in a continuously useable condition to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

(9) Areas set aside for the parking and movement of vehicles as shown on the

endorsed plan(s) must be made available for such use and must not be used for any other purpose.

(10) Vehicular access or egress to the subject land from any roadway or service

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

Tree Protection / Landscaping (11) Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority, the

landscaping areas shown on the endorsed plans must used for landscaping and no other purpose and any landscaping must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced.

Tree Preservation Zone (12) Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority, prior to the

commencement of works (including demolition) on the site Tree Preservation Zones must be established around the Eucalyptus globulus located at 17 Magnolia Road. You must contact Council’s Development Planning Arborist on 9457 9808 once the Tree Preservation Fencing is erected so that an inspection of the fencing can be carried out. Once installed and inspected the Tree Preservation Zones must be maintained until the conclusion of works to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, and meet the following requirements:

(a) Extent

Tree Preservation Zones are to be provided to the extent of the TPZ where it occurs within the subject property. The fencing can be realigned and suitable ground protection provided to allow the approved construction therein only to the satisfaction of the project arborist and only when approved by the Responsible Authority.

(b) Weed control

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

(c) Fencing

(i) Vegetation Preservation fences with a minimum height of 1.2 to 1.5

4.3




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

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

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

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

(d) Signage

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

(e) Irrigation

The area must be irrigated during the summer months with 5 litres of clean water for every 3 cm of trunk girth measured at the soil / trunk interface on a monthly basis.

(f) Access to Tree Preservation Zone

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

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

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

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

(g) Ground Protection

Ground protection in the form of rumble boards strapped over mulch or aggregate must be utilised if and when the tree protection zone varied to allow approved construction therein.

(h) Arborist supervision

A suitably qualified arborist must approve and supervise any activity within the calculated TPZ. Any root severance within the TPZ must be undertaken to their satisfaction using a clean sharp and sterilised pruning saw. All and any excavations within the TPZ must be undertaken by hand or by approved non-destructive techniques suitable in the vicinity of trees.

(i) Underground Services

Any underground service installations within the Tree Protection Zone

4.3




must be bored to a depth of at least 600mm.

(j) Decking

Where decking is proposed within the TPZ of any retained tree, any and all excavations for posts must be undertaken by hand under the supervision of the project arborist, and final post locations must be set away from structural roots. Furthermore, the decking must be constructed using the minimum number of piers necessary, and so that gaps between boards are no more or less than 6mm in width.

(k) Driveway Construction

All sections of driveway proposed within the TPZ of tree #1 must be constructed using porous paving materials over a permeable membrane and a large-aggregate crushed rock base unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority.

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

Any underground service installations within the Tree Protection Zone be bored to a depth of at least 0.6 metres;

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

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

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

Time Limits (13) In accordance with section 68 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, this

permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

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

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

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

(a) Before the permit expires, or

(b) Within six months afterwards, or

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

4.3




Permit Notes (1) Expiry of Permit

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

(2) Environmentally Sustainable Design

Consideration should be given to incorporation of the following measures into the design:

Use of LED fittings to any downlights/spotlights;

Use of forestry stewardship certified timbers (FSC);

Recycled or Greenlist aluminium;

The provision of dedicated extraction fans or other means of cross-ventilation to the kitchens;

Use of low VOC paints and adhesives to improve on indoor air quality; and

Use of double glazing to windows.

(3) Building Permit Required

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

(4) Building over Easements

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

(5) Completion of Development

Immediately upon completion of the development permitted by this permit, the owner or developer of the subject land must notify Council’s Development Planning Section that the development is complete and complies with all requirements of the permit. The development will then be inspected to ensure compliance.

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

(6) Street Numbering

Please note that property addresses are allocated by Council. This is usually formalised at the time of the issue of a certified plan, however it is Council’s intention to number the proposed allotments as follows:

Dwelling 1 1/19 Magnolia Road, Ivanhoe Dwelling 2 2/19 Magnolia Road, Ivanhoe

4.3




Dwelling 3 3/19 Magnolia Road, Ivanhoe

(7) Memorandum of Consent for Works

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

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

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

(8) Building Site Code of Practice

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

ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 Advertised plans 51

2 Background information 55

3 Amended plans 67

4 Neighbourhood Character Policy assessment 71

5 Clause 55 Assessment 76

4.4



4.4 NOTICE OF INTENTION TO SELL LAND: 33-35 ELWERS STREET WATSONIA NORTH 1-3 MCKENZIE COURT GREENSBOROUGH 3 SOMMERLEIGH CRESCENT GREEENSBOROUGH

Author: Daniel Kollmorgen - Acting Manager Strategic & Economic Development,

City Development

Ward: Grimshaw, Bakewell, Beale

File: F2013/1091, F2013/1095, F2013/1096

SUMMARY

Three properties have been identified as potentially being surplus to Council’s and community needs:

33-35 Elwers Street Watsonia North

1-3 McKenzie Court Greensborough

3 Sommerleigh Crescent Greensborough. These properties have been investigated and there are no impediments to prevent a possible sale of the properties. It is therefore appropriate to seek community input on Council’s intention to sell the properties in accordance with section 189(2) of the Local Government Act.

BACKGROUND

A review of Council’s property portfolio has identified three parcels of Council-owned land as being potentially surplus to Council’s and the community’s needs namely:

33-35 Elwers Street Watsonia North (Grimshaw Ward)

1-3 McKenzie Court Greensborough (Bakewell Ward)

3 Sommerleigh Crescent Greensborough (Beale Ward) A brief description and summary information of these properties follows: 33-35 Elwers Street Watsonia North The site is part of a multi-parcel property which abuts 68 Macorna Street and the Watsonia North Pre-School. The combined area of the land at 33-35 Elwers Street is 1,077m2, and is in a Residential 1 Zone. Figures 1 and 2 show the location of the site.

4.4


NOTICE OF INTENTION TO SELL LAND: 33-35 ELWERS STREET WATSONIA NORTH 1-3 MCKENZIE COURT GREENSBOROUGH 3 SOMMERLEIGH CRESCENT GREEENSBOROUGH cont’d


Figure 1: 33-35 Elwers Street, Watsonia North and Surrounds

Figure 2: Aerial Photo of 33-35 Elwers Street, Watsonia North

The sites are not required for public open space and have limited existing community use, however informal access from Elwers Street to the Watsonia North Pre-school occurs through the site. Retention of a strip of land to accommodate such informal passage should be considered in any potential sale of the land. Letters identifying the possibility of a sale of land process were sent to immediately abutting property owners and occupiers in late 2013. Interest was received on the possible future purchase of the site.

4.4




1-3 McKenzie Court Greensborough The combined area of the land at 1-3 McKenzie Court is 958m2, and is in a Residential 1 Zone. The site contains a small playground with limited equipment. Figures 3 and 4 show the location of the site.

Figure 3: 1-3 McKenzie Court, Greensborough and Surrounds

Figure 4: Aerial Photo of 1-3 McKenzie Court, Greensborough

4.4




The McKenzie Court site is used as a playground by the community in the immediate vicinity. The site however is constrained and there are sufficient neighbouring parks and playgrounds in the area. The loss of McKenzie Court is in keeping with the Open Space Strategy and the direction of the Play Space Strategy, currently under development. There are sufficient open spaces and play spaces within 500 metres of the site which accords with these strategies and provides an opportunity to provide better sub-regional facilities by directing more resources to key parks in the area. The potential loss of the playground at the McKenzie Court site could be offset by the provision of playground facilities proposed in the Master Plan for nearby Central Park. Consideration should be given to funding components of the Central Park Master Plan out of the proceeds of any potential sale of the land. Letters identifying the possibility of a sale of land process were sent to immediately abutting property owners and occupiers in late 2013. A number of letters were received from residents responding with concern at the possible loss of the park and playground. Indeed some residents were considering requesting an upgrade of facilities immediately prior to receiving the letter identifying the possible sale. There is a view by some residents within the local community for Council to retain this land. Following feedback from the formal Notice of Intention to sell the land Council will then need to consider whether to proceed with the sale. 3 Sommerleigh Crescent Greensborough The site is a typical residential lot of 994m2 in area, located in Beale Ward and is in a

Residential 1 Zone. The site is understood to have little if any existing community use. Figures 5 and 6 show the location of the site.

Figure 5: 3 Somerleigh Crescent, Greensborough and Surrounds

4.4




Figure 6: Aerial Photo of 3 Somerleigh Crescent, Greensborough

The site is heavily treed with a mixture of high, medium and low retention values. To this end it is considered that the site would not be suitable for development per se. As such any potential sale of the sale should consider restricting development through an agreement on title which would be available through s173 of the Planning and Environment Act. Letters identifying the possibility of a sale of land process were sent to immediately abutting property owners and occupiers in late 2013. Concern was received from a neighbour until it was appreciated that a restriction on development was being considered for the property. Notice to Surrounding Properties As discussed above, letters were sent to property owners and occupiers immediately abutting the three properties identifying that Council may be considering the sale of the properties. Residents were informed that a report would likely go to Council to initiate a process seeking formal comment on the possibility of a sale.


The parcels are all included within the Residential 1 Zone (R1Z). The purpose of the Residential 1 Zone is:

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

To provide for residential development at a range of densities with a variety of dwellings to meet the housing needs of all households.

4.4




To encourage residential development that respects the neighbourhood character.

In appropriate locations to allow educational, recreational, religious, community and a limited range of other non-residential uses to serve local community needs.

All three properties have minor drainage and sewer easements along their rear boundaries. This is normal and expected for these residentially zoned parcels of land. These easements do not prevent the sale of the land.

LEGAL CONSIDERATION

STATUTORY PROCEDURES

Local Government Act 1989 Section 189(2) of the Local Government Act 1989 provides that prior to selling land Council must give public notice of its intention to do so and obtain a valuation not more than six months prior to the date of sale. Public Notice Council’s Official Newspaper Policy states “The Heidelberg Leader and/or Diamond Valley Leader, and/or the Heidelberg and Diamond Valley Weekly where appropriate, be appointed as Council’s official newspapers for the purposes of providing public notice except where circumstances may be deemed appropriate the use of The Age and/or the Herald Sun for particular public notices.” For the purposes of giving public notice for this proposal it is noted that the “Heidelberg Leader” and “Diamond Valley Leader” are the newspapers that are generally circulated within the municipality. Subdivision Act 1988/Planning and Environment Act 1987 None of the properties are classified as reserves on the registered plan of subdivision, and as such no further planning or subdivision processes are required to sell the land.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

GUIDELINES FOR THE SALE AND EXCHANGE OF COUNCIL LAND

The Guidelines for the Sale and Exchange of Council Land (the ‘Guidelines’ – adopted by Council in April 2009) provide that the sale of Council-owned land should be conducted through a public process, unless circumstances justify an alternative method of sale. Any sale of Council-owned land should be in the best interest of the community and provide the best result, both financial and non-financial for Council and the community.

4.4




OPEN SPACE STRATEGY

The Banyule City Council Public Open Space Strategy 2007-2012 provides guidance for the disposal of open space. It states that “consideration should be given to disposing of Council land classified as open space where it cannot service the community effectively as viable public open space where one or more of the following reasons exist:

Lack of size;

Inappropriate topography; e.g. steep, swampy etc;

Poor access to the site;

Poor location and orientation from a community safety perspective, eg. lack of natural surveillance, etc;

Low levels of community use;

Unreasonably difficult and/or costly to maintain.”

FUNDING IMPLICATIONS

The three parcels are not deemed to be public open space for the purposes of section 20 of the Subdivision Act 1989 as they are not classed as “reserve” on their respective plans of subdivision. Accordingly Council has flexibility as to how the proceeds from the sale of the land can be used. Notwithstanding this if Council proceeds with the sale of 1-3 McKenzie Court Greensborough it would be appropriate for a proportion of the proceeds of this sale to be used to fund improvements in Central Park, consistent with its master plan.

CONCLUSION

Three properties have been identified as potentially being surplus to Council’s and community needs:



3 Sommerleigh Crescent Greensborough.

These properties have been investigated and there are no impediments to prevent a possible sale of the properties. It is therefore appropriate to seek community input on Council’s intention to sell the properties in accordance with section 189(2) of the Local Government Act.

RECOMMENDATION

1. That Council, being of the opinion that the Council-owned land known as:



3 Sommerleigh Crescent Greensborough

4.4




are surplus to Council’s and the community’s needs, now directs that the statutory procedures be commenced under Section 189(2) and section 223 of the Local Government Act 1989 by obtaining valuations and giving public notice in the “Heidelberg Leader” and the “Diamond Valley Leader” of Council’s intention to sell:

182 Hawdon Street Heidelberg

8 Laura Court Greensborough

28 Curtis Avenue Watsonia.

2. A further report be presented to Council following the completion of the statutory procedures referred to in Item 1, but in any event not less than 28 days after public notice is given, following which, Council will determine whether to sell or retain the Council-owned land referred to in Item 1.

3. That Council officers investigate and undertake all necessary actions to ready

the properties for sale.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

4.5



4.5 NOTICE OF INTENTION TO SELL LAND: 52 HAIG STREET HEIDLEBERG HEIGHTS

Author: Shaun Barber - Manager School Sites Redevelopment Project, City

Development

Ward: Olympia

File: F2013/841

SUMMARY

To approve the commencement of the statutory procedures to sell the Council-owned land known as 52 Haig Street, Heidelberg Heights.



CITY PLAN

This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction to "protect and develop publicly used assets" and “build community capital”. BACKGROUND

The former Haig Street Primary School is one of three former school sites purchased from the Minister for Education on the 11 November. All three school sites were closed by the State Government over two years ago. Banyule City Council negotiated the purchase of the former school sites from the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development in April 2013, with transfer of ownership occurring on 11th November 2013. The Haig Street site includes 17 separately titles land parcels which combined have an area of 3.2ha. The land is mostly rectangular in shape and is bound by Haig Street to the south, Bonar Street to the north and Law Street to the west. Buildings on the site were demolished in December 2013 and the site is now clear of all buildings and structures. The location of the site is shown in Figures 1 and 2 below.

4.5


NOTICE OF INTENTION TO SELL LAND: 52 HAIG STREET HEIDLEBERG HEIGHTS cont’d


Figure 1 – Location Plan

Figure 2 – Aerial View

CURRENT SITUATION

Open Space At its Ordinary Meeting of 16 December 2013, Council resolved to provide 2400m² of open space which included the land previously set aside for the proposed Elliott Street extension. The final design and configuration of the open space is still to be finalised and is proposed to be progressed in mid-2014 after the Expression of Interest/Request for Tender process.

4.5




Expression of Interest/Request for Tender Council commenced its Expressions of Interest (EOI) process which seeks to identify parties which have the qualifications and experience to purchase and develop land on the former Haig Street Primary School site for residential use in November 2013. This EOI is the first part of a two-phase selection process to identify parties that can work closely with Council to implement strategically important development opportunities. The two-phase selection process is outlined below:

Phase 1 - EOI

This EOI is a public invitation to all interested parties to participate in the Haig Street Development Site Project. Respondents must lodge a statement detailing the proposed purchase price, terms, development proposal, approach, capacity, experience and demonstrated leadership in residential development. Council will select a shortlist from the respondents to the EOI following an evaluation. The EOI closed on 19 December 2013.

Phase 2 - RFT

The second part of the two-phase selection process will be to shortlist respondents to the EOI who will then be invited to submit a final tender in response to a land package offer and list of conditions prepared by Council as part of a Request for Tender (“RFT”). It is expected that the RFT process will commence in February.


Rezoning of the Former School Sites (Amendment C96) At its Ordinary Meeting of 3 June 2013, Council considered the need to remove the redundant PUZ Education zoning via a fast track amendment under section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Council resolved to request the Minister for Planning to rezone the former school sites from the redundant Public Use Zone (PUZ) to Residential Growth Zone (RGZ). The rezoning was approved by the Minister for Planning on the 19 December 2013 and was gazetted on 23 January 2014.

The rezoning removes the redundant planning provisions (PUZ-Education) for the primary purpose of ensuring appropriate development of the school sites consistent with their residential context.

The amendment implements the following objectives of planning in Victoria:

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

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

The rezoning of the land will allow future use and development that is consistent with the locational context of each former school site within residential neighbourhoods.

4.5




LEGAL CONSIDERATION

STATUTORY PROCEDURES

Local Government Act 1989 Section 189(2) of the Local Government Act 1989 provides that prior to selling land Council must give public notice of its intention to do so and obtain a valuation not more than six months prior to the date of sale. Public Notice Council’s Official Newspaper Policy states “The Heidelberg Leader and/or Diamond Valley Leader, and/or the Heidelberg and Diamond Valley Weekly where appropriate, be appointed as Council’s official newspapers for the purposes of providing public notice except where circumstances may be deemed appropriate the use of The Age and/or the Herald Sun for particular public notices.” For the purposes of giving public notice for this proposal it is noted that the “Heidelberg Leader” and “Diamond Valley Leader” are the newspapers that are generally circulated within the municipality. Subdivision Act 1988/Planning and Environment Act 1987 None of the properties are classified as reserves on the registered plan of subdivision, and as such no further planning or subdivision processes are required to sell the land.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

GUIDELINES FOR THE SALE AND EXCHANGE OF COUNCIL LAND

The Guidelines for the Sale and Exchange of Council Land (the ‘Guidelines’ – adopted by Council in April 2009) provide that the sale of Council-owned land should be conducted through a public process, unless circumstances justify an alternative method of sale. Any sale of Council-owned land should be in the best interest of the community and provide the best result, both financial and non-financial for Council and the community. The EOI and RFT process being pursued is consistent with these guidelines.

FUNDING IMPLICATIONS

The subject site was purchased with GST being calculated under the margin scheme. The Australian Tax Office will allow subsequent application of the margin scheme and therefore Council has the ability to apply the margin scheme when selling the land. Any contracts of sale should make provision for the margin scheme with a GST inclusive sale price.

4.5




CONCLUSION

The property at 52 Haig Street, Heidelberg Heights has been identified as a strategically important development site. The property has been investigated and there are no impediments to prevent a possible sale of the property. It is therefore appropriate to seek community input on Council’s intention to sell the property in accordance with section 189(2) of the Local Government Act.

RECOMMENDATION

That: 1. Council directs that the statutory procedures be commenced under Section

189(2) and section 223 of the Local Government Act 1989 by obtaining valuations and giving public notice in the “Heidelberg Leader” and the “Diamond Valley Leader” of Council’s intention to sell the land known as:

52 Haig Street, Heidelberg Heights.

2. Council confirms its commitment to providing 2400m² of open space in any future development at the site by utilising land previously set aside for the proposed Elliott Street extension.

3. A further report be presented to Council following the completion of the statutory procedures referred to in Item 1, but in any event not less than 28 days after public notice is given, following which, Council will determine whether to sell or retain the Council-owned land referred to in Item 1.

4. Council officers investigate and undertake all necessary actions to ready the

land for sale.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

6.1

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely


6.1 ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS Author: Emily Outlaw - Governance Officer, City Development

File: BS02/015/002

SUMMARY

Under the Local Government Act 1989 an Assembly of Councillors is defined as: A meeting of an advisory committee of the Council, if at least one Councillor is present or; A planned or scheduled meeting of at least half of the Councillors and one member of Council staff which considers matters that are intended or likely to be- a) the subject of a decision of the Council or; b) subject to the exercise of a function, duty or power of the Council that has been delegated to a person or committee. In accordance with Section 80A of the Local Government Act 1989 Council is required to report as soon as possible to an Ordinary Meeting of Council a record of any assemblies of Councillors held. Below is the latest listing of notified assemblies of Councillors held at Banyule City Council. RECORD OF ASSEMBLIES

1 Date of Assembly: 16 December 2013

Type of Meeting: Councillor Briefing

Matters Considered: Items on the Council Agenda for the Ordinary Meeting of 16 December 2013 (excluding confidential items)

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

Staff Present: Simon McMillan, Chief Executive Officer Allison Beckwith, Director – Community Programs Geoff Glynn, Director – Assets & City Services Keith Yeo, Director – Corporate Services Gina Burden, Manager – Governance, Information and Laws Vivien Ferlaino, Governance & Information Co-Ordinator Daniel Kollmorgen, Acting Manager – Strategic & Economic Development Michael Hutchison, Projects Co-Ordinator – City Development Shaun Barber, School Sites Redevelopment Project - Manager Joel Elbourne, Acting Manager –Development Services Andy Wilson, Team Leader – Development Planning Kevin Ayen, Transport Team Leader –Engineering Services

Others Present: Nil

6.1

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS cont’d


Conflict of Interest: Cr Rick Garotti declared a conflict of interest in item 8.3 and left the room at 7.30 before the item was discussed.

2 Date of Assembly: 16 December 2013

Type of Meeting: Strategic Property Group

Matters Considered: Confidential Matters – Property and Proposed Developments

Councillors Present: Steven Briffa Mark Di Pasquale Craig Langdon Wayne Phillips

Staff Present: Scott Walker, Director – City Development Daniel Kollmorgen, Acting Manager – Strategic & Economic Development Michael Hutchison, Projects Co-Ordinator – City Development

Others Present: Nil

Conflict of Interest: Nil

RECOMMENDATION

That the Assembly of Councillors report be received.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

7.1

Sealing of Documents


7.1 SEALING OF DOCUMENTS Author: Brett Jose - Sports & Community Liaison Officer, Community Programs

Ward: Ibbott Ward

File: BS38/010/015

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

.

PARTY\PARTIES: Banyule City Council, Commonwealth Bank and Macleod Tennis Club Inc.

OFFICER: Brett Jose FILE NUMBER: BS38/010/015 DOCUMENT: Loan Guarantee ADDRESS: 27 Aberdeen Road, Macleod 3085 WARD: IBBOTT WARD BRIEF EXPLANATION: The Macleod Tennis Club Inc. has applied to Council

to act as a loan guarantor for a five-year loan of $25,000 from the Commonwealth Bank of Australia. The funds will be used by the Club to fund their contribution towards the redevelopment of four tennis courts at the Macleod Tennis Club. The Club has submitted prior year financial results for 2011, 2012 and 2013 in support of their application. An analysis of this data by Council’s Finance Department reveals that the Club does have the ability to repay a loan of this size over a five year period. The loan terms offered to the Club by the Commonwealth Bank of Australia are considered favourable. The Loan Guarantee between Council, the Club and The Commonwealth Bank of Australia requires Council's approval by affixing of the Council Seal.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Common Seal of the Banyule City Council be affixed to the following document: 1. The Loan Guarantee between Banyule City Council, Macleod Tennis Club Inc.

and the Commonwealth Bank of Australia for $25,000 for the redevelopment of the four tennis courts.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

8.1

Notice of Motion


8.1 ACCESSIBILITY AND AMENITY OF WATSONIA STATION FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES

Author: Cr Rick Garotti

Ward: Grimshaw

File: FF2013/947

TAKE NOTICE that it is my intention to move:

"That Council:

1. Write to the Victorian Transport Minister to seek information on the accessibility and amenity of Watsonia Station for people with disabilities including its compliance with State and Federal Government disability access legislation;

2. Seek advice on any plans the Victorian Government has to improve the accessibility and amenity of the station for disabled people, the elderly and those with mobility problems;

3. Encourage the Victorian Government to consider improvements to the station that could significantly enhance access and usage of the Station for all residents such as the installation of a lift; and

4. Provide a copy of this correspondence to all local State Members of Parliament and seek their feedback on this issue."

Explanation

Residents have raised concerns about the accessibility and amenity of the Watsonia Station for people with disabilities. Residents advise that the current ramps that provide access to the train platforms are quite steep and difficult for those in wheel chairs to use to the extent that some residents are unable to use this station even though it is their nearest. The steep ramps also create challenges for the elderly, and those with heart, breathing and mobility problems. Residents have suggested that a potential solution would be the installation of a lift to enable easy and unencumbered access and usage of station for all people. Advice is sought from the Victorian Government on the current degree of compliance of Watsonia Station with the State and Federal Government disability access legislation as well as any plans the Government has to improve the accessibility and amenity of the station for disabled people. Based on the advice received, Council will then be better informed on how to best advocate on behalf of residents on this issue.

CR RICK GAROTTI Grimshaw Ward

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

8.2

Notice of Motion


8.2 EMERGENCY MARKERS - DAREBIN CREEK TRAIL

Author: Cr Rick Garotti

Ward: Grimshaw

File: F2013/947


“That Council: 1. Refer funding for consideration in the 2014/15 Budget for the cost of installing

emergency markers advocated by the State Emergency Services Telecommunication Authority (ESTA) along its section of the Darebin Creek Trail.

2. Write to the Darebin and Whittlesea City Councils and the Darebin Creek Management Committee requesting that they support the introduction of numbered emergency makers along their respective sections of the Darebin Creek Trail.

3. Write to the Yarra City Council requesting that it support the introduction of numbered emergency makers along the proposed section of the Darebin Creek Trail which, once completed, will fall within its boundaries.”

Explanation

Emergency Services Telecommunications Authority (ESTA) sanctioned numbered emergency markers are a potentially important part of the State emergency process. ESTA is the organisation which operates the 000 emergency communications system.

Emergency services vehicles can only respond to emergency calls once they have been able to establish the exact location of an incident. Normally the 000 staff do this by getting callers to identify the nearest street intersection to where an incident has occurred. Numbered emergency markers can play a vital role in isolated locations away from the normal street network, such as along off-road trails.

ESTA records the exact location of all numbered emergency markers and can therefore direct emergency vehicles to an incident if an emergency marker number is quoted.

Council installed numbered emergency markers along the Plenty River Trail several years ago.

The cost of installing numbered emergency markers along Banyule’s existing sections, as well as the proposed new section, of the Darebin Creek Trail is estimated to be $3,000.


ATTACHMENTS

Nil

8.3

Notice of Motion


8.3 AUSTRALIAN MADE CAMPAIGN Author: Cr Rick Garotti

File: F2014/02


“That Council: 1. Explores the opportunity to become a supporter of the Australian Made

Australian Grown (AMAG) campaign. 2. Considers a future report about the anticipated benefits of membership and

implications for Council’s resource allocation for economic development activity. 3. Considers any resource implications of becoming an AMAG supporter in the

2014/15 budget process.”

Explanation The Australian Made, Australian Grown (AMAG) campaign is a national not for profit organisation that seeks to promote Australian products and produce. Its associated green and gold logo is synonymous with Australian made goods. Council membership of the AMAG campaign primarily has marketing and PR benefits, including:

Demonstrating a commitment to local manufacturers, processors and producers.

Encouraging business investment in the municipality

Use of the AMAG logo The annual membership fee has recently been reduced with the intention of building stronger partnerships between AMAG and the local government sector. However, before making any commitment, it is appropriate for Council to consider the Banyule context and implications for our operations: The preparation of a report that includes consideration of the issues will provide Council with a firm foundation upon which to make a decision.


ATTACHMENTS

Nil

8.4

Notice of Motion


8.4 LIVE STREAMING OF COUNCIL MEETINGS Author: Cr Jenny Mulholland

Ward: Griffin

File: DF2013/947


“That a report be presented to Council in regards to providing live streaming of Council meetings. The report to include:

1. Cost to provide live streaming through the Banyule website.

2. Other councils currently providing this service and associated policies. 3. Any other issues relating to providing this service.”

Explanation Technology is available to livestream Council meetings. This has the potential to expand the opportunity of those unable to attend meetings in person to view the meeting in real-time. State Parliament currently livestream and as I understand it a number of Councils use live streaming technology. As the level of government closest to the people this may provide an opportunity for the community to view Council meetings and view local democracy in action.

CR JENNY MULHOLLAND Griffin Ward

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

8.5

Notice of Motion


8.5 HALF MASTING OF FLAG AT THE MUNICIPAL OFFICES, TOWN HALL IVANHOE

Author: Cr Jenny Mulholland

Ward: Griffin

File: FF2013/947


“That Council officers provide a report on the half-masting of the Town Hall flag as a tribute following death of former Councillor (Banyule or its predecessors), local State or Federal Member or prominent citizens on day of their funeral.”

Explanation Currently there is no provision in the flag code for the half-masting of a flag as a tribute for former local community members that have served the City. I feel that as a tribute to all Councillors, local State and Federal members of parliament and prominent citizens that have served this City (and its predecessors) should be honoured by the half-masting of a flag at the Town Hall on the day of their funeral.

CR JENNY MULHOLLAND Griffin Ward

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

ATTACHMENTS

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 3 FEBRUARY 2014 Page 49

4.1 Plenty Road Precinct Development Opportunities

Attachment 1 Outline for GRZ1 and GRZ2 Schedules ........................................... 50

4.3 Multi Unit Development at 19 Magnolia Road, Ivanhoe

Attachment 1 Advertised plans .............................................................................. 51

Attachment 2 Background information ................................................................... 55

Attachment 3 Amended plans ............................................................................... 67

Attachment 4 Neighbourhood Character Policy assessment ................................. 71

Attachment 5 Clause 55 Assessment .................................................................... 76

Att

ach

me

nt

1

4.1

Item: 4.1 Attachment 1: Outline for GRZ1 and GRZ2 Schedules


C100 Planning Scheme Amendment

Outline of Schedules to the proposed General Residential Zone

SCHEDULES FOR PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL ZONES IN BUNDOORA

General Residential Zone Schedule 1

(GRZ 1)

INCLUDES THE PLENTY ROAD

PRECINCT

General Residential Zone Schedule 2

(GRZ 2)

RESCODE VARIATIONS

Landscape 1 large tree in front setback

Neighbourhood Character tree planting ratio, including

1 large tree in the front garden

Site coverage No 40%

Building Height No No

OTHER VARIATIONS

Dwellings per lot N/A N/A Minimum Subdivision Area N/A N/A

PERMIT TRIGGERS

Single dwelling & extensions on 300-500sqm lot

N/A Yes

Construction or extension of one dwelling on a lot in the NRZ

N/A N/A

Construction or extension of a front fence in the NRZ

N/A N/A

DECISION GUIDELINES

Refer to the Residential Neighbourhood Character Policy

Yes Yes

Refer to the Non Residential Uses and Development in the Residential Zones Policy

Yes Yes

Landscaping guidance

Yes Yes

Site coverage guidance

No Yes

DDO5 guidance for residential interfaces

N/A N/A

Subdivision guidance

N/A N/A

Guidance on number of dwellings

N/A N/A

Guidance for Strategic Redevelopment Sites

Yes Yes

APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS

Landscape Concept Plan Yes Yes

Att

ach

men

t 1

4.3

Item: 4.3 Attachment 1: Advertised plans


Att

ach

men

t 1

4.3



Att

ach

men

t 1

4.3



Att

ach

men

t 1

4.3



Att

ach

men

t 2

4.3

Item: 4.3 Attachment 2: Background information


BACKGROUND FOR P47/2013 – 19 MAGNOLIA ROAD, IVANHOE

STATE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

Urban Design

Clause 15 states that planning should achieve high quality urban design and architecture that:

Contributes positively to local urban character and sense of place.

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

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

Promotes attractiveness of towns and cities within broader strategic contexts.

Minimises detrimental impact on neighbouring properties. Design for Safety

The stated objective of Clause 15.01-4 is:

To improve community safety and encourage neighbourhood design that makes people feel safe

Cultural Identity and Neighbourhood Character

The stated objective of Clause 15.01-5 is:

To recognise and protect cultural identity, neighbourhood character and sense of place.

Sustainable Development

Clause 15.02-1 relates to energy and resource efficiency with the objective:

To encourage land use and development that is consistent with the efficient use of energy and the minimisation of greenhouse gas emissions.

Residential Development

Clause 16.01 sets out objectives in relation to integrated housing, location of residential development, strategic redevelopment sites, housing diversity and housing affordability. Relevant objectives include:

To promote a housing market that meets community needs.

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

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

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

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

Att

ach

men

t 2

4.3



LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

Municipal Strategic Statement

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

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

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

The site is located within an area identified for incremental change in Council’s Housing Framework. These areas are typically located further away from Activity Centres and the Principal Public Transport Network, where there is less convenient pedestrian access. They will provide for well-designed single dwellings and medium density dwellings. As an exception, there will be limited opportunities for higher density housing at well located, large strategic redevelopment sites only. The site is not considered to be a Strategic Redevelopment Site in this context. Development must make a positive contribution to the desired future neighbourhood character, including opportunities for tree protection and planting. Clause 22.02 Residential Neighbourhood Character Policy

Clause 22.02 of the Banyule Planning Scheme outlines Council’s Neighbourhood Character Policy. It is Policy with respect to the Garden Suburban GS3 area, that the character of the precinct be retained and enhanced by, amongst other things:

Designing new dwellings and extensions in an architectural style and in materials sympathetic with existing dwellings in the street.

Encouraging detailed design variation between dwellings to prevent mirror image street presentations.

Maintaining the overall one or two storey scale of the dwellings outside the accessible areas.

Ensuring the scale of new dwellings in the accessible areas is sympathetic to the existing dwellings on neighbouring properties and the surrounding precinct.

Encouraging new dwellings to follow the natural topography of the land.

Removing environmental weeds where appropriate, retaining existing canopy trees and encouraging further planting of a mix of native and exotic trees that complement the character of the precinct.

Positioning new buildings and appurtenances in keeping with the front setbacks of dwellings along the street and with sufficient space for tree planting.

Keeping front fencing low and permeable with landscaped front gardens.

Att

ach

men

t 2

4.3



Designing site layouts (including basements) with spacing around dwellings that allows for the planting and future growth of trees to maturity.

Protecting and enhancing spines of trees along neighbouring rear yards.

Landscaping the front setback to improve the garden setting and discourage car parking in front of dwellings.

Designing developments with only one single width crossover and a driveway that is softened with curves and vegetation.

Ensuring basement ramps, carports, garages and tennis courts do not dominate the streetscape.

Protecting and enhancing the scenic and environmental qualities of treed ridgelines.

Protecting and enhancing avenues of street trees, and the views of trees on private property from the street.

Obscuring household services from street view.

CURRENT AMENDMENTS

C73 Proposed Amendment C73 seeks to introduce Local Policy Clause 22.07 – Environmentally Efficient Design into the Banyule Planning Scheme. This policy applies to all residential and commercial development in the City of Banyule. The amendment commenced exhibition on 28 February 2013 and finished on 29 April 2013. An Advisory Committee and Panel will considered the amendment in late November 2013. C80 Proposed Amendment C80 seeks to make the interim Schedule 5 to the Vegetation Overlay (VPO5) a permanent part of the Banyule Planning Scheme. It affects residential land on the western side of the municipality and triggers a planning permit for the lopping or removal of Substantial Trees. A Panel has considered the proposal following public exhibition and submissions, and issued its report to Council on 12 November 2013. Council has adopted the Amendment C80 and requested that the Minister approve Amendment C80 and complete the process of gazetting Amendment C80 before the temporary Schedule 5 to the Vegetation Protection Overlay expires on 31 May 2014. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

Formal notification of the application was given by means of erecting a sign on the site and posting notices to the owners and occupiers of surrounding properties. A total of 16 objections have been received. Grounds of objection are summarised as follows: PRECEDENT

VCAT laid out guidance for the character of the street with respect to proposals at 23 and 28 Magnolia Road a number of years ago, and the proposal is contrary to that guidance.

Double storey unit construction will set a negative precedent for the street;

There are no existing units on the block bounded by Magnolia Road, Lantana Street and Melcombe Road;

Will set a precedent for other development in the area;

Att

ach

men

t 2

4.3



Response: Tribunal decisions with respect to Magnolia Road date from 2002 and 2005, and as such pre-date the current Neighbourhood Character Policy, however there are strong similarities between the policy and the former Neighbourhood Character Strategy. They have limited applicability to the current application, as follows: Appeal 2001/050838 (25 Magnolia Road)

The Tribunal upheld Council’s refusal of an application for the construction of a double storey dwelling to the rear of the existing dwelling. In doing so, the Tribunal outlined

The existing buildings in the area are generally mixed brick and weatherboard and single storeyed. The area does not have two storeyed dwellings with rendered upper storeys only 4.3m off the rear boundary in characteristically garden style backyards. Thee is generally a visual openness which the proposal would inhibit.

Appeal P3162/2004 (28 Magnolia Road)

The Tribunal again upheld Council’s refusal of an application, in this case for the construction of two double storey dwellings side by side on the block. The Tribunal indicated that whilst the site was suited to some form of double storey development, it had concerns with respect to:

The size of the dwellings proposed (four bedrooms, study and three living areas each),

The internal amenity of the dwellings, and that

The dwellings largely being set 1m off the side boundaries did not afford sufficient space for landscaping alongside the dwellings

Application to the current proposal

It is considered that there are significant differences between the proposed development and that refused at 28 Magnolia Road, and that the Tribunal’s concerns with respect to that application do not provide guidance for determining the current application. The layout proposed for 25 Magnolia Road more closely aligns with the current application, however. Relevant comment is as follows:

Since the Tribunal’s decision in relation to that application a large garage and outbuilding housing an indoor swimming pool has been constructed at 21 Magnolia Road. This structure is single storey and sited on the southern boundary of that property for a length of 17m, is located 2m from its western boundary and 1.9m from its northern boundary.

The previous proposal sought approval for a 2.4m setback at the lower level and a minimum setback of 4.3m at the upper level. This compares with 2.6m and 5.0m respectively for the current proposal. Importantly, however, Dwelling 3 has been designed to present its longer façade to the north and south, meaning that the dwelling appears more discrete from the west, with the upper level being 4.4m in width when viewed from this direction.

The current proposal incorporates provision for landscaping through the centre of the site, which the size of the existing dwelling at No. 25 prevented.

NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER AND DESIGN

The size and height of the buildings is out of character with the streetscape;

The mixture of materials proposed does not blend with the character of the neighbourhood, where double storey dwellings are largely constructed of a single material, whether it be brick or weatherboard;

Att

ach

men

t 2

4.3



The slate/grey colour of the buildings will make them stand out rather than blend with the street;

The front fence should be low with a vegetated front garden to fit with other properties in the street;

Large trees and front gardens should be provided to be consistent with the character of the street;

The units are very bulky when viewed from all aspects;

Double storey development should be discouraged in this area;

A single storey unit behind the existing house would be a more appropriate development of this block;

The site is better suited to two or three single storey homes of an appropriate size;

The site is not suited to medium density housing as it is not close to public transport, shops or other community facilities;

The proposed private open spaces are close to the minimum required by the Good Design Guide and do not cater for normal family life, particularly given the lack of parks nearby;

The proposal will have a detrimental impact on the adjacent heritage precinct;

The two-tier or ‘wedding cake’ design is at odds with other dwellings in the street;

The building style is bland and does not complement the architecture of properties in the vicinity;

The applicant should be instructed to develop a proposal that “acknowledges and respects the 1930s character of the precinct, that is environmentally sound and sustainable” and avoids shadowing and overlooking to the neighbouring properties;

It is difficult to assess the suitability of the proposed colour scheme without knowing the proposed brick, weatherboard and render colours;

The driveway area doesn’t contain enough space for planting to screen the fence or the buildings from the neighbours;

If this proposal creates a precedent all canopy trees and vegetation would be removed from the neighbourhood over time and the desirable landscape character would be lost;

The proposal is not consistent with the height of adjoining roofs;

Response: Refer to detailed Neighbourhood Character Policy and Clause 55 assessments. In addition it is noted that whilst the site may also be suited to alternative forms of development, including proposals which incorporate retention of the existing dwelling, Council must consider the proposal placed before it.

LANDSCAPING

The proposal may impact upon the existing gum tree at 17 Magnolia Road, causing it to drop branches on nearby properties;

The existing vegetation on the site and neighbouring properties fosters local bird life, and the proposal replaces the existing vegetation on the site with minor planting;

There are no firm proposals to plant trees on the site, and the only space available for such planting is in the front setback;

Two healthy large trees have recently been removed from the site;

Insufficient space for landscaping / landscaping on the site is effectively non-existent;

Att

ach

men

t 2

4.3



The proposed three bedroom layouts anticipate occupation by families, but there is insufficient private open space to cater for them;

The proposal exploits a garden suburb without contributing to it;

Nearly all of the open space in the development is driveway;

Response: Refer to detailed Neighbourhood Character Policy and Clause 55 assessments. In addition, it is noted that:

Any permit issued for the proposal would properly include a condition requiring the submission of detailed landscape plans for approval by Council.

Previous tree removal from the site has been referred to Council’s Development Planning Arborist for investigation and enforcement action if required.

AMENITY

Loss of privacy and peaceful lifestyle at 17 Magnolia Road;

Potential damage to vegetation on 17 Magnolia Road;

Overlooking of properties in Melcombe Road, which are affected by a Heritage Overlay;

No information is provided on the type of screening which is to be provided to restrict overlooking and what it will look like;

Loss of natural light to 17 Magnolia Road (and in particular the rear yard);

Loss of sunlight to 17 Magnolia Road, particularly in the autumn and winter;

Loss of morning winter sun to 26 Melcombe Road;

Increase in reflected heat to 17 Magnolia Road from concrete/paving in summer;

Overshadowing of 30 Melcombe Road in the autumn and winter;

Destruction of a boundary wall on the north side of 17 Magnolia Road which currently provides that property with privacy and protection;

Loss of privacy to 17 Magnolia Road and 26, 30 and 32 Melcombe Road;

The slope of the land exacerbates overlooking issues to 32 Melcombe Road;

The front porch lights for Units 2 and 3 will shine into 17 Magnolia Road;

Headlights of vehicles entering the site will shine into the bedroom and living rooms of 17 Magnolia Road;

Lights will shine into the house at 30 Melcombe Road;

The existing external light at No.19 dazzles the occupants of 30 Melcombe Road. The proposed three dwellings will exacerbate this issue;

Loss of skyline view from 30 Melcombe Road;

Health impacts to 30 Melcombe Road due to increased vehicular pollution;

The slope of the land exacerbates the height of the proposal above 30 Melcombe Road;

The back yard of 30 Melcombe Road is already largely shaded by 21 Magnolia Road in the winter, and the proposal will exacerbate this;

Neighbours already experience noise from the swimming pool the applicants own on 21 Magnolia Road;

Att

ach

men

t 2

4.3



Reduced air circulation to 30 Melcombe Road;

Increased risk of damage to 30 Melcombe Road due to water damage and falling gum tree branches;

Due to existing restrictions on air flow, a resident of 30 Melcombe Road suffers from asthma attacks when the outdoor kitchen next to that property it utilised. Building another baffle to air flow on the back fence will exacerbate this problem.

The design will funnel car exhaust down the driveway and into 30 Melcombe Road;

The proposed double garages will result in a significant increase in noise in the area;

Response: Refer to detailed Clause 55 assessment. In addition:

Any permit issued should include conditions with respect to protection of the Blue Gum at 17 Magnolia Road, so as to ensure its retention and ongoing health and viability.

Whilst a number of objectors expressed concern with respect to a loss of natural light during the winter months, the Planning scheme requires Council to have regard to any potential increase in shade at the equinox. As detailed in the attached Clause 55 assessment, the setback of the dwellings, and in particular the upper levels, from the property boundaries ensures that the neighbouring properties will not experience any significant increase in shade at the equinox as a result of the proposal.

Whilst it is a matter which is ordinarily resolved between neighbours, any permit issued could contain a condition requiring external lighting to be baffled to ensure that it does not shine directly into the neighbouring properties. Any vehicle headlights would be predominantly focused down the site, and are unlikely to result in an unacceptable impact upon neighbouring properties given the layout of the site and associated fencing.

The proposal will alter, but not remove, the outlook from 30 Melcombe Road.

The proposal is unlikely to result in any significant reflected heat or vehicular pollution to the neighbouring properties.

The transfer of outdoor cooking odours between one property and another is common in suburban areas, and whilst the neighbour’s health concerns are acknowledged, it is not considered that the proposal would result in a loss of ‘fresh’ air to the rear yard of No. 30.

TRAFFIC AND PARKING

Increase in noise and pollution due to increase in cars;

Additional traffic and parking in a street where this is already an issue, with resultant health and safety issues;

Entry and exit from Magnolia Road into Upper Heidelberg Road is already extremely difficult and there are frequent accidents;

Additional congestion at nearby intersections with resultant increased possibility of accident and injury;

Car parking is already an issue in the street and parking restrictions do not appear to be enforced;

No visitor parking is proposed;

Traffic and parking problems will be increased with the proposal and are already at their limit;

Visitors, service vehicles and garbage trucks already have difficulty in the street;

Att

ach

men

t 2

4.3



When cars are parked in the street other cars are forced onto the wrong side of the road to pass them;

Potential for pedestrian/vehicular conflict;

The street experiences significant on-street parking demand by Austin and Repatriation Hospital staff during the day where no time restrictions are in place;

Speeding cars cause residents safety concerns;

The proposal is likely to result in overflow resident parking in the street, as garages are often used for storage, and residents may have more than two cars;

Response:

Whilst the proposal will result in a slight increase in traffic and associated impacts in Magnolia Road and Ivanhoe more broadly, this increase will be minimal in extent and is complementary to policies which seek to make greater use of existing infrastructure within established areas.

It is anticipated that residents may have to wait in order to turn right into Magnolia Road from Upper Heidelberg Road, or to turn from Magnolia Road into Upper Heidelberg Road (again, particularly when turning right). However an additional two dwellings within the street is not considered to be so significant as to warrant refusal of the application on traffic grounds.

The proposal meets the requirements of Clause 52.06 of the Planning Scheme with respect to the number of on-site parking spaces provided. There is no requirement for the provision of visitor parking for developments of less than five dwellings. It is anticipated that visitor parking would be accommodated on street. Inspection of the site, as well as assessment of periodic aerial photographs, have indicated that this is not likely to be problematic.

Whilst the proposal would result in an increase in vehicles in the street and vehicles entering and exiting the site, the proposal has been designed to allow vehicles to enter and exit the site in a forwards manner, which improves pedestrian safety as well as convenience for motorists. As such, and given the low number of vehicles involved, it is considered that the proposal is unlikely to result in a significant potential for pedestrian-vehicle conflict or injury.

STORMWATER AND FLOODING

Increase in stormwater runoff;

Flooding is already a problem in abutting and nearby properties in Melcombe Road;

The property at 30 Melcombe Road is constantly wet due to runoff from 19 Magnolia Road, and this has resulted in the growth of mould under the house, moss on the patio and damage to the fence and brickwork. Alterations to 19 Magnolia Road, and in particular increasing paving, could worsen this issue;

Response:

Council’s Development Engineers have advised that, if constructed, the proposal would need to incorporate provision for the on-site detention of stormwater. This will assist in stormwater management from the site, particularly during periods of heavy rain.

It is unclear why, given the gentle slope of the land and the current levels of paving, the property at 30 Melcombe Road would be constantly wet due to runoff from 19 Magnolia Road. However, appropriate grading and drainage of the land in association with redevelopment of the property should reduce, rather than increase, any potential runoff to the neighbouring property.

SERVICES

Att

ach

men

t 2

4.3



The application does not include a waste management plan;

No space is provided for the storage of the nine rubbish bins;

The proposal will result in four additional bins being placed on the street each week, and the street is already crowded in this respect;

Where will any air conditioners be placed, and what will their impact be on the streetscape?

Response:

It is anticipated that the dwellings would be provided with standard Council residential waste collection, and as such a waste management plan is not required. There is sufficient space on the nature strip to site six bins on collection day.

Bin storage would appropriately occur either within the garages (which are of sufficient width in the case of Dwellings 1 and 2) or in the yard areas.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY

The proposal provides western, rather than northern, orientation to each of the dwellings;

The upstairs bedrooms will be overly hot in summer, resulting in a need for air conditioning and the resultant noise and pollution;

The proposal does not appear to “provide for green management of the internal or external environment” – solar energy, double glazing, stormwater capture etc. are not indicated.

Additional paving will add to the urban heat sink effect and exacerbate global warming as experienced by surrounding residents;

Double storey houses use more energy than single storey houses with wide verandahs and shade trees;

Response:

The application has been submitted with some information with respect to energy rating and stormwater management, however the majority of the construction-type information (such as double glazing) is generally finalised at the time of preparation of plans for a building permit. Solar panels and solar hot water may be provided, if desired at construction or by future owners.

Whilst extensive areas of paving can result in higher localised temperatures than areas of soft landscaping, the proposal incorporates space for tree planting to soften the development and provide shade.

Contrary to the objectors’ views, double storey houses, particularly those which minimise external surface area-to-volume ratio, are often more energy efficient than single storey houses. Broad verandahs can also be a disadvantage from an energy usage point of view in the Melbourne climate where heating. rather than cooling, is required for the majority of the year.

OTHER

Overdevelopment;

The applicant lives at 21 Magnolia Road and has a history of disregarding the interests and rights of others as demonstrated by the construction and use of the swimming pool complex at 21 Magnolia Road;

Att

ach

men

t 2

4.3



The proposal has been designed to have no impact upon the applicant’s property at 21 Magnolia Road;

The applicant has led objection to development 23 Magnolia Road, but is willing to impose greater impact upon neighbours himself;

The existing house is in sound condition, is part of a row of five uninterrupted original clinker brick houses in the street, and should be retained;

The proposal as shown on the 1:100 plan appears vague, particularly in relation to the impact on neighbouring vegetation;

The rear fence is 1.5m high, not 1.8m as shown on the plans;

Use of shadow diagrams for spring are misleading, as they do not show the greater amount of shading that occurs in the winter;

"I am glad that our proposed development many years back didn't get approval and now appreciate this neighbourhood”

Loss of property value;

Houses on this site should be designed for use by seniors as a priority given the area’s proximity to medical facilities;

Dwellings over one storey should be provided with lifts;

The application should be about improvement of the environment rather than exploiting it;

Construction of double storey houses with no downstairs bedrooms ignores the demographics of the area and the need to provide housing for older residents;

Response:

Any neighbourhood disagreements between parties with respect to previous construction nearby, use of premises for residential purposes and perceptions of integrity are not relevant to consideration of the current application.

As a 1.8m rear boundary fence is shown it would be the responsibility of the applicant to upgrade or replace the existing fence if it is currently 1.5m in height.

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

It is not considered necessary to require lifts to the dwellings. REFERRAL COMMENTS

ENGINEERING SERVICES

Flooding Flooding Unlikely

Point of Discharge

To Council drain within the rear easement of the property in the north west corner with on-site detention required. Connection to be via a new junction pit.

Clause 52.06: No. of spaces

The number of spaces provided is satisfactory. In accordance with Banyule City Council’s Activity Centre Car Parking Strategy, any new multi unit residential development will NOT be entitled to participate in a residential parking permit scheme.

Clause 52.06: Design

Design standard 1 – Accessways The accessway dimensions are satisfactory. Porous area in the driveway is not acceptable as the entire driveway must be sealed.

http://www.banyule.vic.gov.au/Assets/Files/Michelle%20Banyule%20Activity%20Centre%20Car%20Parking%20Strategy.pdf

http://www.banyule.vic.gov.au/Assets/Files/Michelle%20Banyule%20Activity%20Centre%20Car%20Parking%20Strategy.pdf

Att

ach

men

t 2

4.3



In accordance with AS 2890.1 Clause 3.2.4, all structures (including letterboxes, meter boxes, fences and retaining walls) located within the 2m x 2.5m splayed area adjacent to the driveway entrance shall be constructed to a maximum height of 900mm, or relocated clear of the splayed area, to ensure adequate sight distance to pedestrians. The landscaping must also be reduced in height when located within this area. Design standard 2 – Car parking spaces The car parking spaces are satisfactory in most part. However, vehicles entering garage 1 cannot do so when another vehicle is already parked in the west space. In addition, vehicles exiting garage 2 cannot do so without several manourvours due to having to reverse into the landscaping along the southern boundary. Design standard 3: Gradients The gradients are satisfactory. Design standard 4: Mechanical parking n/a Design standard 5: Urban design n/a Design standard 6: Safety Internal lighting shall be provided in accordance with the Banyule Planning Scheme Clause 52.06-8 and AS 1158. Low height or bollard type lighting should be provided along the accessways, at internal intersections, turnaround facilities and where pedestrian travel paths may be unclear. Design standard 7: Landscaping n/a

Vehicle Crossings

New (or altered) crossings to comply with Council’s standards and specifications” The existing crossing to be reinstated with kerb and channel, footpath and nature strip to Council's satisfaction

Easements According to Council records there is a 1.83m along the West boundary of the site.

Standard Permit Conditions

1.1 (c) (i), 6.1, 6.3, 6.9

ARBORIST

Council’s Development Planning Arborist has advised that the proposed 8% encroachment into the Tree Protection Zone of the adjoining Blue Gum is acceptable subject to permit conditions in relation to the manner of construction beneath the tree. ESD CONSULTANT

Matters requiring clarification:

Att

ach

men

t 2

4.3



The building envelope heating score appears too high. Provide a FirstRate assessment for Units 1 and 2

A STORM assessment of 100 should be achieved. Attempt to treat the paved areas using permeable paving or consider the installation of a raingarden.

To be shown on plans:

Rainwater tanks need to be shown on the plans including sizing. The connection to toilets is to be notated on plans

All ESD features to be notated on the plans

Waste spaces to be shown on plan

Secure storage spaces for bicycles to be shown on the plan Suggested improvements:

Consider using LED spotlights

Consider using forestry stewardship certified timbers (FSC)

Consider using recycled or Greenlist aluminium

Limited cross ventilation is possible in the front units. Kitchens should be provided with dedicated extraction fans

To improve on indoor air quality, consider using low VOC paints and adhesives

Double glazing

Att

ach

men

t 3

4.3

Item: 4.3 Attachment 3: Amended plans


Att

ach

men

t 3

4.3



Att

ach

men

t 3

4.3



Att

ach

men

t 4

4.3

Item: 4.3 Attachment 4: Neighbourhood Character Policy assessment


Att

ach

men

t 4

4.3



Att

ach

men

t 4

4.3



Att

ach

men

t 4

4.3



Att

ach

men

t 4

4.3



Att

ach

men

t 5

4.3

Item: 4.3 Attachment 5: Clause 55 Assessment


Att

ach

men

t 5

4.3



Att

ach

men

t 5

4.3



Att

ach

men

t 5

4.3



Att

ach

men

t 5

4.3

