Monday, 17 September 2018 - Banyule Council€¦ · 17/9/2018 · Monday, 17 September 2018 Ordinary Meeting of Council Council Chambers, Ivanhoe Service Centre 275 Upper Heidelberg

Agenda

Monday, 17 September 2018

Ordinary Meeting of Council

Council Chambers, Ivanhoe Service Centre

275 Upper Heidelberg Road, Ivanhoe

- Council Meeting commencing at 7.00pm

- Public Question Time commencing at the conclusion of the Council Meeting

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 17 September 2018 Page 2

Acknowledgement of the Traditional Owner, the Wurundjeri willam people

"Our Meeting is being held on the Traditional Land of the Wurundjeri willam people, and on behalf of Banyule City Council, I wish to acknowledge them as the Traditional Owners. I would also like to pay my respects to the Wurundjeri Elders, past and present, and to the Elders of other Aboriginal peoples who may be here today.”

Apologies and Leave of Absence

Confirmation of Minutes Ordinary Meeting of Council held 27 August 2018

Disclosure of Interests

1. Urgent Business

REPORTS:

2. Petitions

Nil

3. People – Community Strengthening and Support

3.1 Alliance for Gambling Reform Partnership .................................... 5 3.2 Draft Ford Park AFL Infrastructure Study ...................................... 9

4. Planet – Environmental Sustainability

Nil

5. Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

5.1 15-17 Castle Street EAGLEMONT - Eight Dwellings - P506/2018 .................................................................................. 19

5.2 Ivanhoe Parking Plan - Final ...................................................... 38 5.3 Car Parking Requirements in the Banyule Planning Scheme ...... 43 5.4 Additional paid parking systems - consultation feedback for

Macleod, Rosanna and Montmorency ......................................... 50 5.5 Maltravers Road, Ivanhoe East - Consideration of the Installation

of Speed Reduction Measures .................................................. 59 5.6 Victorian Government Announcement - Suburban Rail Loop ...... 70 5.7 Consultative Committee Bell Bardia and Tarakan Estates

Renewal...................................................................................... 73

6. Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life

6.1 MAV State Motions ..................................................................... 77 6.2 Advisory committee reports......................................................... 79

7. Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

7.1 Certification of the Financial Statements and Performance Statement for the Year Ended 30 June 2018 .............................. 83

7.2 Financial Sustainability Strategy 2018-2022 ............................... 88 7.3 Award of Contract 0966-2018 for the Construction of the Ford Park

Community Activity Area - Stage One ......................................... 91 7.4 WaterMarc Cafe Tenancy 1, 1 Flintoff Street, Greensborough -

Proposed Lease ......................................................................... 96


7.5 Assembly of Councillors ............................................................ 100

8. Sealing of Documents

Nil

9. Notices of Motion

9.1 Traffic Safety Measures in the Vicinity of Ivanhoe Primary School ...................................................................................... 105

10. General Business

Public Question Time

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 Proposed Property Use

Matters Discussed in Camera

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

Closure of Meeting

Audio Recording of Council MeetingsPlease note that all Council Meetings are audio recorded, with the exception of

matters identified as confidential items on the Agenda. This includes public participation during the meeting. These recordings will be made available on

Council’s website www.banyule.vic.gov.au.

The next Ordinary Meeting of Council will be held on Monday, 8 October 2018.

http://www.banyule.vic.gov.au/

People – Community Strengthening and Support


3.1 ALLIANCE FOR GAMBLING REFORM PARTNERSHIP

Author: Megan Farquhar - Health Promotion & Project Support Officer, Community Programs

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Local government has very little capacity to influence the location and number of Electronic Gaming Machines (EGMs), or the regulations governing their use, as this falls under the jurisdiction of the State Government. Therefore advocacy, and a joint and concerted advocacy campaign, is the most important avenue and role for local government to minimise the harm from gambling in our communities.

In September 2017, Banyule became a Leadership Council Partner within the Alliance for Gambling Reform based on Resolution Number CO2017/199.

Advocacy for reform is the key aim of the Alliance for Gambling Reform. Continuing our funding as a Leadership Council Partner of the Alliance for Gambling Reform recognises and acknowledges Banyule Council’s commitment to reduce the harms to our community from gambling.

The purpose of this report is to seek Council approval to continue the partnership with the Alliance for Gambling Reform as a Leadership Council Partner. And provide an evaluation of the outcomes of the partnership with the Alliance for Gambling Reform to date.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Approves the continuance of Banyule as Leadership Council Partner with the Alliance for Gambling Reform to the value of $25,000, funds have already been allocated in the 2018-19 Operational Budget.

2. Receives a further report in September 2019 to evaluate the outcomes of continuing as Leadership Council Partner with the Alliance for Gambling Reform.

1.

COUNCIL PLAN

This report is in line with Banyule’s Council Plan key direction to “Support and promote health and wellbeing”.

BACKGROUND

Australians spend more on gambling per head than any other country in the world - $23.64 billion in total gambling losses in 2015-2016. This equates to $1100 per annum per person.


ALLIANCE FOR GAMBLING REFORM PARTNERSHIP cont’d


The next highest losses are in Singapore ($800 per person) and then Ireland ($600 per person). Australia has 20% of the world’s poker machines as compared with 0.3% of the world’s population. Electronic Gaming Machines (EGMs), or poker machines, are the source of over two thirds of total gambling losses. Poker machines in hotels and clubs are the source of almost half of these total losses.

LEGAL CONSIDERATION

There are no direct legal implications arising from the recommendations contained in this report. HUMAN RIGHTS CHARTERIn developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities.

It is considered that the subject matter does raise issues relating to the Charter, specifically “the right to protection of families and children”. This right includes matters which impact and affect the welfare of children within the family, and there has been much debate and research into the effects of EGMs and gambling on the welfare of families and children.

ADVOCACY

Local government has very little capacity to influence the location and number of EGMs, or the regulations governing their use, as this falls under the jurisdiction of the State Government. Therefore advocacy, and a joint and concerted advocacy campaign, is the most important avenue and role for local government to minimise the harm from gambling in our communities.

Advocacy for reform is the key aim of the Alliance for Gambling Reform. Continuing our funding as a Leadership Council Partner of the Alliance for Gambling Reform recognises and acknowledges Banyule Council’s commitment to reduce the harms to our community from gambling.

As a Leadership Council Partner of the Alliance for Gambling Reform, our inclusion in the advocacy campaign in the lead up to the State Election in November 2018 will include the following:

A reduction of machines; $1 maximum bets; Reduced opening hours; Machine design to remove harmful and addictive features; Ban political donations; Maintain the 50/50 club / hotel split; Daily $200 EFTPOS limits; VCGLR to take into account all gambling harm in decisions; Increased Create a duty -of-care for venue operators.

CURRENT SITUATION

There are 635 electronic gaming machines in 9 gaming venues within Banyule, with losses totalling $58,836,907 during the 2017-18 financial year, which equates to a loss of $92,656 per machine. This is an increase of $3 million dollars on the previous financial year 2016-17.




The number and distribution of EGMs in Victoria is particularly significant for the following reasons:

EGMs are the major form of gambling expenditure in Victoria;

Whilst other forms of gambling are growing rapidly, in particular on-line gambling and sports betting, the expenditure on these is dwarfed by losses on EGMs;

The economic impact of EGMs is local. There is a direct relationship between the density of EGMs within a local government area and EGM expenditure per adult. The more EGMs there are in a particular area, the higher the average expenditure per adult will be for that area;

The most disadvantaged communities tend to incur the highest gambling losses. In 2015-16 EGM losses in Greater Dandenong, the least affluent locality in metropolitan Melbourne, were $976 per adult, nearly 7 times more than the $142 per adult in Boroondara, among the most advantaged municipalities in Victoria.

EGMs are a major source of problem gambling. The use of gaming machines is associated with approximately 80% of problem gamblers who receive counselling; and

EGMs are increasingly available across the Banyule community and in significant proportions at Banyule hotels.

FUNDING IMPLICATIONS

There are no funding implications as $25,000 has been allocated in the 2018-19 operational budget.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

There are no policy implications arising from this report. Banyule has an existing EGM policy and is in the process of developing a new Electronic Gambling Policy. Reducing harm from EGMs is identified in the Council Plan 2017-2021, under the People key direction of Develop and promote safety and resilience in our community

DISCUSSION

As noted above, continuing our funding as a Leading Partnership Council of the Alliance for Gambling Reform recognises and acknowledges Banyule Council’s commitment to reduce the harms to our community from gambling.

Being a Leadership Council Partner of the Alliance for Gambling Reform, also provides Banyule City Council with access to additional resources and expertise. The benefit of this approach is that it allows Banyule to develop a tailored program of work with the Alliance and greater access to expertise.

Over the past 12 months, the Alliance for Gambling Reform has assisted Council with the following:

Review and update of the Banyule City Council Gambling Policy 2018 Background Discussion Paper;

Review and input into the Draft Banyule City Council Gambling Policy 2018; Guidance and advice on gambling related issues.




Over the next 12 months it is anticipated that the Alliance for Gambling Reform will assist Council with the following:

Guidance and advice on advocating for change to the State Government; Assistance with the implementation of the Gambling Action Plan developed

for the Gambling Policy once it is adopted; Assistance with statistics and other information on gambling related losses; Assistance with community education; In the event of applications to increase EGMs within Banyule and

neighbouring municipalities, assist in the preparation of Social and Economic Impact Assessments.

OFFICER DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 (Act) requires members of Council staff, and persons engaged under contract to provide advice to Council, to disclose any direct or indirect interest in a matter to which the advice relates.

Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter.

CONCLUSION

While it is recognised that councils have very little capacity to influence the location and number of EGMs, or the regulations governing their use, as it falls under the jurisdiction of the State Government. The main way councils can influence policy direction is through advocacy.

Therefore, it is being recommended that Banyule Council fund the Alliance for Gambling Reform for $25,000 to continue as a Leadership Council Partner within Alliance Leader in recognition and acknowledgement of Council’s commitment to reduce the harms to the community from gambling.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil



3.2 DRAFT FORD PARK AFL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY

Author: Darren Bennett - Manager Leisure, Recreation & Culture, Community Programs

Ward: Olympia

Previous Items Council on 30 April 2018 (Item 6.1 - Ford Park - AFL Draft Infrastructure Study)

Council on 16 July 2018 (Item 5.7 - Draft AFL Infrastructure Study)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In March 2018, Council appointed Inside Edge Sport and Leisure Planning to develop the Ford Park AFL Infrastructure Study.

The objective of this project was to prepare a study in line with the current Ford Park Masterplan adopted by Council in 2016 and to look at capacity building of the two current ovals including the opportunity to establish a regional level venue that caters for growing population.

Consultation has been undertaken with key internal and external stakeholders to gather information, identify the needs of key users and determine future improvements and development opportunities at Ford Park.

At the Council meeting in April 2018, Council resolved to release the Draft Ford Park AFL Infrastructure Study for the purpose of community consultation between 7 May 2018 and 7 June 2018. Council received three submissions regarding the draft study.

AFL Victoria have also identified the Ford Park Reserve as a key site for development. Officers have applied for $100,000 within Round 2 of AFL Funding Support for Key Community Facility Projects which was due on the 30 June 2018.

The draft Ford Park AFL Infrastructure Study was presented at the Council meeting on the 16 July 2018. Representatives from the IJFC addressed Council at the meeting and Council deferred its decision in relation to the final study.

On the 1 August 2018 Council received written confirmation from AFL Victoria confirming its support and a funding pledge of $100,000 for the project.

Officers have since held an additional workshop with key stakeholders and have also met with representatives from clubs, taken into account the feedback received during the public consultation period and have adjusted the final Draft Ford Park AFL Infrastructure Study where appropriate.

The daft study is ready for final consideration by Council and given the timeframe for the AFL grant application this report also seeks retrospective approval for the funding application.


DRAFT FORD PARK AFL INFRASTRUCTURE STUDY cont’d


RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Adopt the Ford Park AFL Infrastructure Study July 2018 (Attachment Two).

2. Note an application has been made for $100,000 within Round 2 of AFL Funding Support for Key Community Facility Projects, provide retrospective approval for this grant application and acknowledge the funding pledge from AFL Victoria.

3. Acknowledge the Ford Park Masterplan 2016 will need to be altered to reflect:

a. The redevelopment of Ford Park in line with the AFL Infrastructure Study will elevate the park status to a regional level venue.

b. An asset protection fence will need to be installed around the southern oval in order for the proposed AFL/Cricket Australia synthetic oval to be protected.

4. Thank representatives from the project partner organisations for their valued contribution to the Ford Park Infrastructure Study.

COUNCIL PLAN

This report is in line with Banyule’s Council Plan key direction to “Support and promote health and wellbeing”.

BACKGROUND

Ford Park Masterplan In March 2016, Council appointed ACLA Consultants to work with the community and Council to develop a Masterplan for Ford Park, Bellfield. Council adopted this Masterplan in September 2016.

The Masterplan found that facilities needed to be upgraded to support any future increase in use such as expected increases in female participation and through the establishment of additional winter tenants at the park.

The site is located in the middle of the La Trobe Employment Cluster and its development is critical to meet the future demands of this expanding community.

Since adopting the Masterplan, Council has been approached by Yarra Junior Football League (YJFL) regarding the future development of Ford Park. Officers had also held previous discussions with the Northern Football League (NFL) in relation to the possibility of bringing an existing senior and junior club together on the site to provide greater capacity for football (Australian Rules) across Banyule.

The North East Link poses some possible displacement for YJFL from their current location at Bulleen Park.




Preliminary discussions with AFL Victoria suggested further investigation was required to determine what level of infrastructure/investment would be required to accommodate a senior club, junior club and YJFL at Ford Park.

Draft Ford Park AFL Infrastructure Study In March 2018, Council appointed Inside Edge Sport and Leisure Planning Edge Sport to develop the “Ford Park AFL Infrastructure Study”. Inside Edge Sport Planning have prepared the draft plan in partnership with Northern Football Netball League (NFNL), Yarra Junior Football League (YJFL), North Metro Cricket Association, AFL Victoria and Cricket Victoria.

Ford Park is highly valued by the local community, it currently hosts one tenant cricket club (Belfield Cricket Club) during summer and the Ivanhoe Junior Football Club has been a primary user of the venue in the winter season for games and training for a number of years. It is important to acknowledge that both the Bellfield Cricket Club and Ivanhoe Junior Football Club are key stakeholders at Ford Park.

Both ovals at Ford Park are also used by the YJFL and NFNL as overflow venues for both senior and junior football and is a significant ground for pre-season training.

Cricket and football also use the venue for overflow training and game day requirements particularly when other facilities (ovals and pavilions) within Banyule are being renovated.

The current tenant arrangement provides opportunities for the inclusion of at least one permanent additional winter tenant and further opportunities for casual use.

With the high visibility of the Reserve and accessibility ease, Ford Park is in a unique redevelopment position. Whist the existing Ford Plan Masterplan aims to expand the reserves community activation offering, redevelopment to AFL regional level with Multi-Purpose pavilion, all-inclusive amenities and one synthetic field would address the significant projected growth within the municipality.

This study has identified objectives to guide the venue development to ensure maximum future use:

Strengthen partnerships between community, sporting and government bodies.

Pool stakeholder funds and resources to ensure shared redevelopment priorities are met.

Engage potential new user groups and maximise scheduling opportunities to support increased venue usage.

Promotion of social and unstructured recreational opportunities at the venue for the community.

The proposed works include; Cricket net training upgrade. Lighting upgrade (150 lux) - both ovals. Central multipurpose pavilion. Synthetic surface upgrade to south oval. Fencing requirements.




Given the opportunity for Ford Park to be redeveloped, it would offer new prospects for new tenant/s and increase social and informal use. The geographical location of the site also offers the possibility of accommodating communities of surrounding municipalities.

The objective of a redevelopment at Ford Park is to maximise venue usage through increasing capacity and ensuring additional opportunities for community participation in sport and recreation. This is also identified through the Ford Park Masterplan 2016.

At the Council meeting held on the 30 April 2018, Council resolved to release the Ford Park Draft Infrastructure Study for the purpose of community consultation between 7 May 2018 and 7 June 2018.

Written Submissions Council received three written submissions regarding the draft study form the following organisations:

Ivanhoe Junior Football Club West Ivanhoe Sporting Club North Heidelberg Sporting Club

Ivanhoe Junior Football Club The Ivanhoe Junior Football Club’s key areas of concern can be generally be grouped into broad strategic planning issues and operational issues:

Strategic planning issues:

o Recognised as the primary winter tenant o no reduction in current access (game days and training) o a home for the Ivanhoe Netball Club o a minimum of 2 Indoor netball courts and 2 outdoors netball courts

Operational issues:

o Sunday canteen to be operated by the IJFC

Officers met with representative from the Ivanhoe Junior Football Club (IJFC) on 21 June to discuss their submissions and provide further information about Council’s process to consider the draft study.

While the current IJFC’s current ground allocation is acknowledged, it is difficult to guarantee this allocation as Council’s Sporting Reserve Allocation Policy 2017 - 2020guides how Council manage the challenging task of sports field allocations. It is acknowledged that the IJFC have used the facility for training and game day venue for many years.

The operational issues identified by the IJFC will also need to be considered once the final tenant arrangement have been confirmed and the operational requirement for each potential user group using Ford Park is understood.

The Ivanhoe Junior Football Club were also advocating on behalf of the Ivanhoe Netball Club for the Netball Club to be a tenant in their own right and for an additional two indoor courts and two outdoors courts be included in the draft study.




This proposal is not supported given the Ford Park Masterplan was adopted in September 2016 following significant community consultation and includes one multi-purpose court within the youth space adjacent to the North Oval.

In addition, the Sub-Regional Indoor Sports Needs Analysis Report was adopted in November 2017 following significant community consultation. This study does not support additional four courts at Ford Park.

Ivanhoe Netball Club have been advised to hold further discussion with Ivanhoe Grammar School (IGS) in relation to accessing some of their additional court space once the proposed stadium at IGS has been constructed. Officer and Councillors have met with representatives from the INC to provide feedback relating to this proposal and other recent proposals for additional courts in Ivanhoe received form the INC.

West Ivanhoe Sporting Club West Ivanhoe Sporting Club has requested they be considered for permanent tenancy at Ford Park as part of the changes being made under the redevelopment plan.

At present the club is based at Seddon Reserve, Ivanhoe and the club executive committee feels the venue is ‘tucked away’ from the mainstream of the community and believe in order to develop a pathway for juniors into senior AFL teams over time they need a bigger ground.

The Club have indicated if they are successful in gaining year-round tenancy they will contribute $100,000 towards the Ford Park redevelopment.

North Heidelberg Sporting Club The North Heidelberg Sporting Club has also expression of interest in the Ford Park Redevelopment and requested an opportunity to discuss the development in particular time and delivery of the project as they view the development as possibly a key component of the club’s strategic planning over the next decade & beyond.

Both of the West Ivanhoe Sporting Club’s submission and the North Heidelberg Sporting Club’s submission did not provide specific comments regarding the draft strategy, however their interest in future use has been noted and will need to be considered within the context of Council’s Sporting Reserve Allocation Policy 2017 - 2020 which guides how Council manage the challenging task of sports field allocations.

LEGAL CONSIDERATION

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

HUMAN RIGHTS CHARTER

In developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities.

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




LOCALITY PLAN

ADVOCACY

This project has been identified by Council as a key project for advocacy leading up to the State Government election. Once adopted, Council will seek funding from the State Government and the Federal Government to deliver the infrastructure components identified in the draft Ford Park AFL Infrastructure Study and the broader Ford Park Masterplan 2016.

CURRENT SITUATION

At the Council meeting on the 16 July 2018. Representatives from the IJFC addressed Council at the meeting and Council deferred its decision in relation to the report.




Following Council’s decision to defer the item, an information workshop was held on the 31 July and key stakeholder who currently use Ford Park or who have expressed an interest in Ford Park were invited to the workshop to gain further information regarding the draft study, provide an opportunity to have input into the draft study and also gain a better understanding of Council’s Sporting Reserve Allocation Policy 2017 – 2020. The workshop attracted over 25 people from the following eight organisations:

Ivanhoe Junior Football Club

West Ivanhoe Sporting Club

North Heidelberg Sporting Club

North Metro Cricket Association

Northern Football Netball League

Yarra Junior Football League

Belfield Cricket Club

AFL Victoria

Following this workshop, the IJFC sent further correspondence to Council seeking written commitment regarding the following issues:

The final AFL infrastructure report and master plan will include a reference that the IJFC is a past, present and ongoing key stakeholder at Ford Park

There will be no reduction in access rights for IJFC in line with that of the past two decades, including the need for more access as our club grows

Any other future stakeholders will not compete with the IJFC, but rather improve outcomes for the communities of Ivanhoe, Bellfield, Ivanhoe East and Eaglemont, all suburbs that are south of Bell St and represent around 18% of the City of Banyule’s population.

Senior Officers and Councillors met with representatives from the IJFC on the 23 August 2018. At this meeting some alternative wording which provides greater clarity around the IJFC current and past use of Ford Park was discussed.

Council’s Sporting Reserve Allocation Policy 2017 - 2020 which guides how Council manage the challenging task of sports field allocations and the assessment criteria within the Policy was also discussed. The assessment criteria clearly supports Ivanhoe Junior Football Clubs’ seasonal allocation to Ford Park through this policy. Future stakeholder management and expectation was also discussed and these requests and subsequent allocations will also be guided by the Sporting Reserve Allocation Policy 2017 – 2020.




A summary submissions and officer response is included in Attachment One.

Officers have taken into account the feedback received during public consultation period and the follow up meetings with clubs and have adjusted the final Draft Ford Park AFL Infrastructure Study (Attachment Two).

The current study is in line with AFL Victoria’s Heartland Strategy key priority to increase the quality, functionality and carrying capacity of existing facilities. AFL Victoria have identified the Ford Park Project as a key site for development and encouraged Council to apply for $100,000 within Round 2 of AFL Funding Support for Key Community Facility Projects.

Given this funding round closed on the 30 June, officers are seeking retrospective approval for the grant application in this report. Council received written confirmation from AFL Victoria on the 1 August 2018 confirming its support and a funding pledge of $100,000 for the project.


The total estimated cost to deliver the proposed improvements is $9,700,500. This estimated figure includes $6,690,000 for construction and $3,010,500 for design, site services and contingencies.

Council has allocated $1.6m to the project over the next three years. As mentioned previously in this report, AFL Victoria has confirming its support and a funding pledge of $100,000 for the project.

The delivery of the project will be heavily dependent on what State and Federal Government funding support can be confirmed.

CONSULTATION An extensive consultation process was undertaken to ensure involvement by all stakeholders in the preparation of the initial Masterplan adopted by Council in 2016.

The current study involved consultation with Northern Football Netball League (NFNL), Yarra Junior Football League (YJFL), North Metro Cricket Association, AFL Victoria and Cricket Victoria.

The community consultation phase for the current study also provided an opportunity for wider community feedback relating to the proposed study. Community members were invited to submit written submissions in relation to the draft plan via communication in the Leader Newspaper (Banyule in Brief), Council’s website, Council’s Facebook page, direct email to the user groups at Ford Park and primary and secondary stakeholders.

The community members who participated in the Community Reference Group established to help guide the initial Masterplan adopted by Council in 2016 have also be contacted via direct email.

DISCUSSION

In 2016 Council adopted the Ford Park Masterplan to guide sustainable planning and improvements for a ‘Significant Neighbourhood Park’. The Masterplan creates a vision for Ford Park which will cater to the expected increase in population and the informal and formal recreation desires of the community.




The draft AFL Infrastructure Study suggested the redevelopment of Ford Park to an AFL Regional Level venue that presents opportunities to build participation, maximise oval and amenity use and importantly, reduce demand on other facilities in Banyule.

The draft study recommends a synthetic oval be considered on the southern oval at Ford Park. In order for a synthetic oval to be protected, an asset protection fence (1.2m black chain mesh fence and a higher fence behind the Banksia Street goals to prevent the footballs from going onto the road) will need to be installed. The gates would not be locked and the community would have access to this space when not being used by sporting clubs however the synthetic surface and the fencing was not included in the original masterplan.

The written submission received largely focused on the current and future use of Ford Park. While these submissions are important and have been noted, the allocation of use is outside the scope of the draft Ford Park AFL Infrastructure Study.

Council understands the importance of being able to realistically share facilities amongst clubs in terms of their compatibility, required use and capacity of ovals to deliver the allocations required, however it was acknowledge that Ford Park has significant capacity to accommodate additional clubs and/or associations and these requests and subsequent allocations will also be guided by the Sporting Reserve Allocation Policy 2017 – 2020.




CONCLUSION

The extensive consultation held on the Ford Park Study confirmed that Ford Park is a highly valued reserve for the user groups and local community in and around Ivanhoe. Providing a venue to a regional level standard that caters for diversity, will capitalise on the opportunities the growth in football and cricket presents. The development will also provide a connectedness for local residents through sport which is significant given the site is located in the middle of the La Trobe Employment Cluster and its development is critical to meet the future demands of this expanding community.

ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 Summary of submissions

2 Draft Ford Park - AFL Infrastructure Study

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment


5.1 15-17 CASTLE STREET EAGLEMONT - EIGHT DWELLINGS - P506/2018

Author: Elizabeth Fleming - Development Planning Team Leader, City Development

Ward: Griffin

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Planning application (P506/2018) is for the construction of eight dwellings on the land known as 15-17 Castle Street, Eaglemont. This is the second application made by the permit applicants on the back of having its previous application refused by Council and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).

Having regard to applicable policies and as reflected in the following assessments:

Assessment against Council Neighbourhood Character Policy at clause 22.02 (Attachment 1);

Assessment against clause 55 (Rescode) of the Banyule Planning Scheme; (Attachment 2); and

Assessment against the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Order (attachment 3);

It is considered that the proposed development has achieved an appropriate level of compliance with the relevant State and Local Planning Policies and adequately responds to objectives of Council’s Residential Neighbourhood Character Policy and Clause 55 of the Banyule Planning Scheme

In the context of there being no fresh issues that have arisen since the time of the previous application nor has there been any significant change in the policy that would give rise to the entertaining of any other design constraints beyond those identified already by the Tribunal the proposal should be supported.

RECOMMENDATION

That had Council been able, having complied with Section 52, 58, 60, 61 and 62 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, it would have issued a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit in respect of Application No. P506/2018; for Construction of more than one dwelling (8 dwellings) at 15-17 Castle Street EAGLEMONT subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the development permitted by this permit starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the advertised plans dated 18th May 2018, but modified to show:

a) Reduction and setback of the arbor detail over the common pedestrian access to be limited over the driveway only in order to reduce visual


15-17 CASTLE STREET EAGLEMONT - EIGHT DWELLINGS - P506/2018 cont’d


dominance and improve streetscape transition with the western abutting property;

b) Sectional details of the louver detail applied to the western elevation of dwelling 1 to demonstrate compliance with the Overlooking Objective of Clause 55;

c) Highlight windows provided to the eastern elevation of dwelling 4 within the apex of the gable end to soften the presentation of the sheer wall oriented to Caerleon Court;

d) Lift overruns to be illustrated on all plans and reduced in height where possible.

e) Sectional details illustrating a minimum of 6m3 storage per unit;

f) Landscaping as required by Condition 2 of this permit;

g) The existing ‘redundant’ crossing to be removed and reinstate with kerb and channel, footpath and nature strip to Council's satisfaction;

h) The location of water tank for each dwelling or alternative water storage with a capacity equating to a minimum of 16,000 litres;

i) Clear directional label/ sign of visitor parking space in the basement;

j) A waste storage room in the basement in accordance with the Waste Management Plan required in Condition 16;

k) Any modifications required to the design of the development and/or particular construction techniques required (including boundary fencing) and the basement in accordance with the recommendations detailed in the Arborist Report as required by Condition 3 of this permit.

l) Any Tree Preservation Fencing specified in the Tree Management Plan required by Condition 5 of this permit.

m) Details of ramp gradients to comply with Clause 52.06 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

n) A corner splay or area at least 50 per cent clear of visual obstructions to be provided at entrance the proposed ramp from the edge of an exit lane in accordance with Design Standard 1 of Clause 52.06-9 of the Banyule Planning scheme;

o) Updated Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA) to be generally in accordance with that provided with the application but to include provision of solar panels for each of the dwellings;

p) Schedule of materials and finishes with provision of muted tones to be applied to the driveway/ramp access;

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

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

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

(iii) The integration, details and connections of all Water Sensitive Urban Design features in accordance with the Sustainable Design Assessment (required by condition 1(v).




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

Landscape Plan

2. Before the development starts, a landscape plan to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plan must show:

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

b) The Structural Root Zone (SRZ) radius and the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) radius for street trees and Trees #5, #6, #11, #12 and #13;

c) Provision of replacement planting for vegetation that is to be removed including a minimum of two (2) large canopy trees (mature height of at least 12m) planted at a semi-advanced state (minimum pot size 40 litre) with species as suggested below. One of the large canopy tree should be planted within the front garden. The trees must be positioned in accordance with Banyule Council’s Tree Planting Zone Guidelines.

Large Trees Angophora costata (smooth-barked apple)Angophora floribunda (rough-barked apple) Eucalyptus melliodora (yellow box) Quercus canariensis (Algerian Oak)Quercus robur (English oak)

Medium- sized Trees Brachychiton populneus (Kurrajong) Melia azedarach (white cedar) Waterhousia floribunda (weeping lilly pilly)

Small Trees Tristaniopsis laurina (water gum or kanuka) Hymenosporum flavum (native frangipani) Acacia implexa (lightwood) Eucalyptus pauciflora (snow gum)Angophora hispida (dwarf apple)

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

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




f) Planting adjacent to internal walkway and within landscaping zones to consist of varying heights and species;

g) An indigenous and/or drought tolerant planting theme;

h) Location, details and cross section drawings of all Water Sensitive Urban Design features in accordance with the endorsed Sustainable Management Plan and STORM report, with reference to connection details on the engineering plans.

Tree Management Plan

3. Before the plans required by Condition No. 1 of this permit are endorsed, a Tree Management & Protection Plan (TMPP) to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, must be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the responsible authority. The Tree Management Plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced Arborist in relation to the management and maintenance of the Tree No’s 5, 6, 11, 12, 13 and street tree located adjacent to proposed vehicle crossover.

The Tree Management and Protection Plan must include (but not be limited to):

a) The design modifications and/or particular construction techniques set out in the Arborist Report required by Condition 3 this Permit.

b) A tree protection plan drawn to scale.

c) A management regime, for all trees during the excavation, construction and post-construction phases of the development. Matters to be addressed, as appropriate, may include the location/design of tree protection fencing, mulching/watering requirements and requirements regarding any suitable excavation and the storage of any related building materials to be located outside the TPZ of trees.

d) All tree protection zones and structural root zones to be indicated on the plan.

e) All tree protection fenced-off areas and areas where ground protection systems will be used.

f) The types of footings within the tree protection zones. Which must also be indicated on the plans.

g) All services to be located within the tree protection zones and a notation to state that all services will either be located outside the tree protection zone or bored under the tree protection zone.

h) Details of how the root system of the trees to be retained/impacted will be managed. This must detail any initial non-destructive trenching (if required) and pruning of any roots required to be undertaken by the project Arborist.

i) Supervision timetable and certification (sign off sheet) of tree management activities undertaken by the project Arborist to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

j) All remedial pruning works that are required to be performed on the trees. Details of the pruning must reference Australian Standard AS4373:2007 Pruning of amenity trees, and include a detailed




photographic diagram specifying what pruning will occur. Any proposed pruning must also consider any scaffolding requirements for construction of dwellings/units.

The approved Tree Management Plan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. Written confirmation from the project Arborist that the tree management works undertaken are satisfactory and are in accordance with the approved Tree Management Plan must be submitted to the responsible authority, to its satisfaction.

General

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

5. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority the development permitted by this permit must not be commenced until the tree protection measures required by Condition 3 are installed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

Car Parking / Access

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

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

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




Works to be in accordance with SDA

10. All works must be undertaken in accordance with the endorsed Sustainability Design Assessment (SDA) required under Condition 1m) of this permit to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

11. No alterations to the SDA may occur without prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

12. All external materials, finishes and paint colours are to be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

13. Any air-conditioning or cooling units, condensers and the like must not be located on external walls or on balconies without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

14. All pipes (except down-pipes), fixtures, fittings and vents servicing any building on the site must be concealed in service ducts or otherwise hidden from external view to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Landscaping

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

Waste Management Plan

16. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans under Condition 1, a Waste Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority for the private collection of waste from the property. The Waste Management Plan must include:

a) Dimensions of waste areas.

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

c) Details on method and frequency of cleaning and maintenance of waste areas.

d) Details of ventilation.

e) Details of unwanted goods storage.

f) Method of waste and recyclables collection including the need to provide for private services and vehicular floor-ceiling clearance/ access from the ramp grade.

g) Hours of waste and recyclables collection.

h) Measures to minimise impact upon local residential amenity.

i) Method of presentation of bins for waste collection.

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




17. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit and must be complied with at all times. Waste collection from the development must be in accordance with the plan, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

18. No receptacles for any form of rubbish or refuse (other than public waste bins) may be placed or allowed to remain in view from a public road or thoroughfare and odour must not be emitted from any such receptacle(s) so as to cause offence to any person(s) outside the subject land.

Approved Drainage Outlet

19. Stormwater must not be discharged from the subject land other than by means of an underground pipe drain to a Council nominated point of discharge. The drainage system within the subject land must be designed to the requirements and satisfaction of the relevant Building Surveyor.

NOTE:Any connection to Council’s drainage system

a) within the road reserve must be carried out under a Memorandum of Consent for Works; and/or

b) Other than within a road reserve must be carried out under a Drainage Connection Permit.

This is to be carried out under Council supervision and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority

Time Limits

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

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

b) The development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit;

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

(a) Before the permit expires, or

(b) Within six months afterwards, or

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



Planning Permit Application: P506/2018

Development Planner: Ms Liz Fleming

Address: 15-17 Castle Street, Eaglemont

Proposal: Multi Unit Residential development- eight (8) dwellings

Existing Use/Development: Vacant

Applicant: Longevity Group Australia Pty Ltd C/- Tract Planning

Zoning: General Residential Zone- schedule 2

Overlays: Vegetation Protection Overlay

Notification (Advertising): By way of signs on site and letters to surrounding land owners including notice sent to all objector parties of the previous planning application.

Objections Received: 108

Ward: Griffin


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.


BACKGROUND

The site was the subject of a previous Planning Permit applicant (our ref.P1437/2016). This application sought the construction of nine dwellings which was later amended to eight.

Council Refused the application and that decision was affirmed in the Tribunal’s order (Longevity Group Australia Pty Ltd v Banyule City Council Longevity Group Australia Pty Ltd REF. P1267/2017) handed down by Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) on 16th February 2017.

In the Tribunal’s view the fatal flaws associated with dwellings 1-3 could not be addressed by way of conditions. Further the Tribunal considered that there was a need to revise the application of materials and finishes to improve the articulation of the built form oriented to Castle Street with attention to be given to the roof form, upper level cladding and solid to void ratios of the windows, i.e. scale.

An assessment against the Tribunal’s order is captured within attachment 3.




The current application seeks to address the Tribunal’s concerns resulting in the submission of this fresh application.

An information session was held at the Ivanhoe Town Hall during the public notification of the current application. This was largely to inform those interested parties of the extent and nature of the changes that were included in the current application.

A number of local residents attended this meeting where there was a time for questions and answers and the opportunity for interested parties to discuss the proposal with the applicants.

The applicants, having already been to VCAT on the previous scheme where open to discuss the concerns that were expressed.

At the completion of the notification period 17 objections were received, which since this time has grown in recent weeks. To date a total number of 108 objections have been received. Many of the objections are a ‘pro-former’ type with identical or very similar grounds. A summary of concerns can be found in the advertising section of this report.

The Planning Department was advised in email from the permit applicants on the 6/9/2018 that, it had decided that it would proceed to lodging an application for review pursuant to section 79 of the Planning and Environment Act (1987) against Council’s Failure to make a Decision within prescribed time deferring the formal decision making on this application to the Victorian Civil and Administration Tribunal (VCAT). As a result findings and recommendations captured within this report will form the basis of Council’s submission. The recommendation will reflect this turn of events accordingly.

SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

The subject land sits on the south-west corner of the intersection of Castle Street and Caerloen Court in Eaglemont. It is a generous sized site at 2109 sqm, with its main frontage to Castle Street. From its higher middle area, it slopes down to its front and rear boundaries by about 600-800 mm.

The subject land lies about 400 m to the south of the Heidelberg Major Activity Centre (MAC). The local area features attractive street trees and mainly detached single houses; many of them older but with some contemporary infill also. This MAC features a railway station, shops and a hospital precinct.

The subject site is a corner block located at the south-west of the intersection of Castle Street and Caerloen Court, which can be best described as Lot 1 on Title Plan 710917W (Vol. 09161 and Fol. 924).

There are two restrictive covenants registered on the title: - Covenant 0471258: the covenant specifies the legal rights of the land for using

surrounding roads and the minimum cost of the building to be erected on the land. In addition, the covenant prevents commercial quarrying practices.

- Covenant 0574930: the covenant relates to the transfer of land. Neither covenant is contravened by the proposed development.

The site is irregular in shape with an area of 2,109 square metres, and has a frontage to Castle Street of 44.27m, and frontage to Caerleon Court of 51.51m.




The site slopes from the middle downwards away toward both the Castle Street frontage (north) and the rear boundary (south) by approximately 0.8 metres.

The dwelling that occupied the site has been demolished along with a number of tees and was the topic of great debate. The site is now levelled and vacant with four existing trees next to the front boundary to Castle Street and one small tree next to the western boundary retained on the site.

The subject site is located within an established residential area. The prevailing character comprises of single and double storey dwellings that incorporate conventional layouts and forms including pitched roofs. Dwellings are typically larger size family homes (spread across the Edwardian, Interwar and Post war eras). Some ‘villa unit’ style dwellings are also present as smaller dwellings constructed on sites, which are generally old fashion infill single storey development with attached built form.

The subject site is approximately 400 metres south of the Heidelberg Major Activity Centre (MAC) providing access to shops, train station and medical service including the Austin Hospital.

Site area 2019m2

Subject to flooding? No

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

It was considered that the proposal may cause material detriment to surrounding properties, and as such public notification was conducted by means of erecting a sign on the site and posting notices to the owners and occupiers of surrounding properties. To date 108 objections have been received. Grounds of objection are summarised as follows:

Concerns regarding the proposed built form (height, bulk and design)

- Detrimental visual impact due to excessive height (3 storeys)




- Overdevelopment of the site

- The style and size is inconsistent with the surrounding area

- No graduated heights

- Lack of recession Garage and paved areas dominate the streetscape

- Reduced front setback inconsistent with neighbouring properties

- Not sympathetic to existing neighbourhood character

- External finishes not in keeping with neighbourhood character

- Front fencing is inconsistent with Garden Suburban 3 Precinct

- Insufficient separation between dwellings for landscaping

Concerns regarding traffic and parking

- Additional pressure on existing on-street parking at Caerleon Court

- Restricted vehicle access Caerleon Court

- Inadequate provision of off street car parking

- Increased traffic on Caerleon Court

- Exacerbate existing traffic congestion

- Decrease in safety at nearby Cape Street/Banksia Street intersection

- Decrease safety at peak times due to local St John’s Primary and Our Lady of Mercy College

- Car parking demand assessment is not provided to justify the waiver of visitor parking spaces

Nearby amenity and neighbourhood impact

- Loss of the historical building on the site

- Limited landscaping opportunities

- Loss of character for suburb and surrounding area

- Increased noise from additional dwellings

- Devaluation of neighbouring properties

- Acoustic pollution

- External light pollution

- Inadequate storm water drainage protection

- Significant opportunity for overlooking into nearby properties

Concerns regarding impacts on the existing trees

- Loss of established street trees and trees on site

- Excessive encroachment into TPZ of protected trees




REFERRAL COMMENTS

DRAINAGE ENGINEERING SERVICES

Council’s Engineering Services Section have previously reviewed the site and requested the provision of standard conditions and requirement for on-site detention. These conditions continue to be of relevance given that the total number of dwellings has not increased.

Conditions relating to drainage requested should be included on any approval issued.

TRAFFIC ENGINEERING

No additional referral necessary- Whist Council’s traffic engineer had previously raised concern with regards to the reduction in the visitor parking, it is noted that there was no concerns raised relevant to traffic.

The proposed basement parking arrangement of this application meets the rates of parking required under Clause 52.06 of Banyule Planning Scheme with no reductions being sought.

DEVELOPMENT PLANNING ARBORIST

On- going concern is flagged in association with Council’s street tree which is identified at tree #11 particularly in relation to the encroachment through excavation of canopy pruning. Conditions for both Tree Management and Construction Management will be required to see that this tree will not come under threat. In addition development impacts on Trees #5 and #6 are considered manageable and no direct impact on Trees #12 and #13. Tree Management Conditions will also capture these trees conditions

The unlawful removal of Trees #1 &to #7 has been the subject of a previous enforcement investigation.

It is noted that no objections raised by Council’s arborist for the proposed removal of Trees #2, #3 and #4 as Tree #3 are a weed and other two trees are of low retention value. The enforcement action applicable to the unlawful tree removal in no longer outstanding through off-set tree plantings having taken place.

In addition, it was queried if there would be adequate area is provided for canopy tree planting and the replacement planting for loss of Trees 1 & 7.

The proposal now provides sufficient area for new tree planting that exceeds the replacement planting for the unauthorised tree removal. Council’s arborist has viewed the proposal, as illustrated in the Landscape Plan prepared by John Patrick Landscape Architect, that has demonstrated that there shall be the provisions of 11 small canopy trees, 8 medium canopy trees and 1 large in addition to those that are to be retained on site.

Council’s Arborist is satisfied that the proposed planting zones meet the Banyule Tree Planting Zone Guidelines 2011 and is also satisfied that the nominated tree species are acceptable.




TECHNICAL CONSIDERATION

RESPONSE TO POLICY FRAMEWORK

The proposed development has struck an appropriate balance between competing State and Local Planning Policies. The development contributes to urban consolidation and housing diversity, in a location with proximity to services.

Consideration of neighbourhood character and residential amenity has also been appropriately responded to as identified within the attached Clause 55 and Residential Neighbourhood Character Policy assessments.

STRATEGIC CONTEXT (CLAUSE 21.06)

The site continues to be within an Incremental Area that is identified in the Residential Areas Framework (Clause 21.06-2)

“Specifically incremental areas seek to provide well designed single dwellings and medium density dwellings. As an exception, there will be limited opportunities for higher density housing at well located, large strategic redevelopment sites only”.

In this context the applicant has argued that the site is a strategic redevelopment site given it is located approximately 400m to the closest Supermarket to the north-east.

However, the policy emphasises that development should provide for a mix of well-designed single dwelling and medium density dwellings in garden setting, with space around and between proposed dwellings to create an attractive, tree landscape setting.

Excluding the single factor of being within 400m to a supermarket and a large lot size, the development must also make a positive contribution to the desired future neighbourhood character, including opportunities for tree protection and planting.

It is recognised that the scale of the site is relatively large in size and is accepted that it has potential for higher density development.

The design of the proposal demonstrates a suitable transition between abutting dwellings along the Castle Street and Caerleon Court frontages with each respective frontage responded to with staggered setbacks providing meaningful landscaping including additional canopy tree planting on site.

The design in the form of two buildings with separation through the middle assists in the breaking up of built form presenting to Caerleon Court. As for the Castle Street frontage, this has been identified as being the more contentious interface, which has suitably been responded to with transitioning setbacks.

The well-articulated design and application of materials is considered to make a positive contribution to the streetscape and warrants support as discussed within the attached Neighbourhood Character assessment against clause 22.02 below and in attachment 1

RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER POLICY ASSESSMENT (CLAUSE 22.02)

A detailed assessment against the Council’s Neighbourhood Character Policy is included as an attachment to this report.




Significantly, the proposal is considered to meet the following objective:

To maintain and strengthen the garden dominated streetscape character and landscaped setting of the precinct.

Those objectives that are to be varied are as follows:

To ensure new buildings and extensions are sympathetic to the current building form and architectural style

To ensure buildings and extensions do not dominate the streetscape or the building, and do not adversely affect the outlook and amenity of neighbouring dwellings

To maintain and strengthen the view of established front gardens, and tree lined streets and to reflect the predominant era of the dwellings.

Height and Building Form

The subject site is located within the Garden Suburban Area 3 (GS3). The prevailing character of the area includes a strong garden setting with a low scale of residential buildings.

The policy specifically requires that the development within the General Residential 2 Zone in the GS3 area should maintain one or two storey in scale. The proposed built form presents a building mass that is unlikely to result in amenity impact on adjoining properties. Furthermore, the streetscape presentation has been addressed through an appropriate design of dwellings 1-3, good use of materials and finishes, adequate setbacks from Castle Street and in-turn and overall acceptable landscaping concept that would buffer the development as viewed from the street.

It is considered the proposal will not dominate the streetscape when viewed directly from Castle Street. The three storey built form of dwellings to the rear of the site is also considered acceptable. It is noted that while the continued formation of dwelling 5-8 may be somewhat at odds with the prevailing character of the area, the Tribunal found that they were appropriate in their assessment of the previous proposal and therefore the applicant has made few, if any changes.

It is therefore considered that this is an acceptable approach due to the improved strengthening of the landscaping between the rear title boundary and these dwellings.

Two-storey walls when viewed from Castle Street, mostly on the oblique angle has been addressed through the increased planting opportunities resultant form a setback of 8m and the varied materials and finishes to be applied to the western elevation of dwelling 1 which breaks up the massing of the sheer wall.

The application of materials and finishes is key in ensuring the perceived massing and scale of developments are sympathetic to their surrounds. The proposal in this case is deem to be one that will be of high quality and will sit comfortably in a streetscape that is varied and vegetated. No further changes are recommended to the Castle Street façade treatment.




Garden Setting

Pursuant to Clause 22.02 Residential Neighbourhood Character Policy Assessment, the subject site should provide a total of 5 canopy trees based on the land size. As mentioned, two of the protected trees that were removed unlawfully have been off-set with replacement planting. Council’s arborist requested that two large and one medium canopy tree must be provided on site in addition to the two existing trees retained and small trees proposed. The current proposal now provides sufficient landscaping areas for the required canopy tree planting.

The proposal seeks to retain two large canopy trees in the front setback. In addition, the proposal also provides for adequate landscaping opportunities to enhance the garden setting as viewed from the streetscape.

Small trees with screen planting along boundaries will contribute to the vegetated garden character of the area, as will the medium trees proposed within the private open spaces for dwellings 5-8.

Council’s arborist has confirmed that the proposed landscaping layout as per John Patrick’s Landscape plans can reasonably make a positive contribution to the Garden character of the area. It is considered that the number of trees and the area that they are to be planted within meets the areas stipulated in Council’s Tree Planting Guidelines (2011) in order for canopy tree planting to reach maturity.

VEGETATION PROTECTION OVERLAY – SCHEDULE 3 (VPO3)

There are a number of established trees located both on site and on nature strip that are protected by the applicable VPO3.

VPO3 requires to consideration of the vegetation that contributes to the visual amenity and character of the garden suburban area and the preferred character of the Neighbourhood character Precinct GS3. It should be noted the policy emphasises tree protection and creating of new opportunities for vegetation throughout the site.

The application seeks to protect all street trees and two trees on-site.

The objective to retain and enhance the vegetation characteristic is therefore met through the protecting of existing trees and the provision for alternative open space areas affording the site with greater planting opportunities especially for large and medium canopy trees within the Castle Street frontage.

ResCode Assessment (Clause 55)

An assessment against the provisions of Clause 55 (ResCode) of the Banyule Planning Scheme has been undertaken and is included as an attachment to this report. The proposal achieves a satisfactory level of compliance with Rescode with the only variation sought are those applicable to standard B6- Front setback objective.

The concerns identified by the Tribunal as fundamental ‘flaws’ (dwellings 1-3) has been significantly resolved by the redesign which forms the basis of this application. While there is still technically a variation, the transition is considered to be generally compliant in the context of the objectives of the standard, where the setback of 8m at the interface with the western abutting dwelling is acceptable for reasons discussed in attachments.




CAR PARKING & ACCESS (CLAUSE 52.06)

The proposal has demonstrated suitable provision of on-site car parking for each dwelling and also meets the visitor parking requirement.

In accordance with clause 52.06-3, one (1) visit parking space is required for every 5 dwelling for development over 5 or more dwellings. While, waiver of one visitor parking space had been supported by the Tribunal. The applicants have been able to design in a visitor space within the basement level.

In addition, the proposed access of a single point off Castle Street to a basement is also satisfactory. This is an improved outcome that was previously before Council which proposed two crossovers resulting in a loss of two street parking spaces on Caerleon Court. This was not supported by Council’s traffic engineer. Council’s Traffic engineer has noted that if Council is inclined to support the application, parking restrictions might be introduced for Caerloen Court. These have been already been introduced.

Also adequate sightlines should be achieved on site and a warning system to be installed for visitors entering the parking areas. This can be dealt with through conditions.

Response to VCATs key issues:

The current proposed development of eight dwellings is considered to make an acceptable contribution to the provision of diverse housing stock in the area.

The changes in the overall design responds to the fine-grain detail which results in greater diversity of dwelling typology with the introduction of reverse living configurations of dwellings 2 and 3. This combined with greater variation in the facade design, especially the street presentation to Castle Street, has assisted in making a positive contribution to the desired future neighbourhood character and seeks to provide adequate opportunities for tree planting and protection.

This has aided in achieving a more appropriate transition to the surrounding properties through introducing key changes that are reflected in the current application, including the following:

Provision of improved building typology and design of dwellings 1-3; Revision of the ‘boxy’ nature of the design and the stark presentation of the

building as view on the oblique angle from the west; Improved provision for meaningful landscaping within the street frontage

oriented to Castle Street and perimeter planting to the south and west; Reduction in the fencing height from 2m to 1.5m and variation of the materials

along the Castle Street frontage; Revised application of material and finishes to improve articulation of the built

form oriented to Castle Street with attention given to the roof form; upper level cladding and solid to void ratios of the windows amended to assist

in perceived scale of the proposed upper levels; and The deletion of the rebates/ dwelling entrances of dwellings 1-3 assisting in

modulation of the Castle street building.

The above design changes combined with the increased setbacks and overall varied façade treatment has greatly improved that scale and massing of these dwellings.




Evidently the reduced heights have been greatly assisted through the deletion of gabled roof form presenting to the Castle Street frontage. The provision of first floor balconies with a reverse living arrangement of dwelling 2 and 3 has also added a point of difference in the layout of these dwellings improving the articulation of these dwellings and resolves a deficiency of secluded open space for future occupants of dwellings 1-3.

On balance and in weighing up both State and Local Framework policies together with the Tribunals findings in their order dated 16th February 2017 and acknowledging that there has been little, if any, change in the applicable policy that forms the basis of the assessment criteria of the current planning application that is before Council, it is considered that the design changes reflected in the Planning application address the ‘fatal issues’ highlighted by the Tribunal.

OBJECTORS’ CONCERNS

The majority of objectors’ concerns have been captured in the attached ResCode and Neighbourhood Character Policy assessments, however the following require further discussion:

Traffic and parking

The Tribunal in their order made the following statement:

‘ With reference to the credible traffic engineering evidence of Mr Hancox, I am

satisfied that the proposal would be a reasonable parking and traffic outcome.

The number of basement car spaces to be provided (17) is fully compliant with

the statutory requirement (17 spaces) under Clause 52.06. The basement

layout is in order. It makes sense to me that it is not feasible for the entrance

ramp to come off Caerloen Court to the east, given the need to protect the

large and valuable street tree in this location. Noting this constraint, it is

sensible that the substituted plans place the entrance ramp in roughly the

north-western corner of the subject land, off Castle Street1. I am satisfied that

the local streets can readily accommodate the additional traffic generated by

the proposal. ‘ Pg 53

Given that the car parking and proposed access arrangements are generally in accordance with the scheme ruled on by the Tribunal it is considered that a further assessment of the impact of traffic and parking, particularly given the minimal time the has elapsed between the order and this current application, is necessary.

Noise and lighting impact

Noise levels generated by plant equipment associated with heating/cooling units is common within any residential environment. Notwithstanding this conditions could be included on any approval issued requiring this equipment to be positioned away from the interface with abutting properties or located at ground level. Noise and lighting from additional traffic is common to and a necessary consequence of increased housing densities.

1 Whilst recognising that it is not ideal that this revised location involves a degree of possible headlight glare for the existing dwelling on the opposite side of Castle Street, in all the circumstances, I am unconvinced that this interface justifies either moving the ramp or refusing the proposal.




The application would be seen to be a repeat application and does not response to VCATs concerns

There are no grounds to suggest that this would regarded as being a ‘Repeat Appeal’ before the Tribunal. As examined in attachment 1 there is enough to suggested that this is clearly a fresh proposal which should be assessed and considered it its own merits.

CONCLUSION

The proposed development has achieved an appropriate level of compliance with the relevant State and Local Planning Policies and adequately addresses key issue of the Tribunal in VCAT ref P1267/2016, objectives of Council’s Residential Neighbourhood Character Policy and Clause 55 of the Banyule Planning Scheme as detailed within the attachments to this report. As such, the application should be supported.

ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 Assessment Against Clause 22.02

2 Assessment Against Clause 55 (ResCode)

3 Assessment Against Previous VCAT Decision

4 Advertised/Assessment Plans



5.2 IVANHOE PARKING PLAN - FINAL

Author: Kathleen Petras - Team Leader Transport Planning, City Development

Ward: Griffin and Olympia

Previous Items Council on 27 August 2018 (Item 5.1 - Ivanhoe Parking Plan - Final)

Council on 30 April 2018 (Item 2.1 - Draft Ivanhoe Parking Plan - Community Request to Develop a Community Bus Scheme)

Council on 30 April 2018 (Item 2.2 - Draft Ivanhoe Parking Plan - Second Petition Regarding Proposed Car Parking Rates)

Council on 30 April 2018 (Item 2.3 - Draft Ivanhoe Parking Plan - Petition Against the Proposal to Introduce Short Stay (15-30 minute) Parking Restrictions on Upper Heidelberg Road, Ivanhoe)

Council on 30 April 2018 (Item 5.1 - Draft Ivanhoe Parking Plan - Consultation feedback)

Council on 11 December 2017 (Item 5.11 - Draft Ivanhoe Parking Plan for Public Consultation)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Ivanhoe Parking Plan (IPP) aims to manage the current and future parking demands of the Ivanhoe Activity Centre and surrounds. The IPP has been finalised based on Council’s consideration of the community and traders feedback obtained during consultation on the draft Ivanhoe Parking Plan.

At its meeting of 27 August 2018, Council considered the adoption of the final Ivanhoe Parking Plan. At this meeting Council resolved that the matter be deferred until the next meeting of Council to enable the Ivanhoe Traders and wider community time to fully read the final Ivanhoe Parking Plan, which now includes all changes agreed at the Council Meeting on 30 April 2018, when Council considered the draft plan and the consultation feedback.

At its meeting of 30 April 2018, Council resolved to prepare the final Ivanhoe Parking Plan including revising the recommendations with consideration to the community feedback as follows:

1. Changing the recommendations in relation to timed parking restrictions in both on and off street parking to remove reference to reducing parking times, and require further monitoring of the parking supply and demands along with further consultation with community and traders.

2. Changing the recommendations in relation to car parking rates in new developments to advise:

i. 0.8 spaces to each 1 and 2 bedroom dwelling; ii. 1 space to each 5 dwellings for visitors.

3. Changing the recommendations to require developers to demonstrate that advised reduced car parking rates (as per Item 2) work well in the development.

4. Maintaining the existing car parking rates in the Banyule Planning Scheme.


IVANHOE PARKING PLAN - FINAL cont’d


5. Introducing a new recommendation to provide electric charging points in Council controlled car parks.

6. Introducing a new recommendation to consider the development of Construction Management Plans to minimise the parking impact during construction of new developments.

It was also considered appropriate to investigate further the opportunity for a community bus service in Ivanhoe and also more widely in Banyule. This is currently being investigated and will be the subject of a future Council report.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council adopt the Ivanhoe Parking Plan to guide parking management in the Ivanhoe Activity Centre.

COUNCIL PLAN

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

BACKGROUND

The draft Ivanhoe Parking Plan (IPP) was publically exhibited from 22 January 2018 to 5 March 2018. Due to the strong interest generated late submissions were accepted for a further three weeks until the 23 March 2018.

A total of 1,292 responses were obtained including 149 formal written submissions and the submission of three petitions and a multi-signatory letter.

Issues arising from the community consultation included a strong opposition to the introduction of changes to timed parking restrictions across all Council controlled on and off street parking, and to reductions in car parking rates for new developments in the central precincts of the Ivanhoe Activity Centre. Other issues were also raised including the desire for a community bus service, increased provision of disabled parking, and concern with parking demand in residential streets.

Feedback Responses

Total written submissions – Letter, email, Shaping Banyule 149 submissions

Information Session - Recommendation (dot) charts – agree / disagree

678 dots

Petitions: 1. Waterdale Road carpark 2. Car Parking rates 3. Community Bus

106 signatures 132 signatures 123 signatures

Multi-signatory letter: Short term parking in Upper Heidelberg Road and general changes to parking restrictions

104 signatures

Total 1,292 responses




Less contentious issues included the introduction of a car share scheme in Ivanhoe, and the continuation of parking enforcement to ensure parking turnover is maintained.

Positive feedback was obtained in regard to undertaking regular parking surveys of the area to monitor the parking supply and demand, and also in regard to encouraging new developments to provide green travel plans and bicycle parking facilities on site.

LEGAL CONSIDERATION




DISCUSSION

At its meeting of 27 August 2018, Council considered the adoption of the final Ivanhoe Parking Plan. At this meeting Council resolved that the matter be deferred until the next meeting of Council to enable the Ivanhoe Traders and wider community time to fully read the final Ivanhoe Parking Plan, which now includes all changes agreed at the Council Meeting on 30 April 2018, when Council considered the draft plan and the consultation feedback.

The Ivanhoe Parking Plan has been finalised to incorporate revisions to its recommendations that were considered by Council at its meeting of 30 April 2018. These revisions were proposed to fully address community concerns in regard to issues raised in the draft Ivanhoe Parking Plan. Council resolved to incorporate these changes into a final Ivanhoe Parking Plan. Table 1 below details the revisions.

No Resolution Detail

1

Changing the recommendations in relation to timed parking restrictions in both on and off street parking to remove reference to reducing parking times, and require further monitoring of the parking supply and demands along with further consultation with community and traders.

This has resulted in updates to recommendations 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7. These are in relation to timed parking restrictions in on and off street parking locations in the commercial precincts of Ivanhoe including along Upper Heidelberg Road and the Waterdale Road Carpark. These recommendations now reflect the resolution for each location.

2

Changing the recommendations in relation to car parking rates in new developments to advise: 0.8 spaces to each 1 and 2 bedroom dwelling; 1 space to each 5 dwellings for visitors

This has resulted in updates to recommendations 8 and 9. These are to modify the rates as resolved by Council and also state the advisory nature of these rates due to the decision to not introduce changes to the Banyule Planning scheme at this time.




3

Changing the recommendations to require developers to demonstrate that advised reduced car parking rates (as per Item 2) work well in the development.

This has resulted in an update to recommendation 11 to ensure that reduced car parking rates are not to be justified by a reliance on existing public and on street parking in the Ivanhoe Activity Centre.

4

Maintaining the existing car parking rates in the Banyule Planning Scheme.

A recommendation to introduce a schedule to the car parking overlay to modify car parking rates in new developments in the Ivanhoe Activity Centre has been removed.

5

Introducing a new recommendation to provide electric charging points in Council controlled car parks.

This has resulted in the introduction of recommendation 17 to consider the installation of electric charging points in appropriate locations in the Ivanhoe Activity Centre.

6

Introducing a new recommendation to consider the development of Construction Management Plans to minimise the parking impact during construction of new developments.

This has resulted in the introduction of recommendation 12 to revise the requirements included in Construction Management Plans for new developments to minimise the parking impact during construction.

Table 1 – Ivanhoe Parking Plan - Recommendation revisions

It is also considered appropriate to investigate further the opportunity for a community bus service in Ivanhoe and also more widely in Banyule. This is currently being investigated by Council officers and will be the subject of a future Council report.



CONCLUSION

A final version of the Ivanhoe Parking Plan addressing community feedback has been prepared for Council consideration for adoption.

Council resolved on 30 April 2018 after considering revisions to the recommendations of the draft Ivanhoe Parking Plan as outlined in Table 1 to incorporate the changes into a final Ivanhoe Parking Plan.

This matter was deferred from the Council meeting of 27 August 2018 to allow traders and community members time to read the final Ivanhoe Parking Plan. The community have been given this opportunity in the intervening period up to today’s meeting (17 September 2018).




ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 Ivanhoe Car Parking Plan - FINAL (Under Separate Cover)



5.3 CAR PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN THE BANYULE PLANNING SCHEME

Author: Scott Walker - Director City Development, City Development

Previous Items Council on 25 June 2018 (Item 5.4 - Car Parking Requirements in the Banyule

Planning Scheme)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This matter was originally to be considered at the Council Meeting on 25 June but was deferred to enable Councillors to be briefed further on the issues. The report is now being brought back to Council with updates regarding recent car parking changes in the Planning Scheme.

Car parking is a key issue for the community. Council approaches car parking issues with a range of policies and strategies to manage car parking on public streets as well as the provision of car parking in new developments. Striking a balance between the community demands for additional car parking, managing car parking as a valuable but limited resource, maintaining economic prosperity within the municipality and encouraging alternative forms of transport to the car requires careful consideration.

Car parking rates for planning proposals are outlined at Clause 52.06 of the Banyule Planning Scheme. These rates were last reviewed in 2012 for all Planning Schemes across the State. Banyule Council has introduced a car parking overlay for Heidelberg and the Bell Street Mall which alters these rates in line with the principles of Councils Integrated Transport Plan which includes management of parking demand as well as encouraging alternative forms of transport.

A recent change has also been undertaken to the car parking provisions in all Victorian Planning Schemes with regard to car parking requirements for changes of use within existing buildings in commercial areas and reduced car parking rates within 400 metres of the Principal Public Transport Network.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council note the car parking requirements of the Banyule Planning Scheme and Banyule Council initiatives regarding car parking in accordance with the Banyule Integrated Transport Plan 2015-2035.

COUNCIL PLAN

This report is in line with Banyule’s Council Plan key direction to "Preserve and improve Banyule as a great place to live, work and play".

BACKGROUND

Banyule Planning Scheme Car Parking Requirements (Clause 52.06)


CAR PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN THE BANYULE PLANNING SCHEME cont’d


Clause 52.06 of the Banyule Planning Scheme outlines the requirements in relation to car parking for planning proposals. In 2012 the car parking provisions of all planning schemes in Victoria were reviewed to help streamline the planning system by removing onerous requirements, providing wider flexibility in decision making and promoting sustainable transport. This was achieved by:

removing the requirement for a planning permit in a number of situations, including where a new use has an equivalent or lesser car parking rate to an existing use

updating car parking rates to better reflect car parking demand for different land uses, including reduced rates for uses such as a Shop and Restaurant

providing more opportunities to vary the standard car parking requirements to reflect local conditions and achieve local car parking objectives, through the schedule to the Parking Overlay

providing clearer decision guidelines and requirements to assist decision making

aligning the land use terms in the car parking table with the standard VPP definitions in Clause 74

strengthening the consideration of urban design, neighbourhood character and safety

addressing specific design and management issues for car parking making a clear distinction between the decision guidelines for determining the

car parking space demand generated by a land use, and the decision guidelines for deciding whether or not those spaces should be provided

promoting sustainable transport modes, such as walking, cycling and public transport.

The current Clause 52.06 car parking requirements are included as an attachment along with the practice note produced by the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning explaining how the provisions are to be used.

Banyule Planning Scheme Car Parking Overlay (Clause 45.09)

Clause 45.09 of the Planning Scheme contains the provisions in relation to car parking overlays. Parking overlays enable variations to the standard requirements in Clause 52.06 for a particular area or precinct. These requirements override the standard requirements at Clause 52.06. All local car parking variations must be provided using the Parking Overlay. A local policy cannot be used to apply variations.

What do the car parking provisions of the Planning Scheme provide for?

The car parking provisions in Clause 52.06 and the Parking Overlay provide five functions. They:

1. Outline when car parking spaces must be provided and how those spaces can be provided.

2. Determine the number of car parking spaces to be provided. 3. Explain the requirements for reducing the provision of car parking spaces. 4. Require that new car parking spaces are designed and constructed to certain

standards. 5. Provide for precinct based provisions that:

establish local rates in identified areas provide a mechanism for financial contributions in lieu of providing car

spaces




set local requirements, such as the design and layout of car parking spaces.

A planning permit can be granted to reduce the car parking requirement subject to Clause 52.06-6. The requirement can be reduced to zero where appropriate.

Clause 52.06-6 draws a distinction between the assessment of likely demand for parking spaces, and whether it is appropriate to allow the supply of fewer spaces. These are two separate considerations, one technical while the other is more strategic. Different factors are taken into account in each consideration.

Banyule Integrated Transport Plan 2015-2035

The Banyule Integrated Transport Plan 2015-2035 (BITP) gives long term direction for transport and associated land use decisions for the municipality. Council’s transport vision is:

Banyule is a City with accessible, sustainable and active communities, with good access to jobs, education, shopping and community opportunities within a safe transport network.

This vision sees parking as a limited, shared resource that needs to be better understood and planned for by creating and implementing Parking Plans for activity centres. The priority has been for Heidelberg but a plan has also recently been developed for Ivanhoe and a review of the Greensborough Plan is also to be undertaken shortly.

Banyule Activity Centre Car Parking Policy and Strategy

The Banyule Activity Centre Car Parking Policy and Strategy (ACCPP) provides broad policy on the management of car parking in and around Activity Centres. A key objective of the ACCPP relating to car parking in residential areas is to help ‘protect residential areas close to Activity Centres from intrusion of car parking associated with commercial and higher density residential uses’.

Car parking provision plays an important role in the development of Activity Centres. It needs to be carefully managed to ensure a centre is economically strong as well as having good social and environmental amenity. Parking plans set out strategies to manage existing and future car parking demand and are also required to vary the standard Victorian car parking provisions for new developments.

Heidelberg and Bell Street Mall Parking Overlay

The adopted Heidelberg Central and Bell Street Mall Parking Plan, April 2016 gives strategies to manage parking demand in the respective activity centres. This includes:

Bus stop improvements Pedestrian access improvements Cycling connection improvements Bicycle end of trip improvements Potential new car parking




Following an extensive analysis of car parking provisions and requirements in the Heidelberg and Olympic Village Activity Centres, Banyule Council pursued changes to the Banyule Planning Scheme including the introduction of a Parking Overlay. Planning Scheme Amendment C108 implemented the priority recommendations in the Parking Plan, to improve statutory guidance for parking in the area and introduce a statutory mechanism for developers to make a financial contribution if unable to achieve on-site parking. Car parking rates differ from the standard Clause 52.06 Planning Scheme rates for Heidelberg and the Bell Street Mall as outlined in the attached Overlay and schedule.

Car parking rates have also been altered for the Bell Bardia and Tarakan Estates via a schedule to the parking overlay and a schedule is also in place for the Greensborough Activity Centre.

Council has recently undertaken a parking plan for Ivanhoe but has decided not to pursue a parking overlay for this activity centre.

Residential Car Parking Rates

Parking for residential development is outlined at Clause 52.06 of the Banyule Planning Scheme as follows:

Number of Bedrooms Rate

One or two bedroom dwelling

1 car space for each dwelling

Three or more bedroom dwelling

2 car spaces for each dwelling

(with studies or studios that are separate rooms counted as a bedrooms)

Plus one visitor space for every 5 dwellings for developments of 5 or more dwellings

Table 1: Standard Clause 52.06 Residential car parking rates

The residential car parking rates apply to all Victorian Planning Schemes unless there is a parking overlay which alters the rate. An altered rate has been applied at Heidelberg and the Bell Street Mall to support alternative transport options and reduce the reliance on cars. The reduced rate is as follows:

Number of Bedrooms Rate

One or two bedroom dwelling

0.8 car space for each dwelling

Three or more bedroom dwelling

2 car spaces for each dwelling




(with studies or studios that are separate rooms counted as a bedrooms)

Plus one visitor space for every 10 dwellings for developments of 10 or more dwellings

Table 2: Heidelberg and Bell Street Mall Residential car parking rates

Residential Parking Permit Policy 2016-2020

Council has developed a residential parking permit policy to help manage car parking which is in high demand in local residential streets, particular near activity centres and other major attractors. This policy was last reviewed in 2016.

The Residential Parking Permit Policy 2016-2020 (RPPP) provides the framework to manage the availability of on-street parking spaces in residential areas through a Residential Parking Permit Scheme. This allows residents and their visitors a greater opportunity to park in areas of high demand, in accordance with the key directions set out in the policy.

The RPPP defines who is eligible for a parking permit, the type and number of parking permits available, where permits allow holders to park, and the cost of parking permits. The RPPP as amended in 2016 expanded the eligibility requirements to allow new medium density developments (no more than four dwellings on a lot) access to parking permits, the introduction of a free residential parking permit and the introduction of a residential permit area system, which allows permit holders to park on-street within a defined area.

Consultation on the RPPP was conducted during March 2016 which highlighted the importance of parking to the community, and the wide range of views on how parking within the municipality should be managed.

Amendment VC148 - Principal Public Transport Network Parking Changes

The Minister for Planning approved reforms to the Victoria Planning Provisions on 31 July 2018 through Amendment VC148. The amendment is part of the Victorian Government’s Smart Planning Program.

VC148 makes both format, structure and operational changes to all Planning Schemes in Victoria. Amongst those changes are changes to the car parking provisions to:

Provide that a planning permit is not required to reduce the car parking requirement for a new use in an existing building in the Commercial 1, Commercial 2 and Activity Centre Zones for up to 10 car spaces (subject to conditions).

Apply the reduced car parking rates in Column B of Clause 52.06 (Car parking) if any part of the land is identified as being within the Principal Public Transport Network (PPTN) Area as shown on the Principal Public Transport Network Areas Maps. The PPTN Area is based on a 400 metre walkable distance from the PPTN.

In Banyule the PPTN Area includes all rail and tram lines and buses on the Smart bus route.




The reduced car parking rates do not apply to land already included in a Parking Overlay. The provisions in the parking overlay will apply instead.

Parking Management Framework

The Banyule On-Street Parking Management Framework was adopted by Council in August 2017 to formalise Council’s approach to assessing requests to install or alter parking restrictions on public streets. The Framework:

Outlines Council’s approach to introducing parking controls across the municipality;

Identifies who should be consulted when considering the installation or modification of parking restrictions; and

Introduces a requirement for a multi-signatory letter to initiate the process.

Introducing the Framework improves Council’s transparency and approach to parking management. This results in a more streamlined assessment of customer requests, and reduces timeframes in assessing and responding back to the community.

LEGAL CONSIDERATION

The preparation of planning policies in relation to car parking requirements should be in line with the provisions of the Banyule Planning Scheme.







CONCLUSION

Car parking is a key issue for the community. Council approaches car parking issues with a range of policies and strategies to manage car parking on public streets as well as the provision of car parking in new developments. Striking a balance between the community demands for additional car parking, managing car parking as a valuable but limited resource, maintaining economic prosperity within the municipality and encouraging alternative forms of transport to the car requires careful consideration.

Car parking rates for planning proposals are outlined at Clause 52.06 of the Banyule Planning Scheme.




These rates were last reviewed in 2012 for all Planning Schemes across the State. Banyule Council has introduced a car parking overlay for Heidelberg and the Bell Street Mall which alters these rates in line with the principles of Councils Integrated Transport Plan which includes management of parking demand as well as encouraging alternative forms of transport.

A recent change has also been undertaken to the car parking provisions in all Victorian Planning Schemes with regard to car parking requirements for changes of use within existing buildings in commercial areas and reduced car parking rates within 400 metres of the Principal Public Transport Network.

ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 Banyule Planning Scheme Clause 52.06 Car Parking Requirements

2 Practice Note - Using the Clause 52.06 Car Parking Provisions

3 Parking Overlay to Banyule Planning Scheme - Clause 45.09

4 Heidelberg Activity Centre Core Area Car Parking Rates

5 Bell Street Mall and Heidelberg West Activity Centre Core Area Car Parking Rates



5.4 ADDITIONAL PAID PARKING SYSTEMS - CONSULTATION FEEDBACK FOR MACLEOD, ROSANNA AND MONTMORENCY

Author: Gourav Mongia - Acting Senior Traffic and Transport Engineer, City Development

Ward: Ibbot and Hawdon

Previous Items Council on 9 April 2018 (Item 5.1 - Additional Paid Parking Locations)

Council on 27 August 2018 (Item 2.1 - Parking Meters in Macleod)

Council on 16 July 2018 (Item 2.1 - Parking Meters in Binns Street, Montmorency)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council acknowledges car parking as a valued and finite commodity, and calls for the use of different tools to manage its demand and supply, including paid parking systems.

Following a resolution from Council to consult with affected residents and traders regarding the proposal to install paid parking systems in Rosanna, Macleod and Montmorency, a report detailing the findings including a modified proposal has been prepared.

Community feedback indicates that there are some people in the community who are reluctant to accept the proposal to install paid parking systems as originally proposed. They believe that paid parking will create an adverse effect on local business sales and is an unneeded financial impact on visitors to the area.

Considering the feedback, the proposal has been modified to include some additional short-term parking spaces in Macleod and Rosanna. It is also proposed that the installation in Ellesmere Parade and De Winton Park, Rosanna, commence after the completion of the LXRA works.

It is proposed that Council proceed with the installation of paid parking in Montmorency, given the distance from the shops and low level of residential feedback received.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Installs 2-hour short-term parking restrictions instead of all day paid parking for:

a) Eight parking spaces on the east side of Birdwood Avenue, Macleod, between May Street and Erskine Road.

b) Six parking spaces on the west side of Aberdeen Road, Macleod, between Erskine Road and Carwarp Street.

2. Proceeds with the installation of paid parking systems in the following locations in Macleod:


ADDITIONAL PAID PARKING SYSTEMS - CONSULTATION FEEDBACK FOR MACLEOD, ROSANNA AND MONTMORENCY cont’d


a) Somers Avenue, on the east side, between Melrose Avenue and May Street.

b) McNamara Street, between Cherry Street and Dunstan Street, in front of non-residential properties.

c) Aberdeen Road on the west side, between Erskine Road and Carwarp Street.

d) Erskine Road on the south side, between Birdwood Avenue and Aberdeen Road.

e) Birdwood Avenue, on the east side between May Street and Erskine Road.

3. Installs ten 2-hour and twelve 4-hour short-term parking spaces in Ellesmere Parade, Rosanna, between Invermay Grove and Lower Plenty Road, instead of paid parking.

4. Proceeds with the installation of paid parking systems in the following locations in Rosanna:

a) Beetham Parade, on the east side, between Hillside Road and Prospect Road.

b) Ellesmere Parade, twenty spaces on the east side (eleven existing and nine proposed spaces), between Invermay Grove and Lower Plenty Road, after the completion of the LXRA works.

c) De Winton Park, after the completion of the LXRA works and with the operating times of 8am to 4pm, Monday to Friday.

5. Proceeds with the installation of paid parking systems in Binns Street, Montmorency, between Wellington Street and Mountain View Road once the car parking extension at Montmorency Railway Station is complete.

COUNCIL PLAN


BACKGROUND

At its meeting of 9 April 2018, Council considered a report regarding the installation of additional paid parking systems at various locations within the municipality.

At the meeting, it was resolved (in part):

“That Council:

1. Prior to the installation of paid parking systems in Montmorency, organises a meeting with traders and affected residents to discuss the installation of paid parking systems in Binns Street, between Wellington Street and Mountain View Road.




2. Prior to the installation and extension of paid parking systems in Macleod, organises a meeting with traders and affected residents to discuss the installation of paid parking systems in:

a. Somers Avenue (east side), between Melrose Avenue and May Street. b. McNamara Street, in front of non-residential properties, between Cherry

Street and Dunstan Street. c. Aberdeen Road (west side), between Erskine Road and Carwarp Street. d. Erskine Road (south side), between Birdwood Avenue and Aberdeen

Road. e. Birdwood Avenue, between May Street and Erskine Road.

3. Prior to the installation and extension of paid parking systems in Rosanna, organises a meeting with traders and affected residents to discuss the installation of paid parking systems in:

a. Ellesmere Parade (east side), between Invermay Road and Lower Plenty Road

b. Beetham Parade (east side), between Hillside Road and Prospect Road c. DeWinton Park

4. Prior to the installation and extension of paid parking systems in Montmorency, Macleod and Rosanna, receives a report outlining the feedback from traders and residents.

The residents and traders in Macleod, Rosanna and Montmorency have been consulted on the proposal and this report responds to item 4 of the resolution.

LEGAL CONSIDERATION





CONSULTATION

Council conducted a community drop-in session for residents in Montmorency on 20 June 2018 and for residents in Rosanna and Macleod on 24 July 2018.

Consultation feedback forms were handed out on the evening and written responses were obtained. Consultation with traders was conducted through the Centre Managers and written responses were requested.

All submissions were accepted up until 10 August 2018.




Macleod

During the consultation period, 32 feedback responses were received from residents, traders and the wider community regarding the proposal in Macleod, which included 18 consultation forms and 14 emails. Furthermore, a petition against the proposal with 1413 signatures was also received. Table 1 provides a summary of the feedback received from Macleod. In many instances one response had several concerns, this has been captured in the table.

Table 1. Summary of the feedback received for Macleod

Consultation form

18 responses

Email Correspondence

14 emails

Petition 1413

signatures Lack of short term parking for shops, parks and amenities

8 8 X

Additional financial implications to residents and visitors

8 8 X

Negative affect on local business sales

6 6 X

Bus services not connecting to railway stations.

3 6 -

Residential streets will be affected by commuter parking

3 4 -

Additional all day free parking needed for commuters

3 3 -

Paid parking is only revenue raising

1 5 -

Availability of free all day trader parking.

5 1 -

The feedback and petition received reflects that the community is reluctant to accept the installation of paid parking systems as proposed originally. Most respondents have concerns with the current lack of short-term parking for visitors to the shops and the added financial implications to residents and visitors to the area.

Other concerns highlighted in the feedback include the lack of bus services to Macleod Station and the effect the shift in commuter parking may have on residential streets.

Feedback from the traders further indicated that they are concerned with the added costs deterring shopping at Macleod Village and use of the Macleod Community Hall. They requested that the unrestricted parking on Erskine Road, Birdwood Avenue and Aberdeen Road be converted to a mixture of 15-minute, 1-hour, 2-hour and 3-hour parking. Additionally, they have requested trader parking permits for all the Macleod Village staff.

Rosanna

The feedback received for Rosanna was significantly less as compared to Macleod. Nine responses were received from residents, traders and the wider community which included four consultation forms and five emails. Table 2 provides a summary of the feedback received from the suburb of Rosanna.




Table 2. Summary of the feedback received for Rosanna

Consultation form 4 responses


5 emails

Availability of free all day commuter and trader parking.

1 2

Lack of short term parking for shops, parks and amenities

- 2

Financial implications for residents and visitors

- 1

Negative effect on local business sales 1 -

Commuters should pay 1 -

The feedback received in Rosanna indicates that there are some people in the community who have concerns with the lack of visitor, commuter and trader parking in the area. They believe that a mixture of additional short-term and long-term parking should be provided without financial implication to visitors and the public.

Additionally, correspondence received from the Rosanna Traders Association indicated concerns focused around the impact of the LXRA works. Traders are reluctant to accept the proposal due to the LXRA works still being in progress, restrictive streetscape changes on the Lower Plenty Road service lane and the reduction in customer parking. They believe that this has significantly impacted the sales and the number of visitors to the area.

Montmorency

During the consultation period, four responses were received from residents, traders and the wider community regarding the proposal in Montmorency. This included one consultation form and three emails. Additionally, a petition with 317 signatures was also received from the wider community. Table 3 provides a summary of the feedback received.

Table 3. Summary of the feedback received for Montmorency

Consultation form

1 response


3 emails

Petition 317

signatures

Availability of free all day commuter and trader parking.

- 3 -

Paid parking is only revenue raising

- 3 -

Lack of short term parking for shops, parks and amenities

- 1 -

Residential streets will be affected by commuter parking

- 1 -

Better bus services needed - 1 -

Commuters should pay 1 - -




The feedback received in Montmorency reflects that some people in the community are concerned with the availability of free unrestricted commuter and trader parking. Respondents believe that the community should not have to pay for parking and the introduction of paid parking is only a revenue raising exercise.

The petition received against the proposal did not specify the concerns against the proposal and it was noted that the signees are part of the wider community, rather than directly affected residents.

Whilst the Montmorency Traders Association was informed about the proposal and invited to provide feedback, no formal correspondence was received.

DISCUSSION

Management of parking around activity centres is governed by the Banyule Activity Centre Car Parking Policy and Strategy, which was adopted by Council in November 2010. The strategy acknowledges car parking as a valued and finite commodity, and seeks a strategic approach to car parking supply and management to recognise the competing needs of different users.

Furthermore, the Banyule Integrated Transport Plan (BITP) is a long term strategic plan that aims to give long-term direction in transport and land use decisions in the municipality. It proposes parking to be approached as a limited resource and calls for the use of different tools to manage parking demand and supply, including paid parking systems.

The public consultation conducted in Macleod, Rosanna and Montmorency has identified areas where some residents and traders have concerns with the proposal. Considering the feedback, Council can now make an informed decision on any modifications that should be made to the original proposal.

Macleod

Occupancy checks conducted at varying times around Macleod Village have revealed the occupancy levels of short term parking to be low overall during the day. Table 4 indicates the occupancy rates of short term parking in Macleod.

Table 4. Parking occupancy of short term spaces in Macleod

Occupancy Rate %

Date Time Aberdeen

Road Erskine

Road Birdwood Avenue

May Street

Somers Avenue

18/01/2018 10am 79 50 54 50 0

3/03/2018 2.30pm 87 17 42 64 100

4/04/2018 4pm 58 50 58 23 21

24/08/2018 10:30am 79 67 54 46 21

Average % 76 % 46 % 52 % 46 % 36 %

On the basis of these occupancy levels, there is no compelling reason to increase the supply of short term car parking near the Macleod shops.




However, giving consideration to the future economic development in the area and given the consultation feedback provided, it is considered appropriate to provide some additional short-term parking along Birdwood Avenue and Aberdeen Road.

As such, it is proposed:

a) Eight parking spaces on the east side of Birdwood Avenue, Macleod, between May Street and Erskine Road be converted into short term 2-hour parking, consistent with the operating times in the area.

b) Six parking spaces on the west side of Aberdeen Road, Macleod, between Erskine Road and Carwarp Street to be converted into 2-hour parking, consistent with the operating times in the area.

These spaces were originally proposed to be all day paid parking. The provision of these additional fourteen 2-hour parking spaces on Birdwood Avenue and Aberdeen Road is expected to increase the opportunity for visitors to find parking in close vicinity to the shops and amenities in the area. However, the consequence would be the reduction in all day car parking near the station and shops.

Council’s policy position in accordance with its Integrated Transport Plan, is to encourage and prioritise the use of sustainable mode of transport in and around the municipality. As part of the ITP, Council has been advocating with Public Transport Victoria and the State Government for additional public transport facilities in the municipality.

In response to the feedback, it is recognised that there is no Parkiteer cage or bus service on the east side of Macleod Station. Council is continuing to advocate for the Parkiteer cage to be installed by the Victorian State Government, and will support it rollout with communication materials. In addition, Council is currently investigating a community bus system in the area and advocating to attain point of origin data from VicRoads to determined possible routes for public transport services.

With regard to the petition received against the proposal, it should be noted that it was instigated prior to the community consultation session. The community were misinformed that short-term parking was being converted into paid parking.

Any residential concerns based around the potential shift in commuter parking into residential streets, can be addressed through Council’s On-Street Parking Management Framework following the implementation of the paid parking systems.

Considering the above, it is considered that Council should:

Proceeds with the installation of paid parking systems in the following locations in Macleod:

a) Somers Avenue, on the east side, between Melrose Avenue and May Street. b) McNamara Street, in front of non-residential properties, between Cherry

Street and Dunstan Street. c) Aberdeen Road, on the west side, between Erskine Road and Carwarp Street. d) Erskine Road on the south side, between Birdwood Avenue and Aberdeen

Road. e) Birdwood Avenue on the west side, between May Street and Erskine Road.




Rosanna

The level of feedback received for Rosanna has been significantly less as compared to Macleod. Concerns received were mostly based around the current state of the Rosanna Village due to the LXRA works and the impact this has caused on business activity.

To address these concerns, it is proposed that the parking on the east side of Ellesmere Parade be reconfigured to allow ten 2-hour and twelve 4-hour parking spaces to be installed between Invermay Grove and Lower Plenty Road.

Furthermore, Council is currently advocating with LXRA for additional unrestricted parking to be constructed on the east side of Ellesmere Parade, north of Invermay Grove.

Similar to Macleod, these changes are expected to increase the opportunity for visitors to find parking in close vicinity to the shops in the area.

Considering the current LXRA works and the feedback received for Rosanna, it is proposed that Council proceeds with the installation of paid parking systems in:

a) The east side of Beetham Parade, between Hillside Road and Prospect Road, immediately.

b) The twenty spaces (eleven existing and nine proposed spaces) on the east side of Ellesmere Parade, between Invermay Road and Lower Plenty Road, after the completion of the LXRA works.

c) De Winton Park, after the completion of the LXRA works and formalisation of the carpark.

To accommodate for sporting clubs that use De Winton Park, it is also proposed to restrict the paid parking operating times to 8am to 4pm, Monday to Friday.

These locations are utilized by all day commuter parking, and are not expected to have any adverse effects on the residents and traders in the area.

Montmorency

The feedback received for Montmorency was also relatively low, however a petition was also received against the proposal. The petition did not specify the concerns against the proposal and it was noted that the signees are part of the wider community, rather than directly affected residents

The one resident who attended the paid parking consultation indicated support for Councils decision to install paid parking in Binns Street as this encourages commuters to use other modes of travel. Other concerns requested additional long term parking for commuters and the potential effect paid parking will have with commuters shifting to residential streets.

It should be noted that only 13 parking spaces are being proposed for the installation of paid parking systems. Given this, the potential offset of commuter parking is not considered a significant concern. All concerns with residential parking can be considered as part of Council’s On-Street Parking Management Framework.




As such it is proposed that Council proceed with the installation of paid parking systems in Binns Street, Montmorency, between Wellington Parade and Mountain View Road. However, works are expected to be undertaken shortly on expanding the car parking at Montmorency Railway Station. As such, the installation of the Montmorency paid parking should be delayed until the Montmorency Station car park works are completed.




CONCLUSION

Council, through its Activity Centre Car Parking Policy and Strategy and IntegratedTransport Plan, has determined that car parking in Banyule is to be managed as a limited resource and called for the use of different tools to manage parking demand and supply, including paid parking systems.

Following a resolution from Council to consult the proposal to install paid parking systems in Rosanna, Macleod and Montmorency with the traders and affected residents in the area, a report detailing the findings and modified proposal has been presented.

Community feedback has reflected that some members of the community are not supportive to the original proposal as they believe it will create an adverse effect on local business activity and visitors to the area.

Considering the feedback, the proposal has been modified to include some additional short-term parking spaces in Macleod and Rosanna. It is also proposed that the installation in Ellesmere Parade and De Winton Park, Rosanna, commence after the completion of the LXRA works.

It is also proposed that Council proceed with the installation of paid parking in Montmorency, given the distance from the shops and low level of residential feedback received.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil



5.5 MALTRAVERS ROAD, IVANHOE EAST - CONSIDERATION OF THE INSTALLATION OF SPEED REDUCTION MEASURES

Author: Isuru Daranagama - Traffic & Transport Engineer, City Development

Ward: Griffin

Previous Items Council on 27 August 2018 (Item 2.3 - Maltravers Road and Carmichael Street,

Ivanhoe East - Speed and Traffic Safety Concerns)

Council on 21 May 2018 (Item 2.1 - Maltravers Road, Ivanhoe East - Petition requesting the installation of speed reduction measures)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council at its meetings on 21 May 2018 and 27 August 2018 considered petition reports regarding speed concerns, and other safety issues in Maltravers Road, Carmichael Street and Rotherwood Road, Ivanhoe East.

Following an investigation, it is considered appropriate to design and install raised pavements along Maltravers Road, a threshold treatment on Carmichael Street and kerb modifications and a refuge island on Rotherwood Road to address speed and pedestrian safety concerns.

Significant funding is required through capital works program for the implementation.

It is also considered appropriate to apply to VicRoads for approval to install additional 50 km/h speed warning signs along Maltravers Road. In the meantime, Victoria Police has been notified of the speed and hoon concerns.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Note that the speed of vehicles on Maltravers Road, Ivanhoe East is higher than desired and it would benefit from the installation of speed reduction measures.

2. Note that Victoria Police has been notified of speed concerns in Maltravers Road, Ivanhoe East, and hoon concerns at Rotherwood Road intersection for enforcement.

3. Consider allocating $240,000 for design and construction of six raised pavements on Maltravers Road, Ivanhoe East in a future capital works program.

4. Install six raised pavements along Maltravers Road, Ivanhoe East, as per the proposal once appropriate funding has been allocated.


MALTRAVERS ROAD, IVANHOE EAST - CONSIDERATION OF THE INSTALLATION OF SPEED REDUCTION MEASURES cont’d


5. Consider allocating $45,000 for design and construction of threshold treatment at the intersection of Carmichael Street and Maltravers Road, Ivanhoe East in a future capital works program.

6. Install threshold treatment on Carmichael Street, Ivanhoe East, as per the proposal once appropriate funding has been allocated.

7. Consider allocating $70,000 for design and construction of refuge island and kerb modifications at the intersection of Maltravers Road and Rotherwood Road, Ivanhoe East in a future capital works program.

8. Install refuge island and kerb modifications on Rotherwood Road, Ivanhoe East, as per the proposal once funding has been allocated.

9. Apply to VicRoads for the approval of 50 km/h signs in Maltravers Road, Ivanhoe East, and following the approval install the signs.

10. Advise the primary petitioners of this resolution.

COUNCIL PLAN


BACKGROUND

A petition was received by Council on 13 April 2018 in relation to speeding concerns in Maltravers Road, Ivanhoe East, and hoon concerns at the Rotherwood Road intersection with Maltravers Road.

At its meeting on 21 May 2018 Council considered a petition report regarding this and resolved:

“That Council:

1. Receives and notes the petition.

2. Investigate the request for traffic management treatments in Maltravers Road, Ivanhoe East. The outcome of the investigation is to be reported at a future meeting.

3. Advise the primary petitioner of this resolution.”

A further petition was received on 12 August 2018 in relation to pedestrian safety at the intersection of Maltravers Road and Carmichael Street, Ivanhoe East and requesting a ‘right turn ban’ be installed from Maltravers Road into Carmichael Street during morning and afternoon peak times.




Council at its meeting on 27 August 2018 considered a petition report regarding this and resolved:

“That Council:

1. Receives and notes the petition.

2. Include this petition as part of the investigations for traffic management treatments in Maltravers Road, Ivanhoe East, as per the petition tabled at the 21 May 2018 Council Meeting. The outcome of the investigation for appropriate traffic treatments will be reported at a future meeting.

3. Advise the primary petitioner of this resolution.”

In the past 12 months Council has received four separate residential concerns about speed of vehicles in Maltravers Road. This report considers the outcome of the investigation, and responds to item 2 of both the resolutions.

LEGAL CONSIDERATION



In developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. It is considered that the subject matter does not raise any human rights issues.

CURRENT SITUATION

Maltravers Road is 1.5 km in length and connects Lower Heidelberg Road to the east and Marshall Street to the west. Under council’s road hierarchy, it is classified as a collector road which has a default speed limit of 50km/h.

A collector road is expected to carry between 2,000 and 10,000 vehicles per day. Their primary function is to provide access to the network by linking residential areas to arterial roads. The average road width of Maltravers Road is 9.7m measured between the face of the kerbs.

A locality plan is provided in Figure 1.




Figure 1: Locality Plan

Maltravers Road consist of three roundabouts (at the intersection of Ormond Road, Ashby Grove and Locksley Road) and rumble strips in the bend west of Ashby Grove.

Most of the intersections along Maltravers Road are controlled by ‘Stop’ signs and line markings facing each side street, with ‘Give Way’ sign at the Rotherwood Road intersection. There is dashed centre line marking installed for most sections of the street.

Carmichael Street is classified under Council’s road hierarchy as a ‘Local Road’ (residential street) with a default speed limit of 50km/h. A local road is expected to carry less than 2,000 vehicles per day. Their primary function is to provide access to properties and generally carry local traffic.

The road width of Carmichael Street is 7.4m measured between the face of kerbs and is approximately 370m in length, and runs north to south. It connects Lower Heidelberg Road to the South and Maltravers Road to the north. There is a refuge island at the intersection of Maltravers Road to assist pedestrians cross Carmichael Street.

Rotherwood is classified under Council’s road hierarchy as a ‘Local Road’ (residential street) with a default speed limit of 50km/h.

The average road width of Rotherwood Road is 13.4m measured between the face of kerbs and is approximately 490m in length, and is aligned north to south. It connects Lower Heidelberg Road to the south and Maltravers Road to the northern. Rotherwood Road has split levels in most sections of the street, and has width of 40m at the northern end.




INVESTIGATIONS

A road safety investigation of Maltravers Road has been undertaken, including several site observations and traffic speed and volume counts.

Traffic Speed and Volume Survey

A speed and volume count was undertaken in Maltravers Road, between Outlook Drive and Brooke Street, for one week commencing on 19 June 2018. Two further counts were also undertaken; one between The Righi and Hopetoun Grove and the other between Rotherwood Road and Townsend Street, for one week period commencing on 1 June 2018.

Table 1 summarises the results of these counts. For comparison, a previous traffic count conducted in February 2011 in the vicinity of Carmichael Street is also included in the table.

Table 1. Speed and Volume Counts Results for Maltravers Road

Street, Location and Date Direction Average Weekday Volume (vpd)

85th Percentile Speed* (km/h)

Between The Righi and Hopetoun Grove 1 June 2018

Combined East West

3166 1678 1488

48.0 46.0 48.0

Between Rotherwood Road and Townsend Street 1 June 2018

Combined East West

2992 1541 1452

55.0 54.0 54.0

Between Outlook Drive and Brooke Street 19 June 2018

Combined East West

3757 1986 1771

54.0 55.0 54.0

East Carmichael Street17 February 2011

Combined East West

3539 1689 1850

57.4 56.3 58.4

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

The speed and volume survey revealed that the maximum average daily traffic volume on Maltravers Road was 3757 vehicles, recorded between Outlook Drive and Brooke Street, and the highest 85th percentile speed (the speed at which 85% of the vehicles are travelling at or below) was 55 km/h, recorded between Rotherwood Road and Townsend Street.

A speed and volume count was conducted in Carmichael Street over the period of a week commencing on 17 July 2017, in the vicinity of Elm Crescent. The results of the traffic count are presented in Table 2, with a previous count conducted in September 2013 for comparison.




Table 2. Speed and Volume Counts Results for Carmichael Street

Date

Category Direction 17 July 2018 2 September 2013

Average Weekday Volume

(vpd)

Combined 2227 2040

North 971 886

South 1256 1154

85th Percentile Speed (km/h)

Combined 41.7 43.6

North 41.6 41.4

South 41.4 45

Morning Peak: 8am - 9am

(vpd)

Combined 329 343

North 97 93

South 242 252

Afternoon Peak: 3pm - 4pm

(Vpd)

Combined 263 254

North 133 135

South 138 123

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

The speed and volume count revealed that the average daily traffic volume was 2227 vehicles, and the 85th percentile speed (the speed at which 85% of the vehicles are travelling at or below) was 43.6 km/h, which is consistent with the previous count undertaken.

Site Observations and Casualty Crash History

During site visits vehicles were observed travelling in an inappropriate manner. The topography of the road and the straight sections of the street lends itself to high speeds. A check of the VicRoads casualty crash database indicates that there have been three reported casualty crashes in Maltravers Road in the last five years where data is available.

DISCUSSION

Maltravers Road

Maltravers Road provide access through to Ivanhoe Station located in Norman Street, Eaglemont Station located in Silverdale Road, Ivanhoe East shops located in Lower Heidelberg Road and other nearby residential streets. As such, some additional traffic is to be expected on this road other than that directly generated by local residents. Having noted this, the traffic count data indicates that the overall traffic volume is considered to be well within acceptable limits for a street of this nature.




The 85th percentile speed was generally high throughout the street. This is consistent with the previous count undertaken in 2011. Three casualty crashes in the last 5 years is a significant concern.

As such, it is considered that the installation of speed reduction measures along Maltravers Road is warranted.

When considering the speed, volume, crash stats and other factors in determine the warrants for the installation of road safety devices, Maltravers Road ranks moderate to high amongst the list of streets for future consideration of funding.

Victoria Police has been notified in relation to the speeding concerns in Maltravers Road, for enforcement.

Carmichael Street

Carmichael Street provides access through to Ivanhoe East shopping precinct located in Lower Heidelberg Road and other residential streets. When comparing count data to that of a previous count undertaken in Carmichael Street in September 2013, it indicates that the overall volume has increased approximately 200 vehicles per day. It is also noted that during morning and afternoon peak times the southbound traffic volumes on Carmichael Street are 242 and 138 respectively. Considering the location of the speed counts, it is determined that majority of traffic is coming from Maltravers Road.

Generally peak hour/ 24 hour volume ratio is expected to be 12 – 14%. If ratios are in excess of this, it suggests that there may be some rat-running occurring.

A review of the peak hour traffic volumes indicates that peak hour ratios during both morning and afternoon peaks are 14%. This is still in the acceptable range, however, on the higher end.

Given this, there is no significant need for a right turn ban. A right turn ban will also have significant impact on residents and will have impact in access to the Ivanhoe East shopping precinct. As such, installation of right turn ban sign on Maltravers Road to Carmichael Street is not considered appropriate, as requested in the petition.

Considering the potential rat-running concerns and potential pedestrian safety at Carmichael Street, a localised treatment at the intersection is considered warranted.

Rotherwood Road

Rotherwood Road is quite wider when comparing to the width of Maltravers Road and Carmichael Street. Especially the north end of Rotherwood Road which has a width of 40m. This geometry will allow motorists to enter and exit at a high speed and it is unsafe for pedestrians to cross the road given they will need to be on the road longer. As such it would be appropriate to install a localised treatment in this intersection.

Considering the geometry of this intersection the nature of Rotherwood Road and access to properties, installation of a roundabout is not considered warranted, as requested in the petition.




Notwithstanding, when considering the issues raised and the general speed and pedestrian crossing concerns, the installation of pedestrian crossing improvements in conjunction with narrowing of the road is considered warranted. Additionally, site inspections reveals that there may be hooning issues in the vicinity of this intersection. Victoria Police has been notified of the concerns of hoon behaviour, for enforcement.

PROPOSAL

Given the outcome of the investigation, proposals have been developed for Maltravers Road, Rotherwood Road and Carmichael Street, for speed reduction measures and other safety improvements.

Maltravers Road

For road safety devices to be effective at controlling the speed of traffic in a 50 km/h zone, they should generally be spaced around 100 to 120 meters apart. At this spacing, motorists generally travel at a more uniform speed and are less inclined to speed up and brake suddenly between treatments. Installing an isolated treatment will generally result in only a localised speed reduction near the treatment with little benefit to the remainder of the street.

The most suitable treatment is considered to be raised pavements strategically placed along Maltravers Road, between Lower Heidelberg Road and Ashby Grove. The majority of residents in this section indicated their preference for traffic management treatment to be installed in the petition, with the raised pavements being one of their preferred option.

Considering the spacing, topography of the road, approach sightlines, preference from the residents and intersecting street / driveways, the suitable location for traffic treatments are considered to be:

Raised pavement approximately 120m West from Lower Heidelberg Road Raised pavement approximately 50m East from Outlook Drive Raised pavement approximately 15m East from Brooke Street Raised pavement approximately 20m West from The Righi Raised pavement approximately 55m West from Hopetoun Grove Raised pavement approximately 30m West from Silverdale Road

Proposed locations of raised pavements are shown in Figure 2.




Figure 2. Proposed Raised Pavements Along Maltravers Road. There is an adequate number of road safety devices located on Maltravers Road between Marshall Street and Ashby Grove (including two roundabouts and rumble strips). As such, installing additional raised pavements in this section is not warranted.

Intersection of Maltravers Road and Carmichael Street

A suitable localised treatment at the intersection of Maltravers Road and Carmichael Street is a threshold treatment (i.e. raised pavement with pedestrian crossing facility). This treatment will assist pedestrians to cross Carmichael Street safely by slowing vehicles on the approaches. Threshold treatment will reduce the entry and exit speeds at the intersection. Additionally, this treatment may discourage any rat-running behaviour. Installing this in conjunction with six raised pavements in Maltravers Road will improve the overall safety. A concept plan of a threshold treatment is shown on Figure 3 below.

Figure3. Proposed Threshold Treatment




Intersection of Maltravers Road and Rotherwood Road

A suitable localised treatment at the intersection of Rotherwood Road and Maltravers Road would be a refuge island and kerb modification on Rotherwood Road. This treatment will narrow the width to the average road width at the intersection, which will reduce the entry and exit speed. Installing this in conjunction with six raised pavements in Maltravers Road will improve the overall safety. A concept plan of this treatment is shown on Figure 4 below.

Figure 4. Proposed Refuge Island and Kerb Modification


Approximate cost estimate for design and installation of all the proposals as follows: 6 Raised Pavements - $ 240,000 Threshold Treatment - $ 45,000 Gateway Treatment - $ 70,000




CONCLUSION

Council at its meetings on 21 May 2018 and 27 August 2018 considered petition reports regarding speed concerns, and other safety issues in Maltravers Road, Carmichael Street and Rotherwood Road, Ivanhoe East.




Investigations have confirmed that the speed of vehicles on Maltravers Road is higher than desired and there is a potential rat-running and pedestrian safety concerns in Carmichael Street.

Following investigation, it is recommended to design and install raised pavements along Maltravers Road, threshold treatment on Carmichael Street and kerb modifications and refuge island on Rotherwood Road to address speed and pedestrian safety concerns.

The installation cost of traffic management devices at this section, is likely to be in the order of $ 355,000 which will need to be considered for future funding in the Capital Works Program.

It is also recommended to apply to VicRoads for approval to install additional 50 km/h speed warning signs along Maltravers Road. In the meantime, Victoria Police has been notified of the speed and hoon concerns.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil



5.6 VICTORIAN GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCEMENT - SUBURBAN RAIL LOOP

Author: Alison Wood - Safe & Sustainable Transport Officer, City Development

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On 28 August 2018 the Victorian Government announced plans to construct a new 90km rail line circling Melbourne’s middle-ring suburbs and connecting the Monash, La Trobe, Sunshine and Werribee National Employment and Innovation Clusters (NEICs).

The Suburban Rail Loop will join a package of 29 major transport infrastructure projects currently underway within the state and will connect Melbourne’s major rail lines, from the Frankston line in the south to the Werribee line in the west through Melbourne Airport, with up to 12 new underground stations.

It is proposed that the north east section will intersect the Hurstbridge line at Heidelberg and result in the creation of a new underground station serving the La Trobe NEIC in Bundoora.

This is an important project to support access to the La Trobe NEIC and improve public transport infrastructure and services for Banyule residents.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council write to the Premier; the Minister for Transport, the Victorian Planning Authority and Darebin Council strongly supporting the project and advocating for the Suburban Rail Loop’s connection to the La Trobe National Employment and Innovation Cluster and the Hurstbridge rail line at Heidelberg.

COUNCIL PLAN


BACKGROUND


The Suburban Rail Loop will join a package of 29 major transport infrastructure projects currently underway within the state and will connect Melbourne’s major rail lines, from the Frankston line in the south to the Werribee line in the west through Melbourne Airport, with up to 12 new underground stations.

It is proposed that the north east section will intersect the Hurstbridge line at Heidelberg and result in the creation of a new underground station serving the La Trobe NEIC in Bundoora.


VICTORIAN GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCEMENT - SUBURBAN RAIL LOOP cont’d


LEGAL CONSIDERATION





DISCUSSION


The Suburban Rail Loop will join a package of 29 major transport infrastructure projects currently underway within the state.

The new railway will connect Melbourne’s major rail lines, from the Frankston line in the south to the Werribee line in the west through Melbourne Airport with up to 12 new underground stations, as shown in Figure 1 below.

FIGURE 1: SUBURBAN RAIL LOOP – INDICATIVE CORRIDOR PLAN

The proposed north east section will intersect the Hurstbridge line at Heidelberg. It is envisaged that a metro interchange will be developed utilising the existing railway station supporting the Austin Hospital and associated health precincts and commercial uses, with opportunities for improved links. It will also provide a direct rail connection from Heidelberg to Melbourne Airport.

The Suburban Rail Loop will also result in the creation of a new underground station serving the La Trobe NEIC in Bundoora supporting La Trobe University’s development as an innovation and knowledge centre.


VICTORIAN GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCEMENT - SUBURBAN RAIL LOOP cont’d


Early planning and feasibility work, including identification of the project corridor, has already been undertaken over the past 12 months. Three corridor options have been considered – inner, middle and outer. The middle corridor was selected as it provides the greatest opportunity to link four NEICs and other major health, education and employment precincts.

At this stage assumed station options are indicative only and are subject to a detailed options analysis, design and engineering investigations. Work on a full business case, including stakeholder engagement and environmental assessments, is expected to commence early 2019.

It is estimated that the Loop, once completed, will generate 400,000 rail trips per day, increase public transport mode share and take 200,000 cars off suburban roads.

This investment in public transport is anticipated to act as a catalyst for further renewal along the rail corridor, particularly in the precincts, such as Bundoora and the La Trobe NEIC, where new stations will be introduced, including the potential for increased housing densities in the vicinity of stations.

The Victorian Government anticipates that economic benefits will stem from the increasing capacity of people to access educational opportunities and jobs closer to home; from urban renewal projects developed in conjunction with the project and from improved transport accessibility.

The proposal supports one of Council’s key strategic transport priorities to upgrade public transport and support increased services linking key destinations within and beyond Banyule including to and within the La Trobe NEIC.

TIMELINES

It is expected that the project will take approximately three decades to be realised. Work on the business case, design, and pre-construction works is expected to commence in 2019. Construction on the first section in Melbourne’s south east expected to begin by the end of 2022 with an estimated project completion date of 2051.




CONCLUSION

The proposed Suburban Rail Loop is an ambitious but positive urban infrastructure initiative that will support access to the La Trobe NEIC and improve public transport infrastructure connections and services for Banyule residents.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil



5.7 CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE BELL BARDIA AND TARAKAN ESTATES RENEWAL

Author: Alison Fowler - Senior Strategic Planner, City Development

Ward: Olympia

Previous Items Council on 28 August 2017 (Item 5.1 - Bell Bardia and Tarakan Estates, Heidelberg

West Social Housing Renewal Project)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) is progressing regeneration of public housing in Heidelberg West as part of the Government’s Public Housing Renewal Program to redevelop properties across Melbourne. The project includes landholdings at the Bell Bardia Street and Tarakan Street walk-up flat sites.

Planning scheme amendments to facilitate the re-development of the estates were approved by the Minister for Planning in March 2018.

DHHS has established the Heidelberg West Consultative Committee to be chaired by Anthony Carbines MP, State Member for Ivanhoe, to assist with further work on the project and is seeking nominations for community members and two representatives from Council to join the Committee.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council nominate the Olympia Ward Councillor and a senior officer or delegate to represent Council on the Heidelberg West Consultative Committee for the Bell Bardia and Tarakan Housing Estates redevelopment.

COUNCIL PLAN

This report is in line with Banyule’s Council Plan key direction to preserve and improve Banyule as a great place to live, work and play. A key initiative is to continue planning for housing renewal and diversity for Heidelberg West.

BACKGROUND

The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) is progressing regeneration of public housing in Heidelberg West as part of the Government’s Public Housing Renewal Program to redevelop properties across Melbourne. The project includes landholdings at the Bell Bardia Street and Tarakan Street walk-up flat sites.

Proposed planning scheme changes to facilitate the re-development of these sites (Amendment C118) was exhibited in August 2017. All submissions to the amendment, including Councils were considered by the Government’s Social Housing Renewal Advisory Committee at a hearing in October 2017.


CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE BELL BARDIA AND TARAKAN ESTATES RENEWAL cont’d


The Minister for Planning considered the report of the Advisory Committee and approved Amendment C118 for the Bell Bardia Estate and Amendment C150 for the Tarakan Estate on 29 March 2018.

A Development Plan must now be prepared for both sites in consultation with Council and approved by the Minister for Planning, before a permit for development can be granted. A number of sub-plans and reports must be prepared first that will either inform or form part of the final development plan.

LEGAL CONSIDERATION





DISCUSSION

Consultative Committee

To assist with further work on the project, the DHHS has established the Heidelberg West Consultative Committee to be chaired by Anthony Carbines MP, State Member for Ivanhoe. The purpose of the Committee is to seek advice and feedback on renewal plans, identify local issues and raise matters of concern as they arise.

The Committee will run for 12 months with meetings at six weekly intervals. Membership will be reviewed in August 2019. The Terms of Reference for the Committee at Attachment 1.

DHHS has commenced an Expression of Interest process inviting estate residents and community members to join the Committee. Council has been provided with two places on the Committee and has been asked to nominate representatives.

It is recommended that the Olympia Ward Councillor and a senior officer or delegate be nominated as Council’s representatives.





CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE BELL BARDIA AND TARAKAN ESTATES RENEWAL cont’d


CONCLUSION

The DHHS has established the Heidelberg West Consultative Committee to seek advice and feedback on renewal plans, identify local issues and raise matters of concern as they arise in relation to the redevelopment of the Tarakan and Bell Bardia Estates in Heidelberg West.

The Department is seeking expressions of interest to join the Committee, including two representatives from Council. It is recommended that Council nominate the Olympia ward councillor and a senior officer or delegate to join the Committee.

ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 Terms of Reference

Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life


6.1 MAV STATE MOTIONS

Author: Kerryn Woods - Executive Governance Officer, Corporate Services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) is holding its State Council Meeting on 19 October 2018. Councils are encouraged to submit motions to the State Council Meeting for voting on by other member councils. Any motions submitted must be approved by Council and submitted by 21 September 2018.

The MAV holds two State Council Meetings per year. The meetings are an opportunity for Councils to include on the agenda issues of common interest and importance to all Victorian Councils. The MAV then advocates on behalf of Local Government in relation to these matters.

This report proposes that Banyule submit the following motion to the MAV for inclusion on the agenda of the October State Council Meeting relating to:

That the Municipal Association of Victoria advocates to the State Government for a consistent approach to the control and management of weeds throughout the State of Victoria.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council adopts the following motion for submission to the MAV State Council Meeting on 19 October 2018:

That the Municipal Association of Victoria advocates to the State Government for a consistent approach to the control and management of weeds throughout the State of Victoria.

COUNCIL PLAN

This report is in line with Banyule’s Council Plan key direction to “Advocate for our community”.

MAV STATE COUNCIL

The MAV holds two State Council Meetings per year. The meetings are an opportunity for councils to include on the agenda issues of common interest and importance to all Victorian Councils. The MAV then advocates on behalf of Local Government in relation to these matters.

Prior to the meetings the MAV encourages councils to submit motions for the agenda. The usual practice is to provide a few paragraphs of background information together with the actual motion being recommended.


MAV STATE MOTIONS cont’d


LEGAL CONSIDERATION





DISCUSSION

Weed management is critical to protect biodiversity and encourage indigenous flora and fauna. Throughout the State of Victoria there is an inconsistent approach across councils with the method in which weeds are managed and controlled.

A brief review of other municipality’s websites has revealed that some councils manage weeds through a Local Law, however this process isn’t consistent across all of Victoria. A lack of consistency in the application of weed management may lead to an unsuccessful outcome as neighbouring councils would not be able to enforce the same requirements.

If all councils were required to adopt and enforce a Local Law for the control and management of weeds there would be a more effective eradication rate.




CONCLUSION

The next MAV State Council Meeting provides Council with the opportunity to advocate on issues of state wide significance.

This report proposes that Banyule City Council submits a motion to the October MAV State Council Meeting before the 21 September 2018 deadline, in relation to a consistent approach to the control and management of weeds throughout the state of Victoria.

ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 MAV State Motion - Control and Management of weeds throughout the State of Victoria



6.2 ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORTS

Author: Michael Uniacke - Community & Social Planner, Community Programs

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Advisory Committees are made up of Councillors and community members.

Each Committee has Terms of References and meet to discuss issues and advise Council.

Advisory Committees provide important linkages between Council, Community and State agencies and interest groups.

Following an Advisory Committee meeting, a report will be submitted to Council to note the minutes. Recommendations to Council from Advisory committees will generally be made to the next Council Meeting.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council note the following minutes:

1. Disability and Inclusion Advisory Committee Meeting on 15 August 2018. 2. LGBTI Advisory Committee Meeting on 2 August 2018. 3. Multicultural Advisory Committee Meeting on 8 August 2018. 4. Banyule Environmental Advisory Committee Meeting on 8 August 2018. 5. Banyule Arts and Culture Advisory Committee on 7 August 2018. 6. Age Friendly City Advisory Committee Meeting on 27 August 2018.

1. Report/Committee Name: Disability and Inclusion Advisory Committee Officer: Michael Uniacke Brief explanation: The Disability and Inclusion Advisory Committee met on 15 August 2018. The minutes from the meeting are in Attachment 1.

The aim of the Disability and Inclusion Advisory Committee is to provide Council with advice and information on issues facing people with disabilities and on the development and implementation of Council’s Disability Action Plan.

Cr Peter Castaldo chaired the meeting in place of Cr Mark Di Pasquale who was an apology. Five committee members attended the meeting.

2. Report/Committee Name: LGBTI Advisory CommitteeOfficer: Gemma BoucherBrief explanation: The LGBTI Advisory Committee met on 2 August 2018 in the Ivanhoe Council offices. The minutes from the meeting are in Attachment 2.


ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORTS cont’d


The aim of the LGBTI Advisory Committee is to provide Council with advice and information on issues facing the LGBTI community and on the development and implementation of Council’s LGBTI Plan.

Councillor Craig Langdon chaired the meeting, and Councillor Peter Castaldo was also in attendance. Ten committee members attended.

There were no recommendations from this meeting.

3. Report/Committee Name: Multicultural Advisory Committee MeetingOfficer: Gemma BoucherBrief explanation: The Multicultural Advisory Committee met on 8 August 2018 at the Greensborough Council offices. The minutes from the meeting are in Attachment 3.

The aim of the Multicultural Advisory Committee is to provide Council with advice and information on issues facing the Multicultural community and on the development and implementation of Council’s Multicultural Plan.

Theonie Tacticos, Coordinator Community and Social Planning, chaired the meeting as there were not Councillors in attendance. Six committee members attended.


4. Report/Committee Name: Banyule Environment Advisory Committee (BEAC)Officer: Sian GleesonBrief explanation: The Banyule Environment Advisory Committee (BEAC) met on 8 August 2018. The minutes from the meeting are in Attachment 4.

The purpose of BEAC is to provide on-going community input to Council from residents committed to and concerned about a sustainable environment, particularly in relation to the development and implementation of strategic environmental documents and programs.

Hosein Gharavi chaired the meeting; Councillors Castaldo, Langdon and Di Pasquale were in attendance. Eight committee members attended.

There were no recommendations arising from this meeting.

Highlights of the meeting: o The group heard presentations in relation to the ‘Climate

Emergency’, as well as Council’s approach to the recent Notice of Motion.

o BEAC’s next meeting will be used to host a community forum for a small number of environmental groups. This will assist in defining the scope of Banyule’s future Climate Action project.

5. Report/Committee Name: Banyule Arts and Culture Advisory CommitteeOfficer: Colin James




Brief explanation: The Banyule Arts and Culture Advisory Committee met on 7 August 2018. The minutes from the meeting are in Attachment 5.

The aim of the Banyule Arts and Cultural Advisory Committee is to provide a formal mechanism for Council to consult with key stakeholders, seek specialist advice and enable community participation in the development and delivery of the 2017 – 2021 Arts and Culture Strategic Plan.

The meeting was chaired by Cr Craig Langdon. Six committee members attended.


6. Report/Committee Name: Age Friendly City Advisory Committee Officer: Catherine SimcoxBrief explanation: Cr Champion chaired the 27 August 2018 meeting with Cr Langdon, Cr Melican and Cr Castaldo in attendance. Twelve committee members attended the meeting. The minutes from the meeting are in Attachment 6.

Year one action outcomes from the Banyule Older Adult Strategic Plan were acknowledged. It was also identified the additional actions which are taking place outside of the adopted action plan. The Council staff and Age-friendly Champions have presented at a range of local and state events.

Australian Age Friendly Forum will take place on 17-18 October in Greensborough. There has been a positive response from all relevant States.

The Banyule Best Biz Awards will have a merit based Age Friendly Business Awards.

Community Transport Research investigating the needs of older residents was presented. This was then followed by a discussion on the Banyule Walking Strategy draft.

Seniors Festival will take place during October. Key events will include the two morning teas with an ABBA tribute band and an Art Exhibition of older resident’s art at Hatch Gallery. The Banyule Seniors Festival Booklet contains approximately 80 activities happening in Banyule during October.

7.




ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 Banyule Disability and Inclusion Advisory Committee (BDIAC) - Minutes August 2018

2 Banyule Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex Plus (LGBTI +) Advisory Committee Minutes August 2018

3 Banyule Multicultural Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes August 2018

4 Banyule Environment Advisory Committee (BEAC) Meeting Minutes August 2018

5 Banyule Arts and Culture Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes - August 2018

6 Banyule Aged Friendly Advisory Committee Minutes August 2018

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely


7.1 CERTIFICATION OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND PERFORMANCE STATEMENT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 2018

Author: Stephen Coulthard - Financial Accounting Co-ordinator, Corporate Services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council is required to complete and forward to the Minister for Local Government its Annual Report by 30 September 2018. The Council must not submit the financial statements or the performance statement to its auditor or the Minister unless it has passed a resolution giving its approval in principle to the financial statements and performance statement.

Council is required to produce audited Annual Financial Statements and a Performance Statement pursuant to the requirements and process outlined in the Local Government Act 1989 and the Local Government (Planning and Reporting) Regulations 2014. The Financial Statements and Performance Statement form part of Council’s Annual Report 2017/18.

The Financial Statements and Performance Statement are subject to external audit by the Victorian Auditor-General or their agent as contracted. The detailed audit of the Financial Statements and Performance Statement for the year ended 30 June 2018 was undertaken by an agent of the Victorian Auditor-General during August 2018.

The Audit Committee held its meeting on 13 September 2018, to review the Financial Statements and Performance Statement for the year ended 30 June 2018. Following Audit clearance, the Audit Committee recommends to Council that it approves ‘in principle’ the Financial Statements and Performance Statement pursuant to Section 132 of the Act, prior to formal presentation to the Auditor General.

In accordance with Section 134(2) of the Local Government Act 1989 a Public Notice will be placed outlining the:

availability of the Annual Report and Audit Reports for inspection, and meeting of Council on Monday, 29 October 2018 to consider the Annual

Report.

It is recommended that the Annual Financial Statements and Performance Statement, be approved in principle and the Annual Report be forwarded to the Minister.


CERTIFICATION OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND PERFORMANCE STATEMENT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 2018 cont’d


RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Approve in principle the Financial Statements and the Performance Statement for the year ended 30 June 2018.

2. Authorise its Councillor representatives on the Audit Committee, being Cr Mark Di Pasquale and Cr Rick Garotti and in either of their absence, Cr Tom Melican as substitute, to sign the Financial Statements and Performance Statement for the year ended 30 June 2018 in their final forms, after any changes recommended or agreed to by the Victorian Auditor-General, have been made.

3. Upon receipt of the Victorian Auditor-General’s Audit Reports on the Financial Statements and Performance Statement, a report be prepared as soon as is practicable to consider and adopt the Annual Report 2017/18, inclusive of the Report of Operations, Financial Statements and Performance Statement.

4. Forward a copy of the Annual Report 2017/18 to the Minister on or before 30 September 2018.

5. Give Public Notice:

a) of the availability of the report of the auditor under Section 9 of the Audit Act 1994; and

b) of the Annual Report to be considered at the Council Meeting on 29 October 2018.

COUNCIL PLAN

This report is in line with Banyule’s Council Plan key direction to “Provide responsible financial management and business planning”.

BACKGROUND

Annual Report

Council prepares a report for the community annually on the activities and financial performance of the organisation it is required by the Local Government Act 1989 to prepare this Annual Report.

The Annual report comprises:

Report of Operations – information about the operations of the Council. Performance Statement - audited results achieved against the prescribed

performance indicators and measures. Financial Statements - audited financial statements prepared in accordance

with the Australian Accounting Standards.




The Financial Statements and Performance Statement are subject to external audit by the Victorian Auditor-General and must be submitted to the Minister for Local Government within three-months of the end of the financial year.

Section 132 of the Local Government Act 1989 and the Local Government (Planning and Reporting) Regulations 2014 require Council to:

1) Pass a resolution giving its approval, ‘in-principle’, to the financial Statements and Performance Statement before they are submitted to the Auditor General.

2) Authorise two Councillors, the Chief Executive Officer and the Principal Accounting Officer to certify the Financial Statements and Performance Statement in their final form, after any changes recommended, or agreed to, by the Auditor have been made.

The Performance Statement reports the audited results for 2017/18 for the prescribed indicators. In addition to the audited Performance Statement, the results for a range of other indicators are reported in the Report of Operations as part of the Annual Report.

Prior to submission to the Minister the Financial Statements and Performance Statement are required to be audited by the Victorian Auditor-General. This audit was undertaken by the Victorian Auditor-General during August 2018.

The annual report must contain the provisions set out in Section 131 of Local Government Act 1989 in respect of the financial year reported on.

After the annual report has been submitted to the Minister, Council is required to give public notice, in accordance with Section 134(2) of the Local Government Act 1989, that the annual report has been prepared and can be inspected at the Council office and on the Council's internet website.

The annual report incorporating the audited financial statements and performance statement are required to be certified by Council’s Principal Accounting Officer and by two Councillors on behalf of the Council prior to the Council’s Auditor signing the Audit Report. The annual report is then forwarded to the Minister by 30 September 2018.

Audit Committee

The Audit Committee held its meeting on 13 September 2018, to review the Report of Operations, Financial Statements and Performance Statement.

Representatives from the agent of the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office attended the Audit Committee meeting on 13 September 2018 to provide the Audit Committee members with an overview and answer questions regarding the external audit.

Subject to formal audit clearance by the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office, the Audit Committee recommends to Council that it approves the Financial Statements and Performance Statement ‘in principle’.




Public Notice

After the annual report has been submitted to the Minister, Council is required to give public notice that the annual report has been prepared and can be inspected at the Council office and on the Council's internet website.

The public notice will be placed in ‘The Age’ newspaper and on Council’s website after the annual report is submitted to the Minister (prior to 30 September) to give the mandatory minimum fourteen (14) days’ notice in accordance with Section 134(2) of the Local Government Act 1989. The notice will detail the availability of the Annual Report and Audit Reports for inspection and notice of the meeting of Council on Monday, 29 October 2018 to consider the annual report. Public notice advertisements are also to be placed in the local newspapers. The document is to be available for inspection via Council’s service centres and website and at local libraries.

LEGAL CONSIDERATION



In developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities.





CONCLUSION

The Financial Statements and Performance Statement have each been:

1) prepared by Council staff, 2) reviewed by the Victorian Auditor-General’s Agent and 3) presented to the Audit Committee.

Following the Audit Committee’s review and recommendation, Council is required to approve ‘in principle’ the Financial Statements and Performance Statement for the year ended 30 June 2018 which form part of Council’s Annual Report prior to submission to the Auditor-General.




ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 Annual Report 2017-2018 - Part One - Report of Operations

2 Annual Report 2017-2018 - Part Two - Performance Statement

3 Banyule City Council Annual Report 2017-2018 - Part Three - Financial Report



7.2 FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY STRATEGY 2018-2022

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Financial Sustainability Strategy is integral to Banyule’s strategic plan. It sets out how Banyule plans to finance its overall operations to meet its objectives now and in the future. The Financial Sustainability Strategy summarises opportunities, and the actions to be taken over a four year period to achieve the objectives set out in the Council Plan 2017-2021.

The Strategy focuses on income generating capability of Council and identifies several opportunities to pursue alternate revenue sources. The Strategy examines Banyule’s cost containment objectives, reinforces current programs that identify operational improvements and proposes a number of opportunities to improve Organisational efficiency.

The Strategy discusses the funding opportunities from a number of sources to ensure Banyule can continue to sustainably renew and redevelop its community infrastructure for future generations.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council;

1. Endorse the Banyule Financial Sustainability Strategy 2018-2022.

2. Aim to maintain its financial sustainability utilising the VAGO six financial sustainability risk indicators.

3. Explore funding opportunities from a number of sources to ensure Banyule can continue to sustainably renew and redevelop its community infrastructure for future generations.

4. Revise the Financial Sustainability Strategy on an annual basis.

COUNCIL PLAN

This report is in line with Banyule’s Council Plan key direction to “Provide responsible financial management and business planning”.

BACKGROUND

Financial Sustainability is achieved when service and infrastructure levels and standards are delivered according to a long-term plan without the need to significantly increase rates or significantly reduce services.

Long-term financial sustainability is important if Council is to deliver the services and programs expected by the community. It is also important that community assets are maintained so that the cost does not become a burden for future ratepayers and for council to remain financially viable.


FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY STRATEGY 2018-2022 cont’d


Responsible long-term financial sustainability ensures:

Council will remain in a healthy financial position Public resources are distributed fairly between current and future ratepayers,

and this will be achieved by maintaining an operating surplus Funding is made available for the maintenance, replacement and upgrade of

assets to meet community expectations Financial outcomes are given greater stability and certainty Consistent delivery of essential community services and the efficient

development of community infrastructure Current and future Council rates are given a fair degree of stability and

predictability.

Banyule’s utilises the (VAGO) Financial Sustainability Risk ratios, currently used to assess the Local Government sector in Victoria. Fundamentally, to be financially sustainable, councils should aim to generate enough revenue from their own operations to meet their financial obligations, and to fund asset replacement and asset acquisitions.

VAGO use six financial sustainability risk indicators over a five-year period to assess the potential financial sustainability risks in the local government sector. The financial sustainability indicators, risk assessment criteria and benchmarks used by Council in this report are described in Appendix A

The Strategy focuses on income generating capability of Council and identifies several opportunities to pursue alternate revenue sources. Additionally, the Strategy examines Banyule’s cost containment objectives, reinforces current programs that identify operational improvements and proposes a number of opportunities to improve Organisational efficiency.

Furthermore, the Strategy discusses the funding opportunities from a number of sources to ensure Banyule can continue to sustainably renew and redevelop its community infrastructure for future generations

LEGAL CONSIDERATION

A Council must maintain the viability of the Council by ensuring its resources are managed in a responsible and accountable manner (LGA Section 3D(c)).

A function of a Council includes raising revenue to enable the Council to perform its duties. (LGA Section 3E(e)).

Councils are also required to adhere to the principles of sound financial management (LGA Section 136).





FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY STRATEGY 2018-2022 cont’d



POLICY IMPLICATIONS

To ensure that Council continues to be financially sustainable, Council will regularly review its Long-Term Financial Plan and associated guiding principles. The principles will as a minimum have regard for:

The level of funding to be applied for the purpose of maintaining existing assets

The level of debt and serviceability that Council will hold over the period of the Long Term Financial Plan

The net cash generated from operating activities.




CONCLUSION

Banyule’s Financial Sustainability Strategy provides Council with the ability to plan for a strong financial future. The actions outlined in the strategy provide direction where Council will continue to maximise its current financial position while continuing to explore other revenue and expenditure opportunities to guarantee the delivery of quality services and community infrastructure.

ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 Banyule City Council Financial Sustainability Strategy 2018-2022



7.3 AWARD OF CONTRACT 0966-2018 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FORD PARK COMMUNITY ACTIVITY AREA - STAGE ONE

Author: Brett Jose - Open Space Planning Project Officer, Assets & City Services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report is to consider the awarding of Contract No 0966-2018 for “Ford Park Community Activity Area – Stage One Construction”.

Ford Park is a 9.5ha park located in Bellfield, which supports local communities to have an active lifestyle. In order to cater for future demand of open space in the area (due population growth), Council developed the Ford Park Masterplan which was adopted in September 2016.

As part of the 2018/19 Capital Works Program, Council has allocated funding to construct next stage of the Masterplan which consists of new picnic shelters, barbecues, play space, scooter track, landscaped lawn and garden areas.

Tenders were advertised in The Age and on Council’s website. During this period twenty nine (29) companies downloaded the tender documents and six (6) submissions were received by the closing time.

As a result of the tender evaluation, the Tender Evaluation Panel recommends that Council award Contract No. 0966-2018, “Ford Park Community Activity Area – Stage One” for the lump sum price of $896,587.00 (excl. GST), to JMAC Constructions Pty Ltd.

Council has allocated funding for this project as part of its 2018/19 Capital Works Programme.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. Contract No. 0966-2018 for The Ford Park Community Activity Area – Stage One Construction be awarded to JMAC Constructions Pty Ltd, for $896,587.00 (ex. G.S.T).

2. Council officers be authorised to sign a contract agreement with JMAC Constructions Pty Ltd.

3. The Common Seal of the Banyule City Council be affixed to the contract agreement.


AWARD OF CONTRACT 0966-2018 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FORD PARK COMMUNITY ACTIVITY AREA - STAGE ONE cont’d


COUNCIL PLAN

This report is in line with Banyule’s Council Plan key direction to “plan and manage the systems and assets that support Council’s service delivery”.

BACKGROUND

Ford Park is a 9.5ha park located in Bellfield, which supports local communities in an active lifestyle. In order to cater for future demand of open space in the area (due population growth), Council developed the Ford Park Masterplan which was adopted in September 2016.

As part of the 2018/19 Capital Works Program, Council has allocated funding to construct next stage of the Masterplan which consists of new picnic shelters, barbecues, play space, scooter track, landscaped lawn and garden areas.

Tenders were advertised in The Age on 2nd June 2018 and on Council’s website. During the period that the tenders were open, 29 companies downloaded the tender documents. Tenders closed 3:00pm on the 17th July 2018 and 6 submissions were received by the closing time.

LEGAL CONSIDERATION

Section 186 of the Local Government Act 1989 (Act) requires councils to undertake a competitive process to test the market by giving public notice and invite tenders before entering into a contract when the value of the contract is equal to or greater than:

$150,000 (including GST) for contracts for the purchases of goods or services; or $200,000 (including GST) for contracts for the carrying out of works.

These thresholds have been set in alignment with the thresholds that apply to State Government and are reviewed from time to time. The threshold for the ‘carrying out of works’ was set by Ministerial Direction by order in Council dated 5 August 2008.

The awarding of this contract complies with the tendering provisions of Section 186 of the Local Government Act 1989.

Additional confidential information is contained in Attachment 1, as circulated in the confidential section of the agenda attachments. This is in accordance with Section 89(2) of the Local Government Act 1989, as the information relates to contractual matters and premature disclosure of the information could be prejudicial to the interests of Council or other persons. This item has been included in the public agenda to facilitate transparency and accountability in Council's decision making.

BANYULE PROCUREMENT POLICY

Council’s Procurement Policy is made under Section 186A of the Local Government Act 1989.

The purpose of this Policy is to:




provide policy and guidance to the Council to allow consistency and control over Procurement activities;

demonstrate accountability to ratepayers; provide guidance on ethical behaviour in public sector purchasing; demonstrate the application of elements of best practice in purchasing; and increase the probability of obtaining the right outcome when purchasing goods

and services.

The Act and the Procurement Policy of Council are the primary reference points for how all procurement should be performed.

The process for inviting quotations and evaluation was undertaken in accordance with the Policy.



It is considered that the subject matter does impact on human rights considerations, in particular the right to freedom of movement (section 12 of the Victorian Charter). Through the undertaking of this project, Council aims to improve access for people of all abilities.

TENDER/QUOTATION EVALUATION

All submitted tenders were evaluated using the following evaluation criteria which was listed in the tender documents:

Tendered price Previous performance, experience and reliability in the provision of similar

types of projects Qualifications and experience of nominated staff including experience of

nominated sub-contractors Existence of an accredited management system and procedures covering

quality, OH&S and environmental performance Demonstration of Social and Economic Sustainability Other information which Council consider as relevant

Tender Evaluation

The tenders were evaluated by the Tender Evaluation Panel (TEP) comprising of officers from Parks & Open Space and Procurement Units.

Prior to the opening of the tenders, the tender evaluation panel convened to set the weightings for each evaluation criteria and establish how the tenders would be evaluated, using a weighted evaluation matrix.

The tender evaluation panel individually scored the tenders and then a tender evaluation panel meeting was held to agree on the consensus scores.




The two lowest tenderers were shortlisted following the consensus meeting and following clarifications, interviews and reference checks, the panel completed the consensus process and the weighted score for the tender was:

Table 1 – Tenders received and weighted scores

Tenderers Name Weighted Score

1. JMAC Constructions 88.14

2. Tenderer B 86.50

3. Tenderer C 75.74

4. Tenderer D 73.80

5. Tenderer E 73.06

6. Tenderer F 70.61

In undertaking the assessment, all members of the TEP completed and signed the Conflict of Interest and confidentiality declaration.

JMAC Constructions Pty Ltd, were the second lowest tender and highest weighted score received. Council officers assessed whether the lowest priced tenderer offered better value for money, however, ascertained that a better quality end product is likely to be achieved utilising JMAC Constructions Pty Ltd.

Interviews, reference checks and corporate scorecards were conducted for the preferred contractor, with no issues identified.


Council has allocated funding for this project as part of its 2018/19 Capital Works Program.




CONCLUSION

As a result of the tender evaluation, the Tender Evaluation Panel recommends that Council award Contract No. 0966-2018, “Ford Park Community Activity Area – Stage One” for the lump sum price of $896,587.00 (excl. GST), to JMAC Constructions Pty Ltd.




ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 Tender Evaluation Matrix - CONFIDENTIAL

2 Funding Implications - CONFIDENTIAL



7.4 WATERMARC CAFE TENANCY 1, 1 FLINTOFF STREET, GREENSBOROUGH - PROPOSED LEASE

Author: Gary Mills - Senior Property Officer, City Development

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council is seeking to enter into a new lease for the management and operation of the WaterMarc Café known as Tenancy 1, 1 Flintoff Street, Greensborough. The current lease with Artistic Culinaire Pty Ltd expired on 7 June 2017.

Council has undertaken an expression of interest process and received two submissions. Following an evaluation process, M & BT Investments Pty Ltd trading as The Healthlink Crew was considered the preferred proponent.

Public notice of Council’s intention to enter a lease with M & BT Investments Pty Ltd trading as The Healthlink Crew was given in local newspapers in accordance with sections 190(3) and 223 of the Local Government Act 1989 (‘the Act’). No submissions were received.

Council is now in a position to consider whether or not to enter into a lease with the preferred proponent.

RECOMMENDATION

That

1. Having complied with sections 190 and 223 of the Local Government Act1989:

a. by giving public notice in the Heidelberg Leader and the Diamond Valley Leader on 31 July and 1 August 2018 respectively; and

b. by recording that no submissions were received;

Council grants a lease to M & BT Investments Pty Ltd (ACN 124 141 171) trading as The Healthlink Crew for an initial term of five (5) years plus two (2) further terms of three (3) years commencing 9 November 2018 with an

annual rental of $90,000 plus GST ($7,500 plus GST per month) and annual fixed increases of three (3) per cent.

2. Council sign and seal the Lease and ancillary Service Level Agreement.

COUNCIL PLAN

This report is in line with Banyule’s Council Plan key direction to “Deliver best value services and facilities".


WATERMARC CAFE TENANCY 1, 1 FLINTOFF STREET, GREENSBOROUGH - PROPOSED LEASE cont’d


BACKGROUND

Council has a retail lease with Artistic Culinaire Pty Ltd for the WaterMarc Café, Tenancy 1, 1 Flintoff Street, Greensborough. The current lease was for an initial term of three years commencing on 8 June 2012 plus a two year option. The Lease expired on 7 June 2017 and has been in overholding.

In August 2017, Council invited expressions of interest from qualified hospitality organisations to lease and undertake the fitout, management and operation of the WaterMarc Café. The successful proponent would also be required to enter into a licence agreement with Council for non-exclusive use of designated café seating and outdoor dining areas at WaterMarc. Refer plan of proposed lease and licence areas at Attachment 1.

Council received two expressions of interest. Both proponents provided comprehensive submissions which were evaluated in accordance with the following evaluation criteria:

Financial benefit to Council (rental offer) Customer service Track record/Industry experience Financial capacity and business stability Management systems and procedures

In addition, Council required the proponents to provide details of their proposed capital investment for the café fitout, equipment and refurbishment of designated licence areas at WaterMarc comprising indoor seating, wet and outdoor dining.

After evaluation of the submissions and presentations from the proponents, the evaluation panel considered that the Submission and Lease Offer provided by M & BT Investments Pty Ltd trading as The Healthlink Crew represented the best value to Council.

LEGAL CONSIDERATION

Council has acted in accordance with sections 190 and 223 of the Act in relation to this proposal. Additionally, Council is required to comply with the Retail Leases Act 2003 in relation to the operation and performance of this Lease.




POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Council has complied with its Lease and Licence Framework (2018) in the conduct of this lease proposal and preparation of lease and licence documentation.




CONSULTATION

Council gave notice under section 190(3) of the Act of its intention to enter into a lease with M & BT Investments Pty Ltd trading as The Healthlink Crew to operate the WaterMarc Café known as Tenancy 1, 1 Flintoff Street, Greensborough.

Public notice was given in the Heidelberg Leader on Tuesday 31 July 2018 and the Diamond Valley Leader on Wednesday 1 August 2018 outlining the proposed lease terms and inviting written submissions in accordance with section 223 of the Act.

A copy of the proposed Lease was published on Council’s website and made available for viewing at the Customer Service Centre, Level 3, 1 Flintoff Street, Greensborough.

At the close of the submission period on 29 August 2018, no submissions were received.

DISCUSSION

It is proposed that Council enter into a retail lease with M & BT Investments Pty Ltd trading as The Healthlink Crew to operate the WaterMarc Café known as Tenancy 1, 1 Flintoff Street, Greensborough.

The proposed lease terms comprise an initial term of five (5) years plus two (2) further terms of three (3) years commencing on 9 November 2018 with an annual rental of $90,000 plus GST ($7,500 plus GST per month) and annual fixed increases of three (3) per cent.

Ancillary to the lease is a Service Level Agreement that details the expected performance and operational service levels and includes items such as reporting requirements, commitment to recruit locally and provide opportunities to vulnerable communities, waste minimisation strategies and continuous improvement in customer service.

The proposed capital investment offered by the proponent is $246,500 for refurbishment of the lease and licence areas at WaterMarc. A capital works plan will form part of the Lease and shall be strictly monitored.




CONCLUSION

Following an expression of interest process for the lease to manage and operate the WaterMarc Café and Council having complied with its statutory obligations, it is considered appropriate for Council to approve entering into a new lease with M & BT Investments Pty Ltd trading as The Healthlink Crew on the proposed terms of lease as outlined in this report.




ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 Watermarc Cafe Lease and Licence Plan



7.5 ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS

Author: Ellen Kavanagh - Governance Officer, Corporate Services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Under the Local Government Act 1989 an Assembly of Councillors is defined as:

A meeting of an advisory committee of the Council, if at least one Councillor is present or; A planned or scheduled meeting of at least half of the Councillors and one member of Council staff which considers matters that are intended or likely to be:

a) 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: 20 August 2018

Type of Meeting: Councillor Briefing

Matters Considered: Gambling Policy White Ribbon Accreditation Heidelberg West RSL Banyule Carparking Requirements Councillor Discussion

Councillors Present: Peter Castaldo Alison Champion Mark Di Pasquale Rick Garotti Craig Langdon Tom Melican Wayne Phillips

Staff Present: Simon McMillan – Chief Executive Officer Allison Beckwith – Director Community Programs Scott Walker – Director City Development Marc Giglio – Director Corporate Services Geoff Glynn – Director Assets & City Services Sandy Grosz – Governance Coordinator Theonie Tacticos – Community and Social Planning Coordinator Megan Farquhar – Health Promotion & Project Support Officer Sarah Mulholland – Community Safety Officer


ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS cont’d


Robbie Colosimo – Manager Youth & Family Services

Others Present: Nil

Conflict of Interest: Nil


Type of Meeting: Age-friendly Advisory Meeting

Matters Considered: Update on Advisory Committee Membership and Older Adults Team staff

Strategic Planning – Older Adults Strategic Plan 2017-2021 – Overview of the Year One outcomes

Banyule Best Biz Awards – Age Friendly Business Category

World Health Organisation, Age-friendly Cities Update – Australian Age-friendly Forum October 2018

Community Transportation – What’s happening in Banyule

Banyule Walking Strategy Draft Age-friendly Champion Initiatives and Other

Activities Older Adults Art Exhibition October Seniors Festival October 2018 Seniors Club promotional opportunity Directory of Activities Age in Focus Newsletter

Embolden Conference 9 & 10 October

Councillors Present: Peter Castaldo Alison Champion Craig Langdon Tom Melican

Staff Present: Catherine Simcox – Senior Community Services Development Officer Lisa Raywood – Manager Health, Aged & Community Planning Kathleen Petras – Transport Planning Team Leader Robyn Meikle – Research Officer, Older Adults Team Alison Wood – Safe & Sustainable Transport Officer Michelle Herbert – Senior Transport Engineer

Others Present: Age-friendly Advisory committee Members: Jenny Dale, Trudy Micallef, Gerard Vander, July Esworth, Ken Young, Bev Moss, Mary Ann Williams, Dennis Richards, Yvonne Wells, Meg Henderson, Bob Barron and Debbie Lamb

Conflict of Interest:





Type of Meeting: Councillor Briefing

Matters Considered: Items on the Council Agenda for the Ordinary Meeting of 27 August 2018 (excluding confidential items) as listed below:

2.1 Parking Meters in Macleod 2.2 Yandell Reserve Greensborough -

Improvements to Pathways 2.3 Maltravers Road and Carmichael Street,

Ivanhoe East - Speed and Traffic Safety Concerns

3.1 Adoption of the Victorian Child Friendly Cities and Communities Charter

4.1 Draft Towards Zero Waste Management Plan 5.1 Ivanhoe Parking Plan – Final 5.2 Bendoran Crescent, Bundoora - Proposed

Drop-off and Pick-up Zone 5.3 Ivanhoe Special Rate and Charge – Notice of

Decision 5.4 East Ivanhoe Village Special Charge – Notice

of Decision 5.5 Lower Plenty Special Charge – Notice of

Decision 5.6 37 Hailes Street, Greensborough – Proposed

Four Storey Residential Building and Apartment Development (P213/2017)

7.1 16 Rangeview Road, Lower Plenty – Encroachment

7.2 98 Oriel Road, Bellfield - Lease of Property 7.3 Banyule Service Promise 7.4 Council Meeting Dates for 2019 7.5 Audit & Risk Advisory Committee - Minutes 8 June 2018 7.6 Assembly of Councillors

Urgent Business

General Business

Councillors Present: Peter Castaldo Alison Champion Mark Di Pasquale Rick Garotti Craig Langdon Tom Melican

Staff Present: Allison Beckwith – Director Community Programs Scott Walker – Director City Development Marc Giglio – Director Corporate Services Geoff Glynn – Director Assets & City Services Gina Burden – Manager Governance & Communications




Vivien Ferlaino – Governance Coordinator Jan Richardson – Cemetery Administrator Andrew Croft – Waste Management Coordinator Russell Darling – Manager Operations James Stirton – Manager Property Joseph Tabacco – Manager Environment & Plan

Others Present:

Conflict of Interest:

RECOMMENDATION

That the Assembly of Councillors report be received.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Notice of Motion


9.1 TRAFFIC SAFETY MEASURES IN THE VICINITY OF IVANHOE PRIMARY SCHOOL

Author: Cr Craig Langdon

TAKE NOTICE that it is my intention to move:

That Council:

1. “Receive a report investigating the possibility of installing a raised pavement pedestrian crossing on Waterdale Road to service the Ivanhoe Primary School; and

2. Write to the State Government seeking the installation of electronic 40km/h signs on Waterdale Road on either side of Ivanhoe Primary School.”

Explanation

As a result of a vehicle accident in 2009 Council investigated opportunities to improve pedestrian safety along Waterdale Road in the vicinity of Ivanhoe Primary School. This investigation found:

the traffic islands on both approaches to the Pedestrian Operated Signals at this location narrowed the traffic lane width in the vicinity of the Pedestrian Operated Signals to less than 3m in both directions; and

the removal of the traffic islands was necessary and funded for removal as part of Council’s road resurfacing program (the removal of the traffic islands has been completed).

It should be noted that an option to install a guard rail was considered, however deemed to be unsuitable due to non-compliance with the Australian Standards for footpath width.

In response to recent concerns raised by the local community and Ivanhoe Primary School, a report is being sought that investigates further pedestrian improvements in the vicinity of school along Waterdale Road. Safety improvement options such as the possibility of installing a raised pedestrian crossing to service the Ivanhoe Primary School and electronic 40 km/h speed limit signs at either side of Ivanhoe Primary School could be considered.

Notice of Motion

TRAFFIC SAFETY MEASURES IN THE VICINITY OF IVANHOE PRIMARY SCHOOL cont’d


CR CRAIG LANGDON OlympiaWard

ATTACHMENTS

Nil