Banyule Council OM 7 October 2013 Agenda

Ordinary Meeting of Council

Council Chambers, Service Centre

275 Upper Heidelberg Road, Ivanhoe

7 October 2013 commencing at 7.45pm

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 23 September 2013

Disclosure of Interests

1. Petitions

1.1 The Lease of Chelsworth Park to Ivanhoe Grammar School ................................... 3

REPORTS:

2. People – Community Strengthening and Support

2.1 Adoption of the 2013-2017 Recreation Plan ............................................................ 5

3. Planet – Environmental Sustainability

Nil

4. Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.1 North East Road Link Quarterly Update .................................................................. 9

4.2 Yarra Street, Heidelberg - Raised School Crossing .............................................. 13

4.3 Proposed Discontinuance of Road (Section of Rose Street) Adjacent to 1065 Heidelberg Road Ivanhoe .......................................................... 19

4.4 Ivanhoe Major Activity Area Planning Scheme Amendment .................................. 23

AGENDA (Cont’d)

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 7 October 2013 Page 2

4.5 Proposed sale of 1 and 2 Orr Lane Montmorency ................................................. 28

5. Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life

5.1 Anti Racism Strategy ........................................................................................... 35

5.2 Ward Fund Allocations .......................................................................................... 38

6. Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.1 Councillor Motions - Status Update ....................................................................... 41

6.2 Assembly of Councillors ........................................................................................ 43

7. Sealing of Documents

7.1 Sealing of Documents .......................................................................................... 47

8. Notices of Motion

8.1 Councillor Expense Reporting ............................................................................... 49

8.2 Plenty Road Precinct ............................................................................................ 50

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 any other matter which the Council or special committee considers would prejudice the Council or any person

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

Closure of Meeting

1.1

Petitions


1.1 THE LEASE OF CHELSWORTH PARK TO IVANHOE GRAMMAR SCHOOL

Author: Tom Zappulla - Acting Manager Leisure Recreation and Cultural Services,

Community Programs

Ward: Griffin

File: BS08/015/028

A petition with 182 signatures has been received. The petition prayer is as follows: “We request Banyule City Council to hold a well notified public meeting to explain and discuss the Chelsworth Park tennis Club lease and the new proposed Ivanhoe Grammar School overall lease of Chelsworth Park” “This information and discussion meeting should occur before Council further engages with the Community to draw up a lease arrangement for Chelsworth Park” A copy of the petition covering letter outlining the group’s conditions is attached.

OFFICER COMMENT

Banyule City Council currently leases Chelsworth Park to the Ivanhoe Grammar School, with the current lease expiring in November 2014. Lease negotiations between both parties are underway with a draft lease expected to be completed for ‘discussion and negotiation purposes’ with IGS by the end of October 2013. The lease includes a schedule of proposed Chelsworth Park capital improvements which are to be funded and completed by IGS within the first five years of the lease. All current tenants (oval based sports clubs) of Chelsworth Park have been updated and informed of details of the SWHP, the lease negotiations with IGS and Chelsworth Park management processes moving forward. To date two information sessions have been held on the 17th of July and 16th of September 2013 between Council officers, IGS employees and representatives from each sporting club. These sessions have been very successful and have resulted in a joint commitment for a new Chelsworth Park Tenant Group to meet regularly to discuss bookings and users of the park, any park developments, issues or feedback. All facility allocations, bookings and maintenance of the grounds will be administered and programmed by IGS. The fees and charges, facility allocation guidelines and regulations will follow Council fees and charges and facility allocation guidelines known as the Sporting Reserve User Guide and will be aligned with all other active sporting reserves across the municipality.

1.1

Petitions

THE LEASE OF CHELSWORTH PARK TO IVANHOE GRAMMAR SCHOOL cont’d


Chelsworth Park Tennis Club (CPTC): The CPTC lease expired in December 1996 and has been in ‘hold over terms’ since. In December 2012 Council notified in writing the CPTC of Council’s intention to lease the tennis courts to IGS, giving the CPTC 12 months’ notice. Council officers have met with CPTC and IGS representatives to begin negotiations in regards to the tennis courts and future use. Discussions during these meetings included lease clauses outlining that CPTC will remain the principal tennis club at the facility. Members will have similar rights as they currently do and the club or users will not have to contribute to maintenance or upkeep of the facilities as IGS will undertake all maintenance under the new lease. Furthermore the lease will include commitments from IGS to upgrade the tennis courts amenities and clubhouse, upgrade the existing hard-court including multi-sport lining and to build and construct an extra court if planning approvals are met. IGS would maintain the courts on behalf of all users and are committed to ensuring the four existing en tou cas courts remain. The next scheduled meeting between the parties has been scheduled for 21 October 2013 to continue discussions and identify further inclusions for the new lease. An information sheet outlining the current situation for the new lease of Chelsworth Park has been sent out to members of CPTC outlining the key points of negotiations and addressing the key clauses of the lease.

RECOMMENDATION

1. That Council receives and notes the petition.

ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 Petition Cover Page 54

2.1

People – Community Strengthening and Support


2.1 ADOPTION OF THE 2013-2017 RECREATION PLAN

Author: Ben McManus - Leisure Services Team Leader, Community Programs

File: BS36/040/001

SUMMARY

Adoption of the Recreation Plan 2013-2017

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 of “promote and support health and wellbeing”.

BACKGROUND

The 2008-2013 Recreation Plan expired in June 2013. A new Recreation Plan has been developed and will set the key directions and priorities for sport, leisure, recreation facilities and services for the next 4 years. It is important to maintain a strong relevant vision for Recreation in Banyule. The vision for the 2013-2017 Recreation Plan is:

To create a safe, healthy and inclusive community by encouraging people to actively participate in a diverse range of recreational opportunities to improve health and wellbeing.

The draft Recreation Plan 2013-2017 was developed by the Leisure and Cultural Services team following extensive research and consultation. The plan identifies five goals for the future, along with strategic focuses and then actions to deliver on the key goals for the community over the next four years. The five key goals of the Recreation Plan 2013-2017 are:

1. Opportunities for All – Have affordable, accessible and inclusive opportunities for the whole community to participate in a variety of activities.

2. Environmental Sustainability – Provide opportunities for community groups and sporting clubs to gain knowledge, ideas and funding to become more sustainable.

3. Participation and Community Connection – Strengthen community connections with a variety of groups to create a wide range of opportunities for participation.

2.1


ADOPTION OF THE 2013-2017 RECREATION PLAN cont’d


4. Facilities – Be proactive in maintaining and upgrading Council’s wide range of sporting facilities.

5. Informing the Community – Have quality communication processes with the

community and Council partners and empower our community groups and clubs to govern effectively.

On August 12 2013, Council approved that the draft Recreation Plan 2013-2017 be published for community comment. The plan was published on Council’s website, was made available at Council customer service sites in hard copy version and was sent to all sporting clubs in Banyule via email. The plan was also sent to the twelve residents that had been part of the Recreation Plan External Advisory Group. Ten responses were received regarding the 2013 – 2017 Recreation Plan. The comments were generally of a minor nature and feedback has been incorporated into the final document however this did not make any significant change to the content or outcomes. The majority of responses were in relation to Chelsworth Park with the key points focusing on Council maintaining this park as a publicly accessible open space into the future and the importance of Chelsworth Park as a key community asset and this will be a consideration in Council’s Public Open Space Plan and the lease negotiations with the Ivanhoe Grammar School.

ADVOCACY

The Recreation Plan has been prepared on behalf of the community to meet the thoughts and needs of the people and organisations practicing recreation in Banyule.

HUMAN RIGHTS CHARTER

In developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered to determine if it raises any human rights issues. The Recreation Plan 2013 – 2017 is particularly related to four rights in the Charter in developing the plan these rights were considered in the following ways: Freedom of movement Through the Recreation Plan 2013 – 2017 Council is committed to ensuring that public open space is available for the use by the community. It is committed to providing a number of different avenues and spaces and to ensure that any significant barriers are reduced for use, to ensure the freedom of movement for Banyule residents. Your right to freedom of expression Through the Recreation Plan 2013 – 2017 Council is actively pursuing avenues for our community to express themselves and their beliefs. Council’s commitment to open space and active recreation programs is a reflection of their understanding of, and agreement with the right to freedom of expression. Your right to taking part in public life Through the consultation process Council offered people who live, work or play in Banyule with multiple opportunities to take part in the information gathering and decision-making process. Council took into consideration the different ways people may wish to be consulted and the barriers that may be in place for some people in taking part in this aspect of public life. By addressing these issues and considering this right, Council has ensured that a diverse range of community members have taken part in the development of the plan.

2.1


ADOPTION OF THE 2013-2017 RECREATION PLAN cont’d


Cultural rights Banyule is a diverse and multi-cultural community and Council welcomes and values the rich cultural tapestry that this brings to the area. The Recreation Plan 2013 – 2017 vision statement seeks to create a safe, healthy and inclusive community by encouraging people to actively participate in a diverse range of recreational opportunities to improve health and wellbeing. The Recreation Plan 2013 – 2017 does not limited, restrict or interfere with any other rights in the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. It is considered that the subject matter does raise any human rights issues.

CONSULTATION

During November 2012 – September 2013 an extensive community and club consultation was undertaken with the Banyule community including sporting and leisure clubs and other key stakeholders to determine the key priorities in leisure and recreation programs and services for the next four years. The research and consultation is summarised in the plan to reflect the thoughts and needs of the community. A key was to ensure that the process was overseen by the Recreation Plan External Advisory Group to ensure that it was meeting the needs of the community.

CONCLUSION

The Recreation Plan 2013-2017 has been carefully prepared with extensive research and consultation and is now ready to be adopted by Council. A shorter, promotional version of the Recreation Plan will be developed with both versions to be made available to the public.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council adopt the Recreation Plan 2013-2017.

ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 Recreation Plan 2013-2017 Final 55

4.1

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment


4.1 NORTH EAST ROAD LINK QUARTERLY UPDATE

Author: Michelle Herbert - Senior Transport Engineer, City Development

File: BS20/045/005

Previous Items Council on 29 July 2013 (Item 4.3 - North East Road Link Quarterly

Update)

SUMMARY

To provide Council with a status update on planning for the proposed North East Road Link.



CITY PLAN

This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction to “support sustainable transport”.

BACKGROUND

Council considered an initial report on the status of the proposed North East Link and an overview of relevant Council resolutions and positions on the link, regional transport, and associated heritage and environmental issues at its meeting on 14 December 2009. Council resolved in part as follows: “4. That Council officers report to the Council every three months on the response from the Minister, VicRoads or other Government departments or agencies on progress in the planning of the North-East link.” In line with this resolution Council last considered a report on this matter in July 2013. In this meeting Council resolved that:

“1. Council notes this report. 2. In response to Melbourne’s North Now and Tomorrow Summit, Council

write to all Northern Group Member Mayors and CEO’s requesting an item be included in the next meeting regarding a Northern Transport Strategy with a view to create a brief for a Northern Transport Strategy. “

In response to this resolution letters have been sent to all Northern Group Member Mayors and CEO’s requesting the inclusion of this meeting agenda item.

4.1


NORTH EAST ROAD LINK QUARTERLY UPDATE cont’d


RECENT CORRESPONDENCE

On 3 December 2012 in considering the quarterly report on this matter it was resolved in part that Council:

“2. Write to the minister of Transport requesting a formal meeting to

discuss transport issues within the Banyule area. 3. Meet with Federal and State MPs to discuss this matter and request their support to resolve traffic congestion issues within Banyule. 4. Arrange a meeting with Councillors and VicRoads.”

To date, a response and meeting with Mr Colin Brookes MP has been actioned. This was discussed in the quarterly report to Council of 29 July 2013. In late July, two further responses were received from Mr Matthew Guy MP, Minister for Planning, State Member for the Northern Metropolitan Region, and Ms Jenny Mikakos MP, State Member for the Northern Metropolitan Region. A meeting was scheduled to be held with Mr Guy on 13 September 2013 to discuss the North East Link amongst other matters. This meeting has now been delayed to mid October 2013. Ms Mikakos supported Council’s request for measures to alleviate traffic congestion within Banyule in the short term and stated that the Labor Opposition is developing its policies and priorities for the election in November 2014. She agreed to pass on Council’s correspondence to Luke Donnellan, Shadow Minister for Roads so that he could consider these issues and concerns. Both Mr Brooks and Ms Mikakos in their letters requested further information on how Council thinks traffic congestion issues in Banyule can be addressed. A copy of Mr Guy’s letter and Ms Mikakos’s letter are provided as Attachment 1 and 2. Council at its recent meeting of 23 September 2013 considered a report on Transport Project Advocacy. A prioritised list of transport projects has been developed to help drive future discussions and advocacy with State and Federal Government bodies. Council considers these are key projects to improve traffic congestion and road safety in Banyule. One of the key items noted in this list relates to the North East Link; in particular it notes that Council:

“Supports an outer ring road solution that provides a direct freight and traffic connection from M80 to the eastern side of the Mullum-Mullum tunnel and EastLink.”

It is proposed to send a copy of this Council transport advocacy document to Ms Mikakos and Mr Brooks to provide them further advice on Council’s direction in this matter and seek their support moving forward.

4.1




RECENT DEVELOPMENTS WITH THE NORT EAST LINK

On 13 August 2013 the State Government launched its freight and logistics plan “Victoria – The Freight State”. It sets out the Government’s vision for ensuring that Victoria maintains its status as Australia’s freight and logistics capital. The Plan includes the major infrastructure projects committed to by the State Government such as the East West Link and the Port of Melbourne Capacity Project. In relation to the North East Link, it states that: “The Government will ensure that Victoria’s road network continues to provide a competitive advantage for freight to 2050 and beyond by considering options for a North East Link in the longer term, connecting the M80 Ring Road to the Eastern Freeway.” It further notes: “Completion of the current upgrade of the M80 will enable longer-term consideration of a North East Link. The North East Link would connect the Eastern Freeway to the M80 in the north, directly linking Melbourne’s industrial areas in the south east, the Port of Hastings and Gippsland with the Hume Freeway to the north. As part of any future planning for a North East Link there will be careful consideration of transport, environmental, heritage and social issues. Any above-ground options through the Banyule Flats or a route through other environmentally sensitive areas will be precluded…” “…The Government will progress planning for this project which, once completed, will result in Melbourne having a full ‘ring road’ for the first time. In the longer term, progressive construction of the Outer Metropolitan Ring (OMR) Road will provide additional orbital road capacity to accommodate planned expansion of Melbourne to the north and west. Transport and economic modelling undertaken for the Plan indicates that delivery of these three major road projects – East West Link, North East Link and OMR – are forecast to collectively generate benefits for the freight industry of $4.3 billion in 2012 dollars to 2050. The majority of these benefits are expected to be derived from travel time savings, vehicle operating cost savings and improvements in travel time reliability as a result of having access to a completed, less congested freeway network.” No timing is given for the planning for or development of the North East Link. A copy of “Victoria – The Freight State” is provided as Attachment 3. EAST WEST LINK DEVELOPMENTS In the 2013-2014 State Budget the Government committed to funding Stage One of the East West Link – the six kilometre eastern section, from the Eastern Freeway to CityLink. Council at its meeting of 9 September 2013 considered a report on the possible impacts of the proposed East-West Link Tunnel for the Banyule community. Council resolved as follows: “1. Advises it has no formal view on the East West Link at this stage as insufficient information is available about the project’s impacts on and benefits for the Banyule community.

4.1




2. Seek further information from the State Government and the Linking Melbourne Authority and arrange a meeting to discuss possible impacts on and benefits for the Banyule community of the East West Link so that an informed position can be taken.” Discussions with VicRoads Officers have not highlighted any further advice or confirmation on this matter at this time. Letters to the State Government and the Linking Melbourne Authority have recently been sent, though no responses have yet been received.

CONCLUSION

Council has received correspondence from Mr Matthew Guy MP and Ms Jenny Mikakos MP in response to previous Council resolutions on this matter. A meeting with Mr Guy MP is currently being organised to discuss the North East Link and other matters. Correspondence from Mr Colin Brooks MP and Ms Jenny Mikakos MP have requested further information on Council’s thoughts on ways to improve traffic congestion in Banyule. It is proposed to provide them with copies of Council’s recently adopted “Prioritised Transport Project Advocacy List”. The recently released freight and logistics plan Victoria – The Freight State states that the Government will ensure that Victoria’s road network continues to provide a competitive advantage for freight to 2050 and beyond by considering options for a North East Link in the longer term, connecting the M80 Ring Road to the Eastern Freeway. Council has written to the State Government and the Linking Melbourne Authority to request meetings on the East West Link to seek more information on the project. No further information has been provided on this project.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Notes this report. 2. Writes to Ms Jenny Mikakos MP and Mr Colin Brooks MP and provide them

with a copy of Council’s recently adopted “Prioritised Transport Project Advocacy List”.

ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 Letter from Mr Matthew Guy MP, Minister for Planning 134

2 Letter from Ms Jenny Mikakos MP, State Member for Northern Metropolitan Region

135

3 Victoria - The Freight State - State Government Freight Plan (Under Separate Cover)

4.2



4.2 YARRA STREET, HEIDELBERG - RAISED SCHOOL CROSSING

Author: Bailey Byrnes - Transport Engineer, City Development

Ward: Griffin

File: ST8165

Previous Items Council on 20 May 2013 (Item 1.1 - Yarra Street, Heidelberg -

School Crossing Concerns)

SUMMARY

A petition has been received from the Our Lady of Mercy College community requesting Council to investigate safety concerns associated with the school crossing on Yarra Street, Heidelberg. Council investigations highlighted concerns with the speed of vehicles travelling along the street. Based on assessment as per the Local Area Traffic Management Strategy, this section of Yarra Street ranks high amongst the list of streets for future consideration for funding. In consideration of the issues identified during the investigation, the preferred design solution is to retrofit a raised pavement to the existing two school crossings on Yarra Street. The works would be split into two stages, with each stage expected to cost around $35,000. Both stages will be required to be listed in the ten year Capital Works program for future funding consideration. The investigation also highlighted a number of improvements, including the alteration of existing parking restrictions along Yarra Street alongside the school to provide a drop-off facility. Further consultation with affected residents and the school community is currently underway regarding the possible implementation of these restrictions.



CITY PLAN

This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction to “support sustainable transport”.

BACKGROUND

At its Meeting on 20 May 2013, Council considered a petition report regarding safety concerns at the school crossing in Yarra Street, Heidelberg, and resolved as follows:

4.2


YARRA STREET, HEIDELBERG - RAISED SCHOOL CROSSING cont’d


“That:

1. Council receives and notes the petition. 2. Road safety issues associated with the school crossing in Yarra Street

Heidelberg be investigated further including potential costs and contributions, and a meeting be arranged prior to a further report being presented back to Council.

3. The primary petitioner be advised accordingly. “ The investigation into the road safety concerns raised by the petition has now been completed. Following a meeting with representatives from Our Lady of Mercy College, this update has been prepared for Council consideration.

INVESTIGATION

Our Lady of Mercy College is situated on Cape Street, Heidelberg. Pedestrian access to the school crossings is provided via Cape Street and via Yarra Street. The college campus abuts both sides of Yarra Street, and as such the school crossing is utilised throughout the day. Additional school crossings are located on Cape Street, north of Yarra Street, and on Yarra Street, west of Cape Street (Adjacent to St Johns Catholic Primary School). A locality plan of Our Lady of Mercy College and Yarra Street is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 – Locality Plan Pedestrian and Vehicle Observations Pedestrian and vehicle counts were undertaken in Yarra Street, between Cape Street and Lower Heidelberg Road, in August 2013. The results of the count are in Table 1 following.

Our Lady of

Mercy College

School

Crossings

4.2




In accordance with VicRoads guidelines, the site meets the warrants for a provision of a school crossing supervisor. A school crossing supervisor currently monitors the school crossing during peak morning and afternoon periods. During the school day, students cross over Yarra Street between classes, generally under the supervision of a teacher. Table 1 – Pedestrian and Vehicle Count Results

Date Pedestrians

(P) Vehicles

(V) Multiple

(PxV)

Wednesday 22 August 2012 371 373 138,383

VicRoads Warrants

Unsupervised Crossing 20 50 -

Supervised Crossing 20 100 5,000

Inspections of the surrounding road network during school drop-off and pick-up times also highlighted an opportunity to provide a dedicated short term parking area adjacent to Our Lady of Mercy College.

Speed and Volume Survey

A speed and volume count was conducted in Yarra Street over a one week period (11 -17 September 2013), midblock between Hawdon Street and Cape Street, and midblock between Cape Street and Lower Heidelberg Road (adjacent to Our Lady of Mercy College). The results of the traffic counts are presented in Table 2. Table 2 – Yarra Street Speed and Volume Survey Results

Direction

Midblock between Hawdon Street and

Cape Street

Midblock between Cape Street and Lower Heidelberg Road

Average Weekday Traffic Volumes

(vehicles per day)

Combined 4,116 3,993

East 2,032 1,918

West 2,083 2,075

85th Percentile

Speed* (km/h)

Combined 49.7 46.1

East 48.2 45.4

West 50.8 46.4

*The 85th percentile speed is the speed at which 85 percent of vehicles are travelling at or below.

The traffic count data highlighted that traffic volumes are slightly higher than expected for a road of ‘Distributor’ status within Council’s road hierarchy. However, given the connectivity Yarra Street provides between Heidelberg Railway Station and Lower Heidelberg Road, this volume of traffic is considered reasonable. The 85th percentile speeds recorded for Yarra Street is considered high for a road with a permanent 40km/h speed limit, particularly to the west of Cape Street. Crash History A check of the VicRoads casualty crash database indicates that there has been one (1) reported crash in this section of Yarra Street, in the five year period from January 2007 to December 2012. The crash involved pedestrians being struck by a vehicle travelling along Yarra Street. A further nine (9) crashes occurred at the intersection of Yarra Street and Lower Heidelberg Road during this period.

4.2




DISCUSSION

The Local Area Traffic Management (LATM) Strategy provides opportunity for annual funding for the installation of traffic calming devices in roads throughout the municipality. The LATM Strategy recommends a system which assesses and prioritises roads on the need for traffic calming measures based on traffic speeds, traffic volumes and casualty accidents, as well as considering factors such as proximity to schools, shops, recreation facilities and playgrounds. This ensures that ranked sites get priority funding of traffic treatments where such funding is available. The section of Yarra Street between Mount Street and Lower Heidelberg Road has been assessed in the LATM Strategy. The assessment indicated that this section currently warrants funding consideration for traffic treatments when ranked against competing locations. Consideration for Traffic Improvements In consideration of the issues identified during the investigation, the preferred design solution is to retrofit a raised pavement to the existing two school crossings on Yarra Street. An additional raised pavement could also be considered in the section of Yarra Street between Mount Street and Hawdon Street should further treatments be warranted. Raised pavements introduced at school crossings are effective at reducing vehicle speeds along the street. Such treatments can also improve pedestrian safety at the crossing through achieving a reduction in speed across the crossing. Given the scope of the works, it is considered appropriate to split the works into two stages. Stage 1 includes the construction of a raised pavement at the school crossing located midblock between Cape Street and Lower Heidelberg Road, adjacent to Our Lady of Mercy College. Stage 2 will consist of the construction of a raised pavement at the school crossing midblock between Hawdon Street and Cape Street; adjacent to St John’s Catholic Primary School. The feasibility of installing a raised pavement at this crossing point is subject to investigation. Concept plans of the preferred design for Stage 1 are provided in Attachment 1. Initial costings indicate that the works are expected to cost in the range of $35,000 per raised pavement. This would cover the provision of a raised pavement, linemarking and associated drainage works. A large portion of the existing school crossing infrastructure would be able to be retained Preliminary discussions with representatives of OLMC have indicated the college may consider jointly funding Stage 1 of the works with Council. Other Improvements A small section of ‘No Parking’ restrictions, operating 8am-9am, 12noon – 1am and 3pm-4pm on School Days, along the northern side of Yarra Street, could be altered to allow 2-minute parking during these periods. Additional drop-off facilities could also be provided along the southern side of Yarra Street, during the morning period.

4.2




Given the high vehicle speeds in Yarra Street, it is suggested that the street be included in the list of roads nominated for Council’s “Speed Awareness Program”. Within this program, a mobile speed detection trailer is placed within the street to visually alert drivers to the speed they are travelling. Furthermore, the local police are notified and they may patrol the road during morning and afternoon peak periods to enforce the speed limit. Council is currently negotiating with VicRoads on the potential introduction of a 40km/h area precinct within the Heidelberg Activity Centre. Plans and sign schedules for this proposal are currently being prepared for ongoing negotiation and consideration by VicRoads.

CONCLUSION

The investigation of Yarra Street highlighted a concern with the speed of vehicles travelling between Mount Street and Lower Heidelberg Road. This section of Yarra Street rates high amongst the list of streets for future consideration for funding of traffic calming. The proposed traffic treatments midblock between Hawdon Street and Cape Street, and between Cape Street and Lower Heidelberg Road, will be required to be listed in the ten year Capital Works program for future funding consideration. The investigation also highlighted a number of improvements, including the installation of short-term parking restrictions to provide a drop-off and pick up facility adjacent to the school. Further consultation with the school community is currently underway to consider possible implementation of these restrictions. Furthermore, it is recommended that Yarra Street be included in Council’s “Speed Awareness Program” and that Council to advocate to VicRoads for the introduction of a 40km/h area precinct in the Heidelberg Activity Centre.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. Discussions be held between Council and Our Lady of Mercy College regarding the potential to jointly fund Stage 1 of the proposed Yarra Street traffic treatment;

2. Subject to the successful negotiation with Our Lady of Mercy College in item 1 above, Council list Stage 1 and Stage 2 of the proposed Yarra Street traffic treatment in Council’s 10 Year Capital Works program for future consideration;

3. Consultation be undertaken with Our Lady of Mercy College regarding the possible implementation of short-term parking restrictions in Yarra Street, Heidelberg;

4. Council’s speed trailer be installed in Yarra Street, Heidelberg, for a one week period, as part of the Speed Awareness Program and the local police be notified and requested to patrol the street to enforce the speed limit at morning and peak times;

5. Council continue to advocate to VicRoads for the introduction of a 40km/h area precinct in the Heidelberg Activity Centre;

6. Our Lady of Mercy College be advised accordingly.

4.2




ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 Concept Plan - Stage 1 - Yarra Street Raised Pavement School Crossing 136

4.3



4.3 PROPOSED DISCONTINUANCE OF ROAD (SECTION OF ROSE STREET) ADJACENT TO 1065 HEIDELBERG ROAD IVANHOE

Author: Jeanette Kringle - Property Co-ordinator, City Development

Ward: Griffin

File: ST6450 BP3375/1065

SUMMARY

To authorise the commencement of the statutory procedures to discontinue a section of unconstructed ‘road’, (being part of Rose Street) adjacent to the northern boundary of 1065 Heidelberg Road Ivanhoe, to the abutting owner.


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

A recent feature survey of privately owned land at 1065 Heidelberg Road, Ivanhoe (the s ite), has revealed a discrepancy between title measurements and the extent of the fenced boundary. Part of the fenced area, on the northern boundary of the site, includes a section of road. A car yard operated from the site for many years prior to its sale, as shown on Aerial Photo of the site in Figure 1 below. A title search at the Land Registry confirms that the land is a ‘road’ on title, forming part of the land remaining un-transferred in certificate of title volume 1525 Folio 895.

4.3


PROPOSED DISCONTINUANCE OF ROAD (SECTION OF ROSE STREET) ADJACENT TO 1065 HEIDELBERG ROAD IVANHOE cont’d


Figure 1: Aerial Photo of site

CURRENT SITUATION

The new owner of the site seeks to acquire both the occupied land and the garden bed located on the north-eastern corner of the site (the land). The land includes the area highlighted green on the Plan of Proposed Area of Discontinuance shown in Figure 2 below. The total area of the land (the ‘road’ being considered for discontinuance) is estimated to be approximately 50m2.

Figure 2: Plan of Proposed Area of Discontinuance

4.3





In developing this report to Council, 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. Section 20 of the Charter provides that “A person must not be deprived of his or her property other than in accordance with law”.

It is considered that the subject matter does not raise any human rights issues because the power to discontinue a ‘road’ and sell the land is conferred on Council pursuant to section 206 and Clause 3 of Schedule 10 of the Local Government Act 1989 (the Act). Section 207A of the Act provides that a person may make a submission under section 223 of the Act with respect to a proposal to discontinue a ‘road.

LEGAL CONSIDERATION

Prior to discontinuing a ‘road’ and selling land, Council must carry out certain statutory procedures in accordance with the Local Government Act 1989, namely the giving of public notice of its intention to do so in accordance with Council’s Official Newspaper Policy and obtaining a valuation not more than six months prior to the date of sale.

COMMENT

For the purpose of giving public notice for this proposal it is noted that the “Heidelberg Leader” is the newspaper that is generally circulated in the Ivanhoe area.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The proposal has been considered, having regard to the aim and objectives of the Rights of Way (Roads) Discontinuance Policy and Council’s Property Sale Procedure Policy. It is considered that:

The ‘road’ is no longer reasonably required as a road by abutting owners.

The ‘road’ does not portray the physical characteristics of a road.

The proposal will not impact on the movement of pedestrians or vehicles within the vicinity of the ‘road’.

The proposal will enhance the existing streetscape.

The proposed development of the adjacent site does not rely upon the acquisition of the ‘road’.

The Service Authority assets will be protected.

The proposal does not involve the destruction or removal of native vegetation.

FUNDING IMPLICATIONS

The adjoining owner has been advised that no formal offer to sell the land can be made until the necessary statutory procedures have been successfully completed and Council formally resolves to proceed with the proposal.

4.3




CONCLUSION

As previously indicated, the abutting owner of the site seeks to acquire the land, comprising both the fenced area and the garden bed located on the north-eastern corner of the site. It is not used by the public as a means of vehicular and/or pedestrian access. For all intents and purposes the section of unconstructed ‘road’ appears to form part of the site. The proposal has been considered, having regard to the Rights of Way (Roads) Discontinuance Policy and Council’s Property Sale Procedure Policy. The proposal generally meets the aims and objectives of those Policies insofar as:

The ‘road’ is considered no longer required as a road by abutting owners.

The ‘road’ does not portray the physical characteristics of a road.

The proposal will not impact on the movement of pedestrians or vehicles within the vicinity of the ‘road’.

The proposal will enhance the existing streetscape.

The proposal does not involve the destruction or removal of native vegetation. There being no apparent impediment to the proposal (to discontinue the section of ‘road’ and to sell the land to the adjoining owner), the commencement of the statutory procedures, by the giving of public notice in accordance with Council’s Official Newspaper Policy, should be supported. Following the closing of the public notice submission period a further report will be presented for Council to hear any submissions received and to determine whether or not the road status should be discontinued and the land sold to the adjoining owner.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council

1. Authorise the commencement of the statutory procedures pursuant to sections Sections 207A and 223 of the Local Government Act 1989 by giving public notice, in the “Heidelberg Leader”, of Council’s intention to discontinue the section of unconstructed ‘road’ (Rose Street) and sell the land currently and the garden bed located on the north eastern corner of 1065 Heidelberg Road Ivanhoe, to the adjoining owner.

2. Consider a further report and hear any submissions received following the closing of the public notice submission period in order to determine whether the section of unconstructed ‘road’ (Rose Street) adjacent to northern boundary 1065 Heidelberg Road Ivanhoe, currently landscaped and fenced, should be discontinued and sold, and to confirm the price for the sale of the land.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

4.4



4.4 IVANHOE MAJOR ACTIVITY AREA PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT

Author: Anne North - Senior Strategic Planner, City Development

File: BS16/070/091

SUMMARY

This report provides Council with an update on interim and permanent planning scheme controls for the Ivanhoe Activity Area and recommends minor changes to ensure better design outcomes for higher density apartments and 40 Upper Heidelberg Road.



CITY PLAN

This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction to “strengthen local activity and employment areas”.

BACKGROUND

On 3 June 2013 Council resolved to adopt the updated Ivanhoe Structure Plan and to support the preparation of the associated planning scheme amendments as follows:

Planning Scheme Amendment C91 – Interim controls – MSS, DOOs

Planning Scheme Amendment C92 – Interim controls – Heritage Overlay

Planning Scheme Amendment C93 – Permanent controls – MSS, DDOs, Zones

Planning Scheme Amendment C94 – Permanent controls – Heritage Overlay The planning scheme amendment documents have now been revised to enable the implementation of the Ivanhoe Structure Plan. The Minister is still considering Council’s request for approval for Amendments C91 and C92. Conditional Authorisation to exhibit Amendment C93 has now just recently been received. Authorisation for Amendment C94 was granted on 24 June 2013. Planning Scheme Amendments C91 and C93 propose the introduction of a Design and Development Overlay (DDO11). The DDO11 will give statutory effect to the Ivanhoe Activity Area Structure Plan and provide guidance on building heights and setbacks. Schedule 11 to the DDO will apply to the Diversity Area Precincts (1-5).

CURRENT ACTION

After further analysis of the Structure Plan and discussions with the Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure (DTPLI) it was decided to propose

4.4


IVANHOE MAJOR ACTIVITY AREA PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT cont’d


adding an additional setback standard to the DDO to improve residential amenity for higher density apartments in the Ivanhoe Plaza, Darebin Station, Lower Ivanhoe, Ivanhoe Station and Upper Heidelberg Road Precincts. The new standard would improve amenity for future apartment dwellers and ensure equitable access to light, outlook and privacy. In a further review of the proposed amendment DTPLI also requested some minor editorial changes that have been made and will have no impact on the intent of the Structure Plan. DTPLI also requested some further analysis of DDOs across the diversity area and for 40 Upper Heidelberg Road, Ivanhoe in particular. This analysis found that the setback controls on 40 Upper Heidelberg Road, Ivanhoe in Precinct 5 – Upper Heidelberg Road Precinct require further refinement.

Locality Plan

40 Upper Heidelberg Road is a key site at the southern entrance to the Ivanhoe Activity Area. The site is identified in the structure plan as ‘Landmark Building - opportunity for visual emphasis’. The site is triangular in shape and measures approximately 2,450sqm with a frontage to Upper Heidelberg Road of approximately 119.7sqm, a rear boundary to the railway reserve of 130m and a northern boundary of 42.54m.

40 Upper Heidelberg Road, Ivanhoe

A gateway site should mark a sense of arrival into the activity area. Gateway sites are focal points where trees and high quality, architecturally designed buildings are encouraged. The Structure Plan and Draft DDO11 suggest building setbacks for this site in accordance with Setback Standard 4 – Landscape Setback as follows:

4.4




Buildings should be setback;

3 metres from the property boundary; or

4 metres from the property boundary to preserve an existing

landscaped area;

Any part of a building higher than:

7.5 metres above natural ground level in a residential zone; or

9.0 metres above natural ground level in a non-residential zone; should be

setback:

3 metres behind the ground floor facade; or

5 metres from the ground floor facade where the property boundary abuts a

Rail Reserve.

The ground level setback area should be designed to protect existing trees

(where relevant) and provide for additional landscaping.

Precinct 5 - Upper Heidelberg Road – Heights & Setback Standards

The setbacks suggested in the Structure Plan and the Draft DDO11 limit the building footprint area on this site. This, combined with the triangular shape of the site, make it difficult to achieve a high quality development that incorporates trees. In order to enhance the sense of arrival in this gateway location through the use of a visually interesting building and landscaping some degree of flexibility in building setbacks should be considered for this site. This may be achieved by including the following wording in the draft DDO11:

40 Upper Heidelberg Road is a gateway site that suggests a sense of arrival into the activity area. This site provides the opportunity for a high quality, architecturally designed landmark building. Any design should incorporate the planting of trees along the Upper Heidelberg Road elevation to contribute to a sense of arrival into a boulevard and along the western elevation to reduce the visual bulk of the building from across the railway line. Reduced building setbacks may be considered for 40 Upper Heidelberg Road if design can achieve:

4.4




A high quality, architecturally designed outcome that incorporates the planting

of trees.

Landscape character to Upper Heidelberg Road that contributes to a sense of

‘boulevard’ and reflects the treed settings of those properties opposite the

subject site.

Reduction in visual bulk of the building when viewed across the railway line and

from Lower Heidelberg Road.

A modulated façade to Upper Heidelberg Road that provides interest and relief

from visual bulk on lower levels.

Design excellence reflected in the design of safe entrances to residential and

commercial properties directly from Upper Heidelberg Road.

This additional wording and the new setback standard are the only substantive

changes proposed to the DDO11 and to the amendments. A copy of the amended

draft DDO11 is attached at Appendix A.


In developing this report to Council, 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.

CONSULTATION

The proposed changes to the Design and Development Overlay will be communicated to the Ivanhoe Community Consultative Committee. The permanent amendments, including the additional setback standard and changes to the DDO for 40 Upper Heidelberg Road, will also go through a period of public exhibition after authorisation is received from the Minister for Planning. It is likely that approval for the interim amendment and the authorisation for the permanent controls and public exhibition will be received from the Minister soon. Conditional authorisation for C93 has already been received from the Minister but relies on Council agreeing to the changes to the DDO before exhibition can occur.

CONCLUSION

After a review by DTPLI only two substantive changes are proposed to the Ivanhoe Planning Scheme Amendments. It is anticipated that making these minor changes to the Design and Development Overlay will receive support from the Minister. It should also allow the Minister to approve the interim controls and allow exhibition of the permanent planning controls. Further guidance in the amendment to achieve better quality amenity for higher density apartments in the key development precincts is a significant improvement to the amendment. 40 Upper Heidelberg Road, in particular, is a unique site that forms part of the southern gateway to the Ivanhoe Activity Area. This site provides the opportunity for a high quality, architecturally designed landmark building. As a gateway to the southern-most activity area in the municipality, a quality development on this site is critical for the development of the Ivanhoe Major Activity Area.

4.4




Providing some flexibility in the setbacks for this site will ensure that high quality built form and landscaping outcomes are achieved. This will make a positive contribution to the sense of arrival in the activity area and provide visual interest when viewed from Lower Heidelberg Road and surrounding residential streets. It will also increase the likelihood of the Minister agreeing to the interim controls.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council supports the preparation of editorial changes to Planning Scheme Amendments C91 and C93 and to alter the wording of the draft Design and Development Overlay Schedule 11, including the addition of a new setback standard and changes in relation to 40 Upper Heidelberg Road to guide an improved development outcome for this important gateway site.

1.

ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 Revised Draft Design and Development Overlay 137

4.5



4.5 PROPOSED SALE OF 1 AND 2 ORR LANE MONTMORENCY

Author: Jeanette Kringle - Property Co-ordinator, City Development

Ward: Hawdon

File: BS28/010/008 BP1785/1 BP5700/2

SUMMARY

To determine whether or not the Council-owned land to be known as Nos. 1 and 2 Orr Lane Montmorency should be sold and, if so, by what method and under what conditions.



CITY PLAN

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

BACKGROUND

At its ordinary meeting of 26 August 2013 (CO2013/302) Council considered submissions received in response to the giving of public notice of Council’s intention to sell the Council-owned land to be known as 1 and 2 Orr Lane Montmorency (identified on the locality plan at Figure 1 below). Council resolved as follows:

“1. Having complied with the provisions of section 189 of the Local Government Act 1989 by giving public notice of Council’s intention to sell the Council–owned land to be known as No. 1 Orr Lane Montmorency, being the land on Plan of Consolidation PC372898F and the Council-owned land known as 2 Orr Lane Montmorency, being Lot 1 on Plan of Subdivision PS712879E (Land), consider submissions received, and hear submitters that have requested to be heard, in accordance with the provisions of section 223 of the Local Government Act 1989.

2. Following consideration of submissions, consider a report at a future meeting of Council, to determine: a) whether or not the Land should be sold and, b) if so what conditions (if any) should be imposed, including the

requirement that any future purchaser of the Land would be obliged to enter into an agreement pursuant to section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to be registered on title which would, amongst other things, restrict development on: (i) the land to be known as No. 1 Orr Lane, being the land on Plan of

Consolidation PC372898F, to one dwelling; and (ii) the land known as No. 2 Orr Lane, being Lot 1 on Plan of

Subdivision PS712879E, to a maximum of two dwellings; and c) by what method the Land should be sold.”

4.5


PROPOSED SALE OF 1 AND 2 ORR LANE MONTMORENCY cont’d


Figure 1 – Locality Plan


In developing this report to Council, 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. Section 20 of the Charter provides that “A person must not be deprived of his or her property other than in accordance with law”. It is considered that the subject matter does not raise any human rights issues because the power to sell the land is conferred on Council pursuant to section 189 of the Local Government Act 1989 (the Act). In this instance Council has heard and considered the submissions in accordance with section 223 of the Act.

TECHNICAL CONSIDERATONS

The land and improvements known as 2 Orr Lane Montmorency comprises part of the land in Certificates of Title Volume 9541 Folio 551 and Volume 9442 Folio 832 being Lot 1 on proposed Plan of Subdivision PS712879E. No. 2 Orr Lane has a total area of 815m2. The land to be known as 1 Orr Lane Montmorency comprises part of the land in Certificates of Title Volume 9442 Folio 832, Volume 9531 Folio 242 and Volume 8228 Folio 472 being the land on proposed Plan of Consolidation PC372898F. No. 1 Orr Lane has a total area of 418m2 (the Land). The Land is included in a Residential 1 zone and is affected by Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO1) controls.

4.5




CONSULTATION

Public notice of Council’s intention to sell the Land was given in the “Diamond Valley Leader” on 19 June 2013. . A public meeting with residents, Councillors and Council Officers was held on 9 July 2013 at the Rosanna Offices. Potential options to address the submitters’ concerns included any future purchaser being obliged to enter into an agreement pursuant to section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Section 173 Agreement) to be registered on title which would, amongst other things, restrict development on

(a) the land to be known as 1 Orr Lane to one dwelling; (b) 2 Orr Lane to a maximum of two dwellings.

The submission period in relation to the public notice of Council’s intention to sell the Land closed on 17 July 2013. Eight (8) submissions were received, including one seeking to purchase part of the Land. As previously indicated, Council considered the submissions at its ordinary meeting of 26 August 2013.

DISCUSSION

Development on that part of the Land to be known as No. 1 Orr Lane will be challenging due to the shape, size and building set back requirements. However, it is not considered necessary to include a building height restriction, or a three dimensional building envelope, by way of a Section 173 Agreement. Matters pertaining to front, side and rear setbacks, height, and the like, would be considered as part of a planning permit application. Clause 32.01-3 of the Banyule Planning Scheme provides that a permit is required to construct a dwelling on a lot having an area between 300m2 and 500m2. Such an application would be assessed under ResCode, and Council’s Neighbourhood Character Strategy, and consider:

Neighbourhood and site description and design response

Neighbourhood character

Site Layout and Building massing

Amenity impacts

On-site amenity and facilities

Detailed design Development on that part of the land known as No. 2 Orr Lane may be similarly challenging due to the location of the existing dwelling. Again it is not considered necessary to include building height restrictions and a three dimensional building envelope by way of a Section 173 Agreement. Any proposal to subdivide and/or construct more than one dwelling would require an application for a planning permit. Such application would also be assessed under ResCode and Council’s Neighbourhood Character Strategy. Footpath and stormwater drainage network, and flooding issues, in Cressy Street and Orr Lane are being investigated and will be considered for further action as required. Community consultation should commence in the near future. A report is expected to be provided to Council in the coming months, but the Engineering Section has indicated that there is no reason why the sale of the land should not proceed based on drainage matters.

4.5




Issues relating to traffic sight distances and additional traffic signage will be considered further and addressed in consultation with the Transport Section depending on the next steps with the proposal. The Transport Section have advised that it is unlikely that 2 Orr Lane has access rights to Main Road and that VicRoads would be unlikely to support a request for access from Main Road. Given the traffic speeds and volumes on Main Road, property access to Main Road at this location would likely be construed as a higher risk option than providing access direct onto Orr Lane. In addition, it is considered that the sale and development of the land for up to two additional dwellings (three dwellings in total) would not result in an unacceptable increase in traffic in Orr Lane or Cressy Street. There are also no concerns about the potential impact of a future development on No. 1 Orr Lane reducing site distances at the corner of Cressy Street and Orr Lane due to the significant setback of the property boundary from the existing road pavement. Difficulties with the exiting of vehicles onto Main Road and entering into Cressy Street from Main Road is an existing issue. Suggestions as to how this might be addressed included upgrading of traffic signage particularly at the entrance to Orr Lane, upgrading of existing line marking and potential “keep clear” linemarking on Main Road. These issues can be pursued further with VicRoads although may not be supported.

POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

GUIDELINES FOR THE SALE AND EXCHANGE OF COUNCIL LAND

Any sale of Council-owned land should be in the best interests of the community and provide the best result, both financial and non-financial, for Council and the community. The Guidelines for the Sale and Exchange of Council land (adopted by Council in 2009) provide that the sale of Council-owned land should be conducted through a public process, unless the circumstances justify an alternative method of sale e.g. where there is only one potential buyer like an abutting owner.

OPEN SPACE STRATEGY

The Banyule City Council Public Open Space Strategy 2007-2012 (Open Space Strategy) was adopted by Council on 1 October 2007. Amendment C63 to the Banyule Planning Scheme was gazetted on 18 November 2010, updating reference documents within the Local Planning Policy Framework. The Open Space Strategy is a reference document at Clause 21.09-6 in the Banyule Planning Scheme. The Open Space Strategy divides the municipality into precincts to ensure the needs of local residents and any local character which is unique to a particular area can be taken into account in the planning of open space. The Land is located within the Montmorency Precinct but it is not recognised as ‘open space’ in the Open Space Strategy. It does not form part of any larger parcel or link to other open space. This precinct provides ample open space, both in quality and quantity, particularly in terms of playgrounds.

4.5




The Open Space Strategy provides that:

“From a quantity perspective Montmorency is well catered for with public open space. It has over 13 hectares of local and municipal level parks, as well as direct access to a further 59.2 hectares of parklands along the Plenty River Corridor. This effectively means that the residents of Montmorency have access to 8.16 hectares per 1000 residents, which is significantly above the standard quantitative benchmark of 1 hectare per 1000 people.

There are playground facilities within a relatively short distance to the Land including Harrington Reserve – local stand-alone open parkland space, which is located less than 100m to the north-west of the Land. The Open Space Strategy also 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, eg. 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.”

CONCLUSION

The proposal to sell the properties is consistent with the Open Space Strategy. There is no strategic or long term purpose for Council to retain ownership of the properties. Retaining ownership does not fulfil any useful Council or community function nor does continued ownership support “best practice” service delivery. For all intents and purposes the land to be known as No. 1 Orr Lane is a stand-alone residential allotment and does not service the community effectively as viable open space due to its size and topography and No. 2 Orr Lane is an existing residential property. The Guidelines for the Sale and Exchange of Council land provide that the sale of Council-owned land should be conducted through a public process. In this instance the sale of the properties at public auction is the most appropriate method of sale. The submissions received in relation to the proposal to sell the properties have been considered having regard to current and potential future land uses, the Guidelines for the Sale and Exchange of Council land and the Open Space Strategy. Submitters’ concerns in relation to potential over development of the properties could be alleviated by any future purchaser being obliged to enter into an agreement pursuant to section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 which would, amongst other things, restrict the number of dwellings able to be constructed on the properties.

On this basis it is considered that the proposal to sell the properties at public auction as individual allotments should be supported subject to any future purchaser of the properties being obliged to enter into an agreement pursuant to section 173 of the

4.5




Planning and Environment Act 1987 to be registered on title which would, amongst other things, restrict development on:

(a) the land to be known as No. 1 Orr Lane to one (1)dwelling; (b) No. 2 Orr Lane to a maximum of two (2) dwellings.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Having considered submissions and complied with the provisions of Section 189 of the Local Government Act 1989 by giving public notice of Council’s intention to sell the Council-owned land to be known as Nos. 1 and 2 Orr Lane Montmorency and being of the opinion that the land is surplus to Council’s and the community’s needs for the following reasons:

(a) No. 1 Orr Lane does not service the community effectively as viable open space due to its size and topography; it is considered to be a stand-alone residential allotment;

(b) No. 2 Orr Lane is considered to be an existing residential property; now directs that valuations be obtained and that Nos. 1 and 2 Orr Lane

Montmorency be sold as individual allotments at public auction subject to: (c) The contract for the sale of No. 1 Orr Lane including a condition that

the purchaser be required to enter into an agreement pursuant to section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 restricting any future residential development of the land to no more than one (1) dwelling;

(d) The contract for the sale of No. 2 Orr Lane including a condition that the purchaser be required to enter into an agreement pursuant to section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 restricting any future residential development of the land to no more than two (2) dwellings.

2. Write to each submitter advising them of the decision and the reasons for the

decision. 3. Authorise the signing and sealing of the necessary documentation to effect

the sale and transfer of the land at the appropriate time. 4. Consider opportunities to address difficulties with exiting of vehicles onto

Main Road and entering into Cressy Street from Main Road including options to upgrade traffic signage, line marking and potential “keep clear” linemarking on Main Road subject to consultation with VicRoads.

5.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

5.1

Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life


5.1 ANTI RACISM STRATEGY Author: Shawn Neilsen - Inclusion Access & Equity Social Planner, Corporate

Services

File: BS/16/085/002

SUMMARY

This report seeks Council’s endorsement of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission’s, “Racism – It stops with me” campaign.



CITY PLAN

This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction of “encourage diverse and inclusive community participation” under the Participation policy.

BACKGROUND

Between 2006 and 2011, Banyule has experienced a significant shift in cultural and linguistic diversity. There are (4,471) fewer residents with an Australian ancestral background, and increasing numbers from other ancestral backgrounds.

Ancestral groups with the largest increase in numbers include; English (by 2,855), Irish (by 1,201), Scottish (by 1,361), Italian (by 644) and Chinese (by 1,506).

Residents of Indian ancestry have almost doubled in number (from 1,148 in 2006 to 2,156 in 2011), and those with Somali ancestry have increased significantly as a proportion of their total population size (from 564 in 2006 to 864 in 2011.1).

Most people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds feel a strong sense of belonging in their local community and feel a sense of security in Australia.

This sentiment was confirmed by a 2006-2008 survey commissioned by VicHealth (2009) which reported that 90% of Victorians think it is a good thing for society to be made up of people from different cultures.

However, many individuals and communities still experience prejudice, discrimination and racism on a regular basis.

There were some worrying trends that emerged from this same survey:

Nearly 1 in 10 respondents agreed with the statement that not all races are equal.

Nearly 1 in 10 respondents said that it is not a good idea for people of different races to marry one another.

37% of respondents felt that ‘Australia is weakened by people of different ethnic origins sticking to their old ways.’

5.1


ANTI RACISM STRATEGY cont’d


36% of respondents believed that there are some groups that do not fit into Australian society and the most common groups mentioned were Muslim, Middle Eastern and Asian Victorians.

Locally, Darebin City Council Racism Inquiry Report 2012 found that:

2 in 10 Darebin citizens had experienced some form of racism or race-based discrimination.

‘Visible difference’ (skin colour, headwear, accent, name etc.) often acts as a trigger in race-based incidents.

In its 2011 multicultural policy, The People of Australia, the Australian Government

committed to develop and implement a National Anti-Racism Strategy. The Strategy

was developed through a process led by the Australian Human Rights Commission.

In 2012 the National anti Racism Strategy was launched and a key initiative of that

strategy is the “Racism. It stops with me” campaign.

The campaign aims to ‘... promote a clear understanding in the Australian community

of what racism is, and how it can be prevented and reduced’. Since its launch in 2012

many businesses, not for profit bodies and local governments have endorsed the

campaign.

Banyule has been invited to become a formal supporter of the campaign. Being a formal supporter involves agreeing to:

Endorse the campaign;

Promote the campaign through communications channels; and

Identify specific activities that the organisation can undertake over the next three years to support our stance against racism.

The campaign asks for a formal commitment to anti-racism, but does not tell organisations what to do. The specifics of how Banyule demonstrates this commitment will be left for us to determine through consultation with local communities. Becoming a supporter of the campaign is a key way that Council can demonstrate its firm commitment to access, inclusion and acceptance of difference. Becoming a supporter of the campaign does not involve any additional financial contribution. Supporting this campaign is also a key way that Council can meet the objectives of its Participation Policy and Strategy and supports actions in the draft Inclusion Access and Equity plan.


In developing this report to Council, 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

5.1


ANTI RACISM STRATEGY cont’d


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. Indeed, it is considered that working to address issues of racism is a key way to protect the human rights and dignity of local community members.

FUNDING IMPLICATIONS

Actions taken to respond the “Racism, it stops with me” campaign will be undertaken within existing resources.

CONCLUSION

The “Racism, it stops with me” campaign is a key initiative of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the Australian Government’s National Anti-Racism Strategy. Endorsing this campaign provides Council with an ideal opportunity to promote its commitment to antiracism and identify future initiatives that address racism and promote community harmony.

RECOMMENDATION

“That Council:

1. Endorse the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission’s “Racism. It stops with me” campaign.

2. Seek for officers to promote the campaign through available communication channels such as Council’s website, social media tools and use of the campaign logo where appropriate.

3. Have officers identify specific activities which support Council’s stance against racism and link to the Racism. It stops with me Campaign within existing budgets and commitments.”

ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 Racism, it stops with me - Supporter Aggreement 166

5.2



5.2 WARD FUND ALLOCATIONS Author: Gabrielle Hegarty - Acting Executive Assistant CEO & Councillors, Executive

File: BS02/015/002

SUMMARY

One Ward Fund Allocation applications have been submitted for consideration:

1 Councillor Name: Cr Rick Garotti

Ward: Grimshaw

Funding Recipient: Watsonia North Preschool

Amount Requested by Applicant: $5000.00

Ward Fund Contribution: $5000.00

Purpose/Reason: Funding will support the purchase of a new play fort which will be of great benefit to current and future children who attend the preschool

Works Completed No

Paid By Applicant Yes/No: No

Please Note: Copy of application forms and supporting documentation provided attached (refer Attachment 1).

5.2


WARD FUND ALLOCATIONS cont’d


QUARTERLY WARD FUND BALANCES

Council adopted the Banyule Council Ward Fund Policy at its meeting on 18 March 2013. Clause 6.4 of the Policy requires Expenditure of Ward Funds per Councillor to be reported quarterly to Council and is to include balances for each fund. The report includes the total expenditure allocated by Council at its meetings from 1/07/2013 to 30/09/2013 inclusive, being the first quarter of the financial year ending 30/6/2014.

Ward Funds Ward Funds

Councillor / Ward Allocated Balance unspent as at For quarter 30/9/2013

Cr Phillips – Beale $ 0 $38,494.90

Cr Mulholland – Griffin $ 4,978.55 $28,500.18

Cr Langdon – Olympia $10,938.62 $19,348.31

Cr Di Pasquale – Bakewell $ 2,930.00 $27,252.36

Cr Garotti – Grimshaw $ 8,610.00 $31,390.00

Cr Melican – Ibbott $ 0 $40,000.00

Cr Briffa – Hawdon $ 6,337.95 $23,680.89

RECOMMENDATION

“That: 1. The Ward Fund Allocations for Watsonia North Preschool be approved for

payment, subject to all acquittal documentation being provided; 2. The beneficiaries be notified of Council’s decision; and 3. The Quarterly Ward Fund Balances for the period 1/07/2013 – 30/09/2013

be noted.”

ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 Watsonia North Preschool supporting documents 173

6.1

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely


6.1 COUNCILLOR MOTIONS - STATUS UPDATE Author: Emily Outlaw - Governance Officer, City Development

File: BS02/015/002

SUMMARY

To provide a report on the current status of Councillor initiated motions.



CITY PLAN

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

BACKGROUND

Resolution (CO2013/17)

Council at its meeting on 4th February 2013 resolved the following Notice of Motion: “That

1. a report be submitted every two months at a Council meeting regarding the current status of Councillor initiated Motions.

2. This report to include:

date of approved motion;

a summary of the motion;

action taken by officers regarding the motion and date of action taken. (this includes letters sent);

feedback regarding the motion.(particularly if referred to State or Federal MP’s).”

The first status report is attached (Attachment 1). This report provides the status update of Councillor motions from the commencement of the new Council term (November 2012) to the 24 August 2013. The report includes a status of whether the item has been completed or in progress, a short explanation and if the item is scheduled to come back to Council for consideration.

6.1


COUNCILLOR MOTIONS - STATUS UPDATE cont’d


ADVOCACY

Many of the Councillor generated motions relate to advocacy requesting to meet with our Local Members of Parliament or the relevant Minister to advocate on behalf of our Community. Some of these issues include road and transport matters, the former school sites in Olympia Ward, libraries and cost shifting from State and Federal

Governments to Local Governments.

CURRENT SITUATION

Councillors currently raise matters in the Chamber via motions or statements. There are 3 options for Councillors to raise a matter before the Council:

1. Notice of Motion (Council report and forms part of the Agenda paper) 2. General Business 3. Urgent Business

A Council resolution is required for both Notices of Motions and Urgent Business items. Whilst General Business does not require a resolution of Council there may still be some action arising from this item and may be listed in this report. For the time period (19 November 2012 to 24 August 2013) there have been 69 Notice of Motions, 21 General Business Items and 11 Urgent Business items. Given that these items are generated by Councillors through the Council meeting process and often involve considerable investigation or deployment of resources the CEO will seek to prioritise the timeframe for a response to the NOM to ensure that they do not significantly impact on existing programmed workloads.

CONCLUSION

A report on the status of Councillor Motions will be presented to Council every two months.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council note the Councillor Motions Status Report.

ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 Councillor Motions Status Update report 176

6.2



6.2 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 September 2013

Type of Meeting: Councillor Briefing

Matters Considered: Support for Shopping Centres around cleansing, maintenance and Councils City Plan.

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

Staff Present: Simon McMillan, Chief Executive Officer Allison Beckwith, Director – Community Programs Scott Walker, Director – City Development Keith Yeo, Director – Corporate Services Vincent Ryan, Manager – Strategic & Economic Development Russell Darling, Manager – Operations Ben Smith, Co-Ordinator – Economic Development Nicole Maslin, Economic Development Officer Erica Hardie, Economic Development Officer

Others Present: Representatives from Banyule’s eleven Traders Associations

Conflict of Interest: Nil


Type of Meeting: Meeting with residents

Matters Considered: Ivanhoe Grammar Development Plan Petition to Council regarding consultation on the plan

6.2


ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS cont’d


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

Staff Present: Scott Walker, Director – City Development

Others Present: Robyn Roberts Dave King Ian Frost Nina Kelleher Geoff Purcell




Matters Considered: Items on the Council Agenda for the Ordinary Meeting of 23 September 2013 (excluding confidential items) 1.1 Ivanhoe Grammar School Development Plan Consultation 4.1 Options to introduce parking overlays in Banyule's Activity

Centres 4.2 Banyule Council - Transport Project Advocacy 4.3 Additional Paid Parking Locations in Banyule 5.1 Ward Fund Allocations 6.1 Assembly of Councillors 6.2 Operating Financial Report for Period Ended 31 August

2013 8.1 Flooding of the Darebin Creek 8.2 Victorian Police 8.3 Watsonia Motor Show General Business: Signing of Councillor Code of Conduct Acknowledgment of Olivia Newton-John Wellness Walk Congratulations offered for the official opening of Olivia Newton-John Cancer and Wellness Centre Youth Festival

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

Staff Present: Allison Beckwith, Director – Community Programs Scott Walker, Director – City Development Keith Yeo, Director – Corporate Services Gina Burden, Manager – Governance, Information and Laws Vincent Ryan, Manager – Strategic & Economic Development Emily Outlaw – Senior Governance Officer Russell Darling, Manager – Operations

6.2


ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS cont’d


Cameron Baird, Co-Ordinator – Engineering Services

Others Present: Nil




Matters Considered: Community led programming Carols by Candlelight Energy Saving Plan Northland Structure Plan / Darebin Street Local Government Electoral Review 2013

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

Staff Present: Simon McMillan, Chief Executive Officer Allison Beckwith, Director – Community Programs Scott Walker, Director – City Development Gina Burden, Manager – Governance, Information and Laws Vincent Ryan, Manager – Strategic & Economic Development Russell Darling, Manager – Operations Tom Zappulla, Acting Manager – Leisure & Culture Ben McManus, Acting Co-Ordinator – Leisure & Culture Ella Hinkley, Cultural Team Leader – Leisure & Culture Clayton Simpson, Resource Conservation Officer – Environmental Planning John Milkins, Environmental Sustainability Co-Ordinator – Environmental Planning

Others Present: Steve Thorne - Consultant


RECOMMENDATION

That the Assembly of Councillors report be received.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

7.1

Sealing of Documents


7.1 SEALING OF DOCUMENTS Author: Andrea Turville - Property Officer, City Development

Ward: Griffin

File: BS28/015/045 BP7355/7 BS34/015/034

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

.

PARTY\PARTIES: Banyule City Council and Try Australia Children’s Services

OFFICER: Andrea Turville FILE NUMBER: BS28/015/045 x BP7355/7 x BS34/015/034 DOCUMENT: Lease and Service Level Agreement ADDRESS: 7 Thyer Road, Ivanhoe WARD: Griffin BRIEF EXPLANATION: Council is the owner of the building located at 7 Thyer

Road Ivanhoe known as the Fairy Hills Kindergarten. The building is currently used for the operation of an Education and Care Service (Service) (namely a four year old kindergarten program). The Service operating from the building is provided by Try Australia Children’s Services (TRY) under an agreement. The agreement obligates TRY to provide kindergarten cluster management in accordance with the framework established by the Victorian Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (Service Level Agreement). A two year lease has been negotiated with TRY for the period 1 May 2013 and expiring 30 April, 2015. (The expiration date of the lease coincides with expiration date for leases for other Council owned kindergartens.) Public notice of Council’s intention to enter into the lease has been given in accordance with s. 190 of the Local Government Act 1989 (the Act). The submission period closed on 3 September 2013 and no submissions were received. Council should support entering into and formally ratifying the Lease and Service Level Agreement by resolving to affix its Common Seal to the Lease and Service Level Agreement.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Common Seal of the Banyule City Council be affixed to the following documents:

1. Lease and Service Level Agreement between Banyule City Council and Try Australia Children’s Services for a two (2) year term commencing 1 May, 2013 and expiring 30 April, 2015 for the Fairy Hills Kindergarten located at 7 Thyer Road, Ivanhoe.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

8.1

Notice of Motion


8.1 COUNCILLOR EXPENSE REPORTING Author: Cr Wayne Phillips

Ward: Beale

File: BS02/015/006

TAKE NOTICE that it is my intention to move:

“That Councils adopted practice of reporting Councillor Expenses (reference Notice of Motion 9.3 dated 23 April 2013) be amended to reflect reporting requirements as legislated under the Local Government Act.”

Explanation It is considered that the reporting imposed through legislation in relation to Councillor expenses, entitlements and resources is sufficiently transparent.

CR WAYNE PHILLIPS Beale Ward

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

8.2

Notice of Motion


8.2 PLENTY ROAD PRECINCT Author: Cr Rick Garotti

Ward: Grimshaw

File: ST6045

TAKE NOTICE that it is my intention to move:

“That Council 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. That Council 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.”

Explanation Community concern appears to be growing in recent times over the state of some residential properties in Bundoora. A cursory examination of the area suggests that a number of properties appear to be poorly maintained, with a decline in the quality of both buildings and gardens in some parts of Bundoora in particular. Further observations suggest that rental properties, student accommodation in particular, may be causing local amenity issues because of the state of some buildings and gardens, and rubbish both within the properties and on adjoining nature strips. There have been a number of Council strategies and guidelines developed to encourage good housing outcomes. The Student Accommodation Guidelines, August 2010 were developed to encourage appropriate and well-managed forms of student accommodation by promoting student housing on sites near the Principal Public Transport Network (PPTN) or in activity areas. These strategies are designed to ensure the development of more appropriate forms of housing in light of Council’s Housing Strategy - adopted in 2009 and now part of the Banyule Planning Scheme. The Housing Strategy has a range of aspirational goals that includes encouraging:

Housing located with good access to public transport, shops and services. Housing that is designed, constructed and used to substantially reduce environmental impacts, particularly for energy consumption, carbon emissions, water conservation and motor vehicle dependency.

High quality housing stock that complements the existing and preferred neighbourhood character whilst satisfying the needs of a diverse range of residents from all ages, family types, ethnicities, incomes and aspirations.

Housing that is well supported by infrastructure, services and transport, takes advantage of public transport networks and helps to reduce motor vehicle dependency.

8.2

Notice of Motion

PLENTY ROAD PRECINCT cont’d


These goals are supported by the Housing Framework map in the planning scheme which identifies preferred locations for change. This includes areas along Plenty Road because of their proximity to public transport and especially the neighbouring tram services. While Council must continue to vigorously pursue cleansing, planning, building and local law avenues for enforcing and improving residential amenity in Bundoora. It may, however, be even more beneficial to consider the longer-term direction of housing development in the area. When considering Council’s policy directions in the City Plan, the Housing Strategy, the Banyule Planning Scheme and the Student Accommodation Guidelines, it may be worth considering ways of encouraging better development outcomes in Bundoora. This may then start to address the long-term housing needs of the area and look at changes to the housing mix to better service local students and improve the quality of buildings and local amenity. In light of that policy context localities well placed to focus on housing development for students in particular would be areas either adjacent to or in close proximity to the PPTN, such as Plenty Road, Bundoora. Such an area, say from Grimshaw Street to the edge of Banyule close to LaTrobe University, would be worth focusing on as it is supported as an area for growth in both the Banyule Planning Scheme and the Student Accommodation Guidelines. Council could consider investigating ways in which it could better manage the land use of that area to improve amenity, address some existing concerns and explore greater densities. This may include translating the existing residential zone for this area to one of the State’s new residential zones. This might then more accurately reflect Council’s policy for this location. This would also build on Council’s existing policy commitment to promoting this Plenty Road Precinct as an accessible location for more diverse housing forms, including student housing.

CR RICK GAROTTI Grimshaw Ward

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

ATTACHMENTS

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 7 OCTOBER 2013 Page 53

1.1 The Lease of Chelsworth Park to Ivanhoe Grammar School

Attachment 1 Petition Cover Page ......................................................................... 54

2.1 Adoption of the 2013-2017 Recreation Plan

Attachment 1 Recreation Plan 2013-2017 Final .................................................... 55

4.1 North East Road Link Quarterly Update

Attachment 1 Letter from Mr Matthew Guy MP, Minister for Planning .................. 134

Attachment 2 Letter from Ms Jenny Mikakos MP, State Member for Northern Metropolitan Region ........................................................ 135

4.2 Yarra Street, Heidelberg - Raised School Crossing

Attachment 1 Concept Plan - Stage 1 - Yarra Street Raised Pavement School Crossing ............................................................................ 136

4.4 Ivanhoe Major Activity Area Planning Scheme Amendment

Attachment 1 Revised Draft Design and Development Overlay ........................... 137

5.1 Anti Racism Strategy

Attachment 1 Racism, it stops with me - Supporter Aggreement ......................... 166

5.2 Ward Fund Allocations

Attachment 1 Watsonia North Preschool supporting documents ......................... 173

6.1 Councillor Motions - Status Update

Attachment 1 Councillor Motions Status Update report ....................................... 176

Att

ach

men

t 1

1.1

Item: 1.1 Attachment 1: Petition Cover Page


Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1

Item: 2.1 Attachment 1: Recreation Plan 2013-2017 Final


Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

2.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1

Item: 4.1 Attachment 1: Letter from Mr Matthew Guy MP, Minister for Planning


Att

ach

men

t 2

4.1

Item: 4.1 Attachment 2: Letter from Ms Jenny Mikakos MP, State Member for Northern Metropolitan Region


Att

ach

men

t 1

4.2

Item: 4.2 Attachment 1: Concept Plan - Stage 1 - Yarra Street Raised Pavement School Crossing


Att

ach

men

t 1

4.4

Item: 4.4

Attachment 1: Revised Draft Design and Development Overlay


SCHEDULE 11 TO THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY

Shown on the planning scheme map as DDO11

IVANHOE MAJOR ACTIVITY AREA – DIVERSITY AREA PRECINCTS

Definitions

Active and engaging frontage is a ground floor elevation designed to facilitate active

visual engagement between pedestrians and building occupants. Activation can be assisted

by the extensive use of glazing, doors and windows which open directly onto the street, and

the provision of weather protection for pedestrians.

Articulated frontage is a building elevation visible from a street, laneway or public space

that is designed to add interest to the streetscape. Articulation may involve either horizontal

or vertical elements and should be at a scale proportionate to the size of the building and

adjoining streetscape.

Ivanhoe Major Activity Area is referred to as IMAA in this Schedule.

Street wall height is the height of the wall at zero setback from the adjoining pavement.

Where there is no pavement the height is to be measured from the ground level adjoining

the site.

1.0 Design objectives

Height & Setbacks

To ensure that the upper storey elements of new developments are not unduly bulky or

visually intrusive and that these taller elements are located so as to enable a transition in

height to surrounding lower scale buildings.

Overshadowing

To ensure new buildings do not unreasonably diminish sunlight access, particularly to

adjoin residential properties and key pedestrian routes and areas such as public squares.

Design

To provide for high quality, well designed and integrated new development in the Diversity

Area Precincts of Ivanhoe Major Activity Area (IMAA) where new development is

acknowledged and facilitated through the Ivanhoe Structure Plan 2012.

To ensure the Diversity Area Precincts are characterised by high quality contemporary

design that supports the desired character of the relevant precinct as outlined in the Precinct

Visions at Clause 21.08-3 and the Ivanhoe Structure Plan 2012.

To direct larger scale developments to key development sites where existing character,

location and topography support more development while retaining a fine urban grain at

street level.

To encourage new development that is designed to take advantage of the topography of the

IMAA and long-range views to the Dandenong Ranges, Kew, the Melbourne Central

Activities District and the surrounding landscape.

Accoustic & Visual Amenity

To ensure new buildings adjoining residential zones provide a transition in height, setbacks

and vegetation in order to protect the visual and acoustic amenity of dwellings and provide

opportunities to protect existing trees and plant new canopy trees.

To protect and enhance vegetation cover throughout the IMAA and encourage landscape

improvement initiatives such as the planting of new canopy trees, vertical gardens, green

roofs and green walls.

To ensure that signage does not dominate the streetscape image or lead to visual clutter.

Heritage & Character

--/--/20--

C--

--/--/20--

C--

--/--/20--

C--

Att

ach

men

t 1

4.4

Item: 4.4



To ensure that development does not adversely affect the significance of nearby heritage

places.

To ensure that the colours, materials and finishes of new developmentcomplements the

texture and fine grain nature of the surrounding area.

2.0 Buildings and Works

Permit Not Required

A planning permit is not required in a Business Zone to construct a building or construct or

carry out works for:

The installation of an automatic teller machine.

An alternation to an existing building facade provided:

The alteration does not include the installation of an external roller shutter.

At least 80 per cent of the building facade at ground level is maintained as an

entry or window with clear glazing.

An awning that projects over a road if it is authorised by the relevant public land

manager.

3.0 General Requirements

3.1 Height

Buildings and works should not exceed the preferred maximum heights specified in the

Tables to this Schedule.

The street wall height of new development abutting land within the Heritage Overlay must

visually integrate with the street wall of the abutting heritage place.

Architectural features should not exceed the preferred maximum height by more than 4

metres and should not exceed 10% of the gross floor area of the top of the building level.

Floor to ceiling heights should support the flexible use of interior spaces and achieve a

consistency of vertical scale between the floor levels of abutting buildings. Heights should

generally be no less than:

3.8 metres for retail and commercial uses;

3.0 metres for residential uses.

3.2 Setbacks

Buildings should be setback from property boundaries no less than the preferred minimum

setback distances specified in Table 6 to this Schedule. This does not apply where the land

(outside a Heritage Overlay) abuts land within a Heritage Overlay, in which case the front

setback should match that of the any adjoining significant heritage place.

Buildings in a non-residential zone should be constructed to side property boundaries up to

a preferred maximum height of 9 metres above natural ground level. Any part of a building

higher than 9 metres should be setback from the side boundary to provide equitable

opportunities for outlook, amenity, privacy and development potential relative to the

abutting property as outlined in Setback Standard 11 (Setback Standard 11 applies in

Precincts 1 and 5 as this is where the opportunity for larger mixed use developments exist).

Buildings in a residential zone should be setback from side property boundaries in

accordance with ResCode Standards B17-21 (Clauses 55.04-1 to 55.04-5).

Minor buildings and works, such as verandahs, architectural features, balconies, shelters,

sunshades, art works, street furniture, fences, and basements which do not project above

ground level, may be constructed within the setback distance from boundaries specified in

this Schedule.

--/--/20--

C--

--/--/20--

C--

Att

ach

men

t 1

4.4

Item: 4.4



3.3 Overshadowing

Buildings should not significantly overshadow the opposite footpath of adjoining streets

between 10:00 am and 3:00pm on 22 September.

Buildings should not significantly overshadow the secluded ground level private open space

of an existing dwelling between 10:00am and 3:00pm on 22 September.

3.4 Design

Building façades on sites with a frontage over 10 metres should be well articulated through

variations in forms, materials, openings or colours or the inclusion of vertical design

elements.

Colours and finishing on all building facades should be in muted tones and non-reflective

materials.

Where possible, upper levels should provide visual interest, light, shade, articulation and

activity through the inclusion of balconies, eaves, terraces and verandahs that are visually

recessed from adjoining streets and laneways.

Side and rear walls above street level that are visible from the public domain should be

designed to create attractive façades.

On corner sites, buildings should address both street frontages with either openings or street

level windows.

Ground floor frontages of buildings should contribute to safety by providing lighting and

activity and avoiding blank walls.

Vehicle entrances should be located and designed to avoid fragmenting footpaths and to be

visually recessive within the design of the building.

Lift over-runs, plant rooms and rooftop services should be designed in a manner that

integrates with the building and ensures that rooftop services are not visible from streets,

public open spaces and secluded private open space areas.

Signage should not dominate the streetscape image or lead to visual clutter.

Where possible, internal connections through development should be provided with active

frontages on both sides where appropriate.

3.5 Acoustic Amenity

New buildings should be designed to avoid unreasonable impacts on the acoustic privacy of

nearby dwellings.

3.6 Heritage Overlay

On land affected by the Heritage Overlay if there is any conflict between this Schedule and

the Requirements and Objectives of the Heritage Overlay, the provisions of the Heritage

Overlay take precedence.

4.0 Application Requirements

Any development application must be accompanied by a comprehensive planning and

urban design analysis, as appropriate to the scale of development to the satisfaction of the

Responsible Authority, addressing the following matters:

Analysis

An assessment of any existing buildings on the site of heritage, architectural or

cultural significance.

A description of the predominant precinct and streetscape character and an

explanation of how this character has influenced the siting, form, massing and

design of the proposed building.

Att

ach

men

t 1

4.4

Item: 4.4



How the proposal addresses the decision guidelines of this Schedule and other

relevant planning scheme provisions.

Form and function

The form, massing, profile, material finishes and detailed design of the proposed

building.

Justification for the proposed street wall height and proposed setbacks of the

upper levels from the street frontage.

Details of land use, including an assessment of how the proposed building

engages with and contributes to the activity of the street.

An assessment of access to and circulation through / around the site for vehicles,

pedestrian and cyclists.

Impact

An assessment of off-site impacts of the proposed building, such as

overshadowing and overlooking, in particular overshadowing of public spaces,

streets and the secluded open space areas of adjoining dwellings.

Impacts of the proposed building on views to and from the site.

Details of the overall floor space and an assessment of the effects on services,

traffic and car parking.

A shadow assessment demonstrating that solar access objectives and

requirements will be met.

A report prepared by a suitably qualified acoustic specialist outlining appropriate

measures to provide acoustic protection for existing and proposed dwellings.

Environmentally Sustainable Design

A commitment to a vision of a sustainable built environment that reduces the

ecological footprint of the development and meets the needs of occupants.

The use of best practise Green Star design principles, with a focus on the

following Environmentally Sustainable Design (ESD) considerations: facilities

management, indoor environmental quality, reductions in energy and water

usage, sustainable transport facilitation and infrastructure, water sensitive urban

design (WSUD) treatments and landscapes, low embodied energy materials, land

use, ecology and emissions.

Layouts that support good passive solar design and access to sunlight in new

buildings.

Landscaping

An arborist report identifying the location, significance and viability of existing

trees on and immediately adjacent to the site.

A landscaping plan showing existing trees to be retained and the species,

location, number and mature height of all proposed vegetation.

Landscape improvement initiatives such as the planting of new canopy trees,

vertical gardens, green roofs and green walls.

5.0 Decision Guidelines

In addition to the requirements of Clause 43.02-5, before deciding on an application the

responsible authority must consider, as appropriate:

The Design Objectives of this Schedule and the relevant Precinct.

Whether the proposed buildings and works will result in development that supports

the desired character statement for the relevant Precinct as outlined in Clause 21.08-3

and the Ivanhoe Structure Plan 2012.

Whether the proposed buildings or works are in accordance with the General

Requirements of this Schedule and the Requirements of the relevant Precinct.

--/--/20--

C--

Att

ach

men

t 1

4.4

Item: 4.4



6.0 References

Ivanhoe Structure Plan 2012

Ivanhoe Activity Centre Heritage Items and Precincts, Context, 2013

Att

ach

men

t 1

4.4

Item: 4.4



Map 1 – Diversity Area Precincts

Tables 1 to 5 – Diversity Area Precincts and Related Maps

Att

ach

men

t 1

4.4

Item: 4.4



Area DDO[X]-1 Darebin Station Precinct

Requirements

In addition to the requirements at Clause 4.0 of this Schedule, the following requirements should be met:

Built Environment

Buildings should be constructed with lower level podiums. Podiums should not exceed the maximum heights shown on the Darebin Station Built Form Plan.

Buildings should not exceed the preferred maximum building height shown on the Darebin Station Built Form Plan.

Buildings should be set back from public realm property boundaries in accordance with the requirements of Table 6 to this Schedule.

Building elevations facing streets and public vantage points should be designed with:

Active and engaging frontages in mixed use areas;

Articulated frontages;

Design emphasis, including architectural features, on key corners;

as shown on the Darebin Station Precinct Built Form Plan.

In any redevelopment of the station building, encourage an improved presentation to Heidelberg Road and active frontages by opening onto the street creating an accessible, welcoming and vibrant street life.

Create a stronger street edge in the mixed use area by encouraging new development with zero front and side setbacks for sites either side of Heidelberg Road.

Facilitate the creation of an open landscaped public square in front of the Station in accordance with

the Darebin Station Precinct Built Form Plan.

Natural Environment

Require the inclusion of trees and landscape in any major redevelopment of the station building.

Utilise landscaping to soften and screen the railway corridor and new development on Heidelberg Road.

Transport and Infrastructure

Provide for improved footpaths and lighting in the underpass connecting the station and platforms and install secure bicycle storage facilities.

Maintain access from the existing underpass between both platforms of Darebin Station in accordance with the Darebin Station Precinct Built Form Plan.

Att

ach

men

t 1

4.4

Item: 4.4



Darebin Station Precinct Built Form Plan DDO11-1

Att

ach

men

t 1

4.4

Item: 4.4



Area DDO11-2 Ivanhoe Plaza Precinct

Requirements


Built Environment

Buildings should be constructed with lower level podiums. Podiums should not exceed the maximum

heights shown on the Ivanhoe Plaza Built Form Plan.

Buildings should not exceed the preferred maximum building height shown on the Ivanhoe Plaza

Built Form Plan.

Buildings should be set back from public realm property boundaries in accordance with the

requirements of Table 6 to this Schedule.

Buildings in a residential zone should be setback from side property boundaries in accordance with

ResCode Standards B17-21 (Clauses 55.04-1 to 55.04-5).


Active and engaging frontages;


as shown on the Ivanhoe Plaza Form Plan.

Any redevelopment of the Ivanhoe Plaza site should include:

Larger format floorspaces and higher built form; and

Active and engaging frontages that complement the Upper Heidelberg Road Precinct.

Improve the presentation to Livingstone Street and create active frontages by opening onto the

street creating an accessible, welcoming and vibrant street life.

Ensure that the existing level of public car parking is maintained as part of any redevelopment.


Facilitate convenient car parking and improved rear screened loading zone(s) access to Ivanhoe

Plaza.

Loading and service bays should be designed and located to support their efficient use, avoid

conflict with pedestrians and passenger vehicles, and reduce their visibility from streets, as shown on the Ivanhoe Plaza Built Form Plan.

Provide an improved pedestrian link from Upper Heidelberg Road and in any redevelopment of the

Ivanhoe Plaza site.

Investigate the potential to widen Kenilworth Lane to achieve improved two way vehicular access,

pedestrian amenity and landscaping at the interface with current and future multi unit dwelling developments on Kenilworth Lane.

Att

ach

men

t 1

4.4

Item: 4.4



Ivanhoe Plaza Precinct Built Form Plan DDO11-2

Att

ach

men

t 1

4.4

Item: 4.4



Area DDO11-3 Lower Ivanhoe Precinct

Requirements


Built Environment

Buildings should be constructed with lower level podiums. Podiums should not exceed the maximum heights shown on the Lower Ivanhoe Built Form Plan.

Buildings should not exceed the preferred maximum building height shown on the Lower Ivanhoe Built Form Plan.





Continuous weather protection for pedestrians along Lower Heidelberg Road;


as shown on the Lower Ivanhoe Built Form Plan.

Ensure appropriate rear and side setbacks to retain amenity on abutting residential sites.

Encourage zero front and side setbacks on both sides of Lower Heidelberg Road. This does not apply to the section on the northern side of the road where setbacks are staggered. In this location front setbacks should reflect the staggered profile of the existing buildings.

Facilitate the creation of an open landscaped public square to add further vibrancy to the Precinct in the area near the corner of Marshall Street and Lower Heidelberg Road in accordance with the Lower Ivanhoe Built Form Plan.

Encourage lot consolidation and the redevelopment of underutilised sites.

Encourage redevelopment on both sides of Lower Heidelberg Road near Marshall Street.


Improve pedestrian safety and amenity including access to the Ivanhoe Grammar School and the

centre, by creating drop off and pick up zones and the improved circulation of traffic, in the area bounded by Russell Street, Marshall Street and Lower Heidelberg Road.

Establish a more pedestranised shared laneway that runs from Linton Street to Marshall Street. This

may include an improved surface, a treed environment and lighting.

Provide for pedestrian, vehicle and loading access in the laneway behind the shops on the northern

side of Lower Heidelberg Road to service future development and provide access for dwellings on the laneway.

Investigate improved pedestrian links, including signalised crossings, in conjunction with any

redevelopment.

Att

ach

men

t 1

4.4

Item: 4.4



Lower Ivanhoe Precinct Built Form Plan DDO11-3

Area DDO11-4 Ivanhoe Station Precinct

Att

ach

men

t 1

4.4

Item: 4.4



Requirements


Built Environment

Buildings should be constructed with lower level podiums. Podiums should not exceed the maximum heights shown on the Ivanhoe Station Built Form Plan.

Buildings should not exceed the preferred maximum building height shown on the Ivanhoe Station Built Form Plan, except as follows:

If land at nos. 2 Ivanhoe Parade, 1-5 Westley Avenue and 16-22 Seddon Street, Ivanhoe is

developed as a single consolidated site the preferred maximum height for that site is 18-25 metres (5-7 storeys).

Development of the triangle shaped car park site at 109 Waterdale Road should be designed to:

Limit the impact on the Upper Heidelberg Road Heritage Precinct and the Uniting Church on

Seddon Street (this may require building heights to the northern portion of the property to be restricted);

Provides passive surveillance of footpaths and laneways and incorporate the public toilet into a

future building;

Capture views across the rail line to the east from upper levels;

Ensure the access needs of the Uniting Church are met;

Replace existing car parking spaces, including spaces for people with disabilities.





as shown on the Ivanhoe Station Built Form Plan.

Developments should be designed to provide passive surveillance of the pathways and Marshall Street.

Where possible, existing at grade car parks should be developed to achieve 2 levels of parking using the grade or slope of the area.

Facilitate the creation of an open landscaped public square in Norman Street opposite the railway station to add further vibrancy to the Precinct.

Facilitate the creation of an open landscaped public square near the station to add further vibrancy in this part of the Precinct. Two possible locations could be on or near the triangular car park site near the corner of Waterdale Road and Upper Heidelberg Road, or the landscaped area in Norman Street opposite the Ivanhoe railway station.


Improve lighting for paths connected to the pedestrian crossing at the Marshall Street level crossing.

Advocate for improving pedestrian access to the station with defined pathways from the surrounding areas through the station car park areas.

Att

ach

men

t 1

4.4

Item: 4.4



Ivanhoe Station Precinct Built Form Plan DDO11-4

Att

ach

men

t 1

4.4

Item: 4.4



Area DDO11-5 Upper Heidelberg Road Precinct

Requirements


Built Environment

Buildings should be constructed with lower level podiums. Podiums should:

Not exceed the maximum heights shown on the Upper Heidelberg Road Built Form Plan; and

Be designed to maintain a consistent street wall height on both sides of Upper Heidelberg Road Precinct and side streets within the Precinct to enhance the sense of visual integration.

Buildings should not exceed the preferred maximum building height shown on the Upper Heidelberg Road Built Form Plan. In particular:

Buildings should be designed to retain glimpses of view from the public realm to the Melbourne Central Activities District;

40 Upper Heidelberg Road is a gateway site that suggests a sense of arrival into the activity area. This site provides the opportunity for a high quality, architecturally designed landmark building. Any design should incorporate the planting of trees along the Upper Heidelberg Road elevation to contribute to a sense of arrival into a boulevard and along the western elevation to reduce the visual bulk of the building from across the railway line. Reduced building setbacks may be considered for 40 Upper Heidelberg Road if design can achieve: A high quality, architecturally designed outcome that incorporates the planting of trees. Landscape character to Upper Heidelberg Road that contributes to a sense of ‘boulevard’ and

reflects the treed settings of those properties opposite the subject site. Reduction in visual bulk of the building when viewed across the railway line and from Lower

Heidelberg Road. A modulated façade to Upper Heidelberg Road that provides interest and relief from visual bulk

on lower levels. Design excellence reflected in the design of safe entrances to residential and commercial

properties directly from Upper Heidelberg Road.


Buildings in a non-residential zone should be constructed to side property boundaries up to a preferred maximum height of 9 metres above natural ground level. Any part of a building higher than 9 metres should be setback from the side boundary to provide equitable opportunities for outlook, amenity, privacy and development potential relative to the abutting property (Refer to Building Setback Diagram 11).

Buildings in a residential zone should be setback from side property boundaries in accordance with ResCode Standards B17-21 (Clauses 55.04-1 to 55.04-5).





as shown on the Upper Heidelberg Road Built Form Plan.

All buildings should have active frontages by opening onto the street creating an accessible, welcoming and vibrant street life.

Building frontages shown as ‘active and engaging frontages’ on the Upper Heidelberg Built Form Plan should:

Comprise at least 80% glazing or entry features at ground level;

Provide continuous weather protection through the use of awnings.

Rear elevations of new buildings on the ridgeline that are highly visible should be designed to add visual interest when viewed from Lower Heidelberg Road and surrounding residential streets.

Balconies of upper level additions to heritage places should be kept clear of fixtures or equipment that contribute to visual clutter and/or detract from the heritage significance of the place.

Consider opportunities for a redevelopment of the Ivanhoe Hotel site to provide a 'signature building' to Upper Heidelberg Road.

Facilitate the creation of an open landscaped public square near the main street to add further vibrancy in this part of the Precinct. Locations could be in the current car park at the northern

Att

ach

men

t 1

4.4

Item: 4.4



Livingstone Street edge of the Ivanhoe Plaza site and north of the Mary Immaculate Catholic Church on Upper Heidelberg Road near Waverley Avenue.

Maintain the pedestrian link from Waterdale Road through Bryant Reserve to Ivanhoe Parade.

Encourage through-access to retail premises in order to increase pedestrian connections between the Ivanhoe Railway Station and Upper Heidelberg Road.

Natural Environment

Require development below the ridgeline to maintain or plant canopy trees and vegetation on the slopes towards the railway line overlooking the Ivanhoe bowl, as a part of their landscape plans.


Investigate the potential to widen the laneway between Waverley Avenue and Kenilworth Parade, to the rear of Upper Heidelberg Road to achieve two way vehicular access, pedestrian amenity and landscaping at the interface with future multi unit dwelling developments.

Retain the pedestrian link between Norman Street and Upper Heidelberg Road through the Ivanhoe Hotel site at 120 Upper Heidelberg Road and encourage the installation of a lift for public use in any redevelopment of the site.

Att

ach

men

t 1

4.4

Item: 4.4



Upper Heidelberg Road Precinct Built Form Plan DDO11-5A

Att

ach

men

t 1

4.4

Item: 4.4



Upper Heidelberg Road Precinct Built Form Plan DDO11-5B

Att

ach

men

t 1

4.4

Item: 4.4



Table 6 – Building Setback Diagrams

Setback standards

1. Laneway Setback

Buildings should be constructed to the property boundary.

At the property boundary buildings should not exceed a preferred maximum height of:


9 metres above natural ground level in a non-residential zone.

Any part of a building higher than the above should be setback:

4.5 metres from the property boundary, except where the boundary abuts a laneway; or

3 metres from the property boundary, where the boundary abuts a laneway.

Building Setback Diagram 1

Att

ach

men

t 1

4.4

Item: 4.4



Setback standards

2. Main Street Interface

Buildings should be constructed to the property boundary.

At the property boundary buildings should not exceed a preferred maximum height of:


9.0 metres above natural ground level in a non-residential zone.

Any part of a building higher than the above should be setback:


to align with any abutting building that is setback more than 6 metres from the property

boundary.

Where the boundary exceeds 15 metres in length any part of a building higher than 18 metres above natural ground level should be setback 11 metres from the property boundary.


Att

ach

men

t 1

4.4

Item: 4.4



Setback standards

3. Narrow Side Interface

Buildings should be setback 2 metres from the property boundary.

Any part of a building higher than 7.5 metres above natural ground level should be setback 4 metres from the property boundary.

The ground level setback area should be designed to provide for landscaping and pedestrian access to the rear of the property.


Att

ach

men

t 1

4.4

Item: 4.4



Setback standards

4. Landscape Setback

Buildings should be setback:


4 metres from the property boundary to preserve an existing landscaped area.

Any part of a building higher than 7.5 metres above natural ground level in a residential zone or higher than 9.0 metres above natural ground level in a non-residential zone should be setback:

3 metres behind the ground floor facade; or

5 metres behind the ground floor facade where the property boundary abuts a Rail Reserve.


Att

ach

men

t 1

4.4

Item: 4.4



Setback standards

5. Urban Street, Urban Laneway and Side Interface



10 metres above natural ground level in any zone where the property abuts a laneway;


9.0 metres above natural ground level in a non-residential zone;

should be setback 6 metres from the property boundary.

The ground level setback area should be designed to protect existing trees (where relevant) and provide for additional landscaping.

Setbacks on properties abutting a laneway should be designed to encourage pedestrian, vehicular and loading access and provide access to dwellings on the laneway.


Att

ach

men

t 1

4.4

Item: 4.4



Setback standards

6. Lower Density Interface

Buildings should be setback 6 metres from the property boundary to protect existing trees and provide additional landscaping.



9 metres above natural ground level in a non-residential zone;



Att

ach

men

t 1

4.4

Item: 4.4



Setback standards

7. Shade Sensitive Interface



9 metres from the property boundary if abutting a laneway in a non-residential zone.




should be setback 6 metres behind the ground level facade.

The ground level setback area should be designed to protect existing trees (where relevant) and provide for additional landscaping.

Where sunlight to the secluded private open space of an existing dwelling is reduced, at least 75 per cent, or 40 square metres with a minimum dimension of 3 metres, whichever is the lesser area, of the secluded private open space should receive a minimum of five hours of sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 22 September. If existing sunlight to the secluded private open space of an existing dwelling is less than the requirements of this standard, the amount of sunlight should not be further reduced.


Att

ach

men

t 1

4.4

Item: 4.4



Setback standards

8. Parking Interface


6 metres from any property boundary abutting a two-way street; or

8.5 metres from any property boundary abutting a laneway.


9 metres above natural ground level in a non-residential zone should be setback 9 metres

from any property boundary abutting a two-way street;

4 metres above natural ground level in a non-residential zone should be setback 6 metres

from any property boundary abutting a laneway;

7.5 metres above natural ground level in a residential zone should be setback 9 metres

from the property boundary.


Att

ach

men

t 1

4.4

Item: 4.4



Setback standards

9. New Laneway with Parking Interface







Att

ach

men

t 1

4.4

Item: 4.4



Setback standards

10. Public Space and Landscape Settings

Building setbacks should be no less than existing conditions as at the date of gazettal.

Ground level setbacks should be designed to protect existing trees and provide for additional landscaping and high amenity public realm at the following locations:

80 Lower Heidelberg Road, to facilitate a public square;

10-12 Ivanhoe Parade, abutting Bryant Reserve, to create an extension to the reserve and

facilitate a public square;

149 Upper Heidelberg Road, to facilitate a public square of no less than 350 square metres

total, inside the property boundary;

33 Upper Heidelberg Road, to protect the existing amenity and tree planting zone;

1 Waverley Avenue, to facilitate a public square and provide a pedestrianised area towards

the abutting laneway.

The ground level setback should be designed to protect existing trees, retain and upgrade the existing drop off and parking area, and integrate multimodal functions, at 1047 Heidelberg Road (adjacent to Darebin Station).




should be setback 3 metres behind the ground level facade..


Att

ach

men

t 1

4.4

Item: 4.4



Setback standards

11. Upper Level Setbacks

Upper levels should be setback to provide equitable opportunities for outlook, amenity, privacy and development potential relative to the abutting property.


Att

ach

me

nt

1

5.1

Item: 5.1 Attachment 1: Racism, it stops with me - Supporter Aggreement


Supporter Agreement

Parties The Australian Human Rights Commission (Commission)

ABN: 47 996 232 602

Banyule City Council (Supporter)

ABN: 16 456 814 549

A. Background A.1 The Supporter agrees to enter into this Agreement with the Commission to support the

Commission’s ‘RACISM. IT STOPS WITH ME.’ Campaign (Campaign).

A.2 The purpose of the Campaign is to:

(a) Ensure more Australians recognise that racism is unacceptable in our community. (b) Give more Australians, at an individual and organisational level, the tools and

resources to take practical action against racism. (c) Empower individuals and organisations to prevent and respond effectively to racism

where it may happen. A.3 Nothing in this Agreement is intended to, or should be understood as, having any impact on

the independence of the Commission in the exercise of its functions.

A.4 The Supporter acknowledges that by entering into this Agreement, the Commission is not endorsing any product or service of the Supporter and neither party should imply such endorsement.

Statement of Agreement

1. Term

This Agreement comes into effect when it is signed by the second party to do so. The term of this Agreement is until 30 June 2015 unless terminated or otherwise agreed by the Commission and the Supporter.

2. Supporter Obligations

The Supporter agrees to:

(a) be publicly identified by the Commission as a supporter of the Campaign.

(b) support and promote the Campaign by:

(i) endorsing the Campaign, for example, by prominently featuring the Campaign logo, as set out in Annexure 1, on the Supporter’s website.

(ii) promoting the Campaign through the Supporter’s communication channels, and distributing information and material relating to the Campaign via the Supporter’s networks, programs and facilities.

http://www.hreoc.gov.au/index.htm

Att

ach

me

nt

1

5.1



(iii) distributing information and material relating to the Campaign through social media, including the Supporter’s Facebook page and Twitter account.

(c) use the Campaign logo in such promotion, and agrees to follow all directions from the

Commission on using the logo in a format that conforms with the Commission’s

branding guidelines.

(d) ensure that the Campaign logo is used, copied, supplied or reproduced only for the

purposes of promoting the Campaign and in accordance with this Agreement.

(e) exercise all reasonable care and diligence to protect the Commission’s reputation.

(f) immediately retract, amend, delete or destroy any use of the Campaign logo upon

receiving a notice by the Commission requiring it to do so.

The Supporter may provide the Commission with the Supporter’s logo in Vector format (.eps or .ai), in any size or resolution. Alternatively, the Supporter may provide the Commission with the Supporter’s logo in .tiff or .jpeg image formats at 300 dpi and a minimum 3 centimetres or 400 px width/height area.

The Supporter permits the Commission to use the Supporter’s logo on promotional materials for the Campaign, including media releases, e-bulletins, web pages and social media sites, including the Commissions Facebook page relating to the Campaign.

To avoid doubt, the Commission grants the Supporter the right to exercise intellectual property rights in the Campaign logo only and the Supporter has no right, interest or licence to use the Commission’s logo for any purpose.

3. Commission Obligations

The Commission agrees to:

(a) acknowledge and promote the Supporter on the Campaign website.

(b) acknowledge and promote any events and activities undertaken by the Supporter to take a stance against racism during the period of this Agreement.

(c) exercise all reasonable care and diligence to protect the Supporter’s reputation.

(d) ensure that the Supporter’s logo, as set out in Annexure 2, is used, copied, supplied or reproduced only for the purposes of promoting the Campaign and in accordance with this Agreement.

4. Conflict of Interest

The Supporter warrants that no conflicts of interest exists, or is anticipated, relevant to the performance of the Supporter obligations under this Agreement. If a conflict of that kind arises, the Supporter must notify the Commission immediately. The Commission may decide in its absolute discretion — without limiting its other rights under this Agreement — that the Supporter may continue to perform the Supporter obligations under this Agreement.

5. Intellectual Property

The Commission retains ownership of intellectual property rights in the Campaign logo. The Commission grants a fee free, fixed term, worldwide licence to the Supporter to use the Campaign logo in accordance with the terms of this Agreement and for the purposes of the Campaign only. The Commission grants the Supporter the right to sub-license the use of the Campaign logo to its contractors and personnel as required to fulfil the Supporter’s obligations under this Agreement and for the purposes of the Campaign.

The Supporter retains ownership of the intellectual property rights in the Supporter’s logo. The Supporter grants a fee free, fixed term, worldwide licence to the Commission to use the Supporter logo in accordance with the terms of this Agreement and for the purposes of the Campaign only.

Att

ach

me

nt

1

5.1



The Supporter warrants to the Commission that it is the registered trade mark owner of the Supporter logo and that it has all rights, powers and licences to deal with the intellectual property rights in the Supporter logo in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. The Supporter will indemnify the Commission against any third party claim arising from the Commission’s use of the Supporter’s logo.

6. Governing Law and Jurisdiction

This Agreement is governed by the laws of New South Wales, Australia and each of the parties submits to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of New South Wales, Australia.

7. Variation

No agreement or understanding varying or extending this Agreement, including in particular the Supporter obligations and the Commission obligations, is legally binding upon either party unless in writing and signed by both parties.

8. Dispute Resolution

For any dispute arising under this Agreement:

(e) both Agreement Managers will try to settle the dispute by direct negotiation;

(f) if unresolved, the Agreement Manager claiming that there is a dispute will give the other Agreement Manager a notice setting out the details of the dispute;

(g) within five business days, each Agreement Manager will nominate a senior representative, not having prior direct involvement in the dispute;

(h) the senior representatives will try to settle the dispute by direct negotiation; and

(i) failing settlement within a further 10 business days, either the Commission or the Supporter may commence legal proceedings.

The Commission and the Supporter will each bear its own costs for dispute resolution.

Despite the existence of a dispute, each party will (unless requested in writing by the other party not to do so) continue its performance under this Agreement.

The procedure for dispute resolution does not apply to action relating to termination or to legal proceedings for urgent interlocutory relief.

9. Termination

Either party may terminate this Agreement in whole or in part if:

(a) a party receives notice from a third party that the other party does not have the right to grant the intellectual property licence set out in clause 5;

(b) the other party breaches this Agreement and the breach is not capable of remedy; or

(c) the other party does not remedy a breach of this Agreement which is capable of remedy within the period specified by the first party in a notice of default issued to the other party.

10. Termination by the Commission

In addition to its right to terminate this Agreement under clause 9 above, the Commission may terminate this Agreement in whole or in part if the Supporter is, or becomes, directly involved in any act or practice which:

(d) conflicts with the functions of the Commission; or

(e) constitutes a breach of Commonwealth, State or Territory human rights, equal opportunity or anti-discrimination legislation.

Att

ach

me

nt

1

5.1



11. Agreement Managers and Addresses for Notices and invoices

The Commission’s Agreement Manager:

Name/position title: The person occupying the position of Principal Adviser, Race Discrimination, currently Rivkah Nissim

Postal Address: Level 3, 175 Pitt Street, Sydney

Telephone: +61 2 9284 9759

Mobile: +61 407 974 934

Email Address: [email protected]

The Supporter’s Agreement Manager:

Name/position title: The person occupying the position of ________ currently ________

Postal Address: 275 Upper Heidelberg Road Ivanhoe 3079

Telephone: (03) 9490 4222

Email Address:

Both Agreement Managers will be responsible for the general liaison and accepting and issuing any written notices under the Agreement.

Signing Page

EXECUTED as an Agreement

Signed for and on behalf of the Commonwealth of Australia as represented by the Australian Human Rights Commission ABN 47 996 232 602 by its duly authorised delegate in the presence of

Signature of witness Signature of delegate

PADMA RAMAN

Name of witness (print) Name of delegate (print)

Executive Director

Position of delegate (print)

ON: [insert date]

mailto:[email protected]

Att

ach

me

nt

1

5.1



For a company with multiple directors Executed by [insert company name of Service Provider] ACN: [insert Service Provider’s ACN] in accordance with Section 127 of the Corporations Act 2001

Signature of director

Signature of director/company secretary (Please delete as applicable)

Name of director (print) Name of director/company secretary (print)

ON: [insert date] ON: [insert date]

Att

ach

me

nt

1

5.1



For a sole director company Executed by [insert company name of Service Provider] ACN: [insert Service Provider’s ACN] in accordance with Section 127 of the Corporations Act 2001

Name of director/company secretary (print)

Signature of director/company secretary who state they are the sole director/company secretary of [insert company name of Service Provider] (Please delete as applicable)

ON: [insert date]

For a sole trader or organisation without an ACN Executed by [insert name of Service Provider] in the presence of

Signature of witness

Signature of Service Provider

Name of witness (print) Name of Service Provider (print)

ON: [insert date]

Att

ach

me

nt

1

5.1



Annex 1 – Commission logo

The Campaign logo is in the following form:

Annex 2 – Supporter logo

The Supporter logo in in the following form:

Att

ach

men

t 1

5.2

Item: 5.2 Attachment 1: Watsonia North Preschool supporting documents


Att

ach

men

t 1

5.2



Att

ach

men

t 1

5.2



Att

ach

men

t 1

6.1

Item: 6.1 Attachment 1: Councillor Motions Status Update report


Att

ach

men

t 1

6.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

6.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

6.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

6.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

6.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

6.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

6.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

6.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

6.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

6.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

6.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

6.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

6.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

6.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

6.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

6.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

6.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

6.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

6.1



Att

ach

men

t 1

6.1

