Download pdf - Banyule City Council Agenda 9 May 2016

Ordinary Meeting of Council

Council Chambers, Service Centre

275 Upper Heidelberg Road, Ivanhoe

9 May 2016 commencing at 7.45pm

Following the public forum commencing at approximately7.30pm and may be extended to 8pm if necessary.

AGENDA

Apologies and Leave of Absence

Confirmation of MinutesOrdinary Meeting of Council held 18 April 2016

Disclosure of Interests

1. Petitions

1.1 Request for Council to fund the continuation of JETS Programsand Services...........................................................................................................3

REPORTS:

2. People – Community Strengthening and Support

2.1 Rushworth Street and Reeves Street, Watsonia - PossibleTreatment Options ..................................................................................................7

2.2 Draft Child Youth and Family Plan 2016-2020 ......................................................152.3 2016-2017 Community Sports Infrastructure Fund Application

Outcome ..............................................................................................................182.4 Disability Review - Provision of services within the National

Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) .....................................................................23

3. Planet – Environmental Sustainability

Nil

4. Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.1 Residential Parking Permit Policy 2016-2020 .......................................................314.2 Progress report for a Development Contribution Plan ...........................................394.3 Chandler Highway Widening.................................................................................424.4 Metropolitan Over-Dimensional Vehicle Routes ....................................................454.5 Draft Banyule Safe Travel Plan 2016 - 2026 .........................................................48

AGENDA (Cont’d)

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 9 May 2016 Page 2

4.6 Watsonia Railway Station Infrastructure and AmenityImprovements.......................................................................................................53

4.7 54-62 Main Street, Greensborough - proposed mixed usedevelopment (P1024/2015)...................................................................................57

4.8 Proactive Enforcement of Replacement Tree Planting - Results ...........................714.9 Public Open Space Plan .......................................................................................794.10 Greensborough War Memorial Sculptures ...........................................................84

5. Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life

5.1 Olympic Park - Sports Field Training Lights Upgrade............................................895.2 Seniors festival morning tea..................................................................................945.3 Defence Force School of Signals (DFSS) to exercise its right to

march in Banyule City by Granting of Freedom of Entry (FOE) .............................98

6. Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.1 Items for Noting ..................................................................................................1016.2 Quarterly Financial Management Report - 31 March 2016..................................1036.3 Assembly of Councillors......................................................................................1186.4 Sale of 14A Bannerman Avenue, Greensborough ..............................................1226.5 Extension for Banyule Support and Information Centre 's

(BANSIC) use of 80 Hawdon Street until 31 July 2016........................................127

7. Sealing of Documents

7.1 Sealing of Documents ........................................................................................131

8. Notices of Motion

8.1 Spirit Walk Babarrbunin Beek .............................................................................1338.2 Managing amenity impacts and construction activity for large

development sites...............................................................................................1348.3 Safety and Amenity Improvements - Rosanna Road and Station

Street, Rosanna..................................................................................................1358.4 Dedication and launch of new reserve celebrating Margaret

Heathorn OAM....................................................................................................136

9. General Business

10. Urgent Business

Closure of Meeting to the Public

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

11. Confidential Matters

11.1 Contractual Matters11.2 Contractual Matters11.3 Contractual Matters11.4 Contractual Matters

Matters Discussed in Camera

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

Closure of Meeting

Petitions


1.11.1 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL TO FUND THE

CONTINUATION OF JETS PROGRAMS ANDSERVICES

Author: Shawn Neilsen - Inclusion Access & Equity Social Planner, CommunityPrograms

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A petition with 25 signatures has been received.

The petition prayer is as follows:

“We the residents of Banyule formally write to Council to raise our concerns and finda suitable solution for the continuation of the JETS Program and services.

JETS services provides a range of services and unique programs to youth includingpersons with disabilities. Programs have been running for several years do a diverserange of young people.

Currently the future of JETS is uncertain which has implications for participants andalso for a large number of persons seeking to obtain placement and services.

We as parents and guardians of teenagers and young adults with disabilities bring toyour attention the significant benefits that JETS services provides to participants andask that the JETS program be financially supported by Banyule City Council with theintent that services can be continued in the future.

For a modest investment by council, BCC shall be supporting a unique program thathas serviced a diverse range of local residents.

JETS provides a range services from ages 13 to 25 to over 40 participants and hasbeen at maximum capacity for several years. All participants participate in achievinglife, social and other goals that are not available from other programs or serviceproviders.

Many goals involve the development of social integration which is a significant stepfor many young people to feel connected with their wider community and worktowards greater life skills.

A significant benefit to JETS participants is continuation of activities which foster thesocial integration and lifelong learning approach, important aspects in peopleaffected by significant disability.

In addition JETS have due to demand for its services been unable to provideadditional places for a significant number of youth in the area for some time.

Petitions

REQUEST FOR COUNCIL TO FUND THE CONTINUATION OF JETS PROGRAMSAND SERVICES. cont’d


1.1

At the Banyule Disability and Inclusion Advisory committee meeting held on April 13th

2016, three major concerns were raised specific to the relevancy of the JETSprogram within NDIS, points raised are;

1. no youth specific social programs for transition

2. the impact of change on vulnerable young people at a critical life stage

3. people are seeking one on one support in individual profiling and goal setting.

We therefore ask for BCC to explore options and financial support to provide for thecontinuation of services given the difficulty faced under current guidelines for theNDIS which limit the financial capacity of individual packages.”

This petition has been received as the landscape of disability services in Australia ischanging due to the introduction of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS)and associated disability reforms. Through the implementation of the NDIS, existingfunding arrangements and service provision will undergo significant changes. Thisincludes a direct impact on services currently provided by Council that are wholly orpartially funded through other levels of government.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Receives and notes the petition.

2. Strongly advocates to both the Department of Health and Human Services andthe National Disability Insurance Agency for continued funding to support anextended transition period beyond December 2016 for current Jets CreativeArts clients until appropriate choices are available for Jets clients to receivesimilar services under the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

DISCUSSION

The landscape of disability services in Australia is changing due to the introduction ofthe National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) and associated disability reforms.Through the implementation of the NDIS, existing funding arrangements and serviceprovision will undergo significant changes. This includes a direct impact on servicescurrently provided by Council that are wholly or partially funded through other levelsof government.

These changes have required Council to give consideration to its involvement indisability services in an evolving landscape. Council staff have been undertaking athorough review of Council’s disability services to better understand our current workin the disability space and to assist future planning.

Petitions

REQUEST FOR COUNCIL TO FUND THE CONTINUATION OF JETS PROGRAMSAND SERVICES. cont’d


1.1

During March and April 2016, Council delivered an extensive communicationsprogram with current clients, state and federal governments, disability services andthe general community. This program outlined Council’s disability review process andintroduced the likelihood that Council would not provide its current services within theNDIS.

The petition received relates to the services Council is funded to provide through theJets creative arts space.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

People – Community Strengthening and Support


2.12.1 RUSHWORTH STREET AND REEVES STREET,

WATSONIA - POSSIBLE TREATMENTOPTIONS

Author: Justin Dynan - Senior Transport Engineer, City Development

Ward: Grimshaw

Previous ItemsCouncil on 7 March 2016 (Item 8.2 - Traffic Investigation - Rushworth Street and

Reeves Street, and Watsonia Primary School)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

At its meeting on 7 March 2016 Council resolved to investigate road safety concernsat the intersection of Rushworth Street and Reeves Street, Watsonia.

Investigations found that the speed and volume of traffic in Rushworth Street arewithin acceptable limits and consistent with other local residential roads of similarstatus within the municipality. There are many locations in Banyule which have moresignificant traffic issues and have a higher priority for road safety consideration.

Notwithstanding, due to the width and alignment of the intersection, modifications canbe made to reduce the speed of turning vehicles and improve pedestrian facilities. Itis proposed that alterations to the intersection layout be trialed using rubber kerbingand line marking, funded at a cost of $12,000 as part of the 2016-17 budget.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Notes that the installation of devices to reduce the speed of vehicles alongRushworth Street, Watsonia, or at its intersection with Reeves Street, is notwarranted at this time.

2. Considers allocating $12,000 in the 2016/17 Capital Works budget for trial roadsafety improvements at Rushworth Street and Reeves Street, Watsonia. Thescope of the project would include the redesign and modification of theintersection by installing temporary kerb outstands, a splitter island and linemarking.

3. Notes the area bounded by Grimshaw Street, Watsonia Road andGreensborough Highway has no history of casualty crashes (crashes wherepeople are injured) with speeds and volumes within acceptable limits, and otherlocations within the municipality having a greater need. Therefore it is notconsidered appropriate to pursue an area based 40km/h speed zone at thistime.

4. Informs residents adjacent to the intersection of Rushworth Street and ReevesStreet, Watsonia of this resolution.


RUSHWORTH STREET AND REEVES STREET, WATSONIA - POSSIBLETREATMENT OPTIONS cont’d


2.1

OFFICER DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST

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

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

CITY PLAN

This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction to “develop and promotesafety and resilience in our community”.

HUMAN RIGHTS CHARTER

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

At its meeting on 7 March 2016 Council resolved to:

1. “Note the road safety concerns raised by residents at the intersection ofRushworth Street and Reeves Street, Watsonia.

2. Note the actions that Council officers are already pursuing in response to theseconcerns, namely to:

a. Seek approval from VicRoads to install 40km/h sign limits along NellStreet West, Knight Street and Meagher Street in Watsonia adjacent toWatsonia Primary School;

b. Investigate introducing short-term parking at the southern end of MeagherStreet between Nell Street West and the school crossing;

c. Review the line marking, sight distance and turning circles at theintersection of Rushworth Street and Reeves Street;

d. Undertake traffic speed and volume counts along Rushworth Street;e. Request from VicRoads an area-wide 40kph speed zone in local streets

bounded by Grimshaw Street, Watsonia Road and GreensboroughHighway.

3. Report back to Council on possible treatment options at the intersection ofRushworth Street and Reeves Street, Watsonia that would be suitable forinstallation on a trial basis and to seek funding for a trial in the 2016-17 budget.




2.1

4. Write to local residents on this resolution and include the Ward Councillor’scontact details in the correspondence.”

This report responds to items 2 and 3 in the above resolution. A locality plan of theintersection is provided in Figure 1.

Figure 1 – Locality Plan

BACKGROUND

As part of Council’s Road Management Plan which was adopted in June 2013, allroads and pathways within the municipal road network were categorised inaccordance to their specific function, types of users, user numbers and potential risk.The hierarchy classification is used to assist in prioritising works programs andintervention responses to remedy infrastructure defects.

Both Rushworth Street and Reeves Street are classified as ‘residential’ roads whichare generally expected to carry less than 2,000 vehicles per day. Their primaryfunction is to provide access to properties and generally carry local traffic. Thesestreets have a default speed limit of 50km/h.

The Rushworth Street and Reeves Street intersection is a T-intersection with ReevesStreet intersecting Rushworth Street at an acute angle. Rushworth Street has adownward slope from Watsonia Road to Knight Street. Motorists on Reeves Streethave to give way to traffic on Rushworth Street.




2.1

CURRENT SITUATION

Investigation into the actions outlined in Resolution 2 has been completed. Theresults are:

Item 2a - Seek approval from VicRoads to install 40km/h sign limits along NellStreet West, Knight Street and Meagher Street in Watsonia adjacent toWatsonia Primary School.

VicRoads has indicated that it will approve 40km/h speed limits in Nell Street Westand Knight Street adjacent to Watsonia Primary School, but has indicated that theissue of a speed zone should first be resolved.

Item 2b - Investigate introducing short-term parking at the southern end ofMeagher Street between Nell Street West and the school crossing.

Consultation has been undertaken with Watsonia Primary School about possibleshort term parking at the southern end of Meagher Street. The school has indicated itwould be supportive of 2-hour parking restrictions on the east side of Meagher Street,between Nell Street West and the children’s crossing, subject to consultation withresidents in this section of the street. The installation of the parking restrictions isbeing pursued and residents will be consulted.

Item 2c - Review the line marking, sight distance and turning circles at theintersection of Rushworth Street and Reeves Street.

The intersection of Rushworth Street and Reeves Street is currently a wideT-intersection due to the alignment of the two roads (Figure 2). It does not forcemotorists to slow down when conducting turning movements at the intersection andmay also create conflict with pedestrians. The give way linemarking is non-standardand a painted splitter island is installed, however there are no physical treatments toprevent motorists cutting the corner or turning on the wrong side of the island. Due tothe acute angle of the intersection, the site lines are restricted and traffic tends to cutthe corner.

Figure 2 – Existing Layout of the Rushworth Street and Reeves Street Intersection




2.1

A pedestrian count was undertaken on Wednesday 13 April 2016 between 3pm and4pm to coincide with school finish time at nearby Watsonia Primary School. A total offive (5) pedestrians crossed Reeves Street at the intersection. The distance betweenkerb ramps at this location is approximately 21 metres, which is considered wide forpedestrians and creates safety concerns. Sight distance for pedestrians on thesouth-west corner of the intersection was found to be restricted due to the adjacentproperty fence.

Item 2d – Undertake traffic speed and volume counts along Rushworth Street.

In accordance with item 2d of the resolution, a traffic speed and volume survey wasundertaken in Rushworth Street, immediately east of Reeves Street, for one weekcommencing on 18 March 2016, prior to the Easter school holidays. The surveyswere conducted outside No 17 Rushworth Street, immediately east of the ReevesStreet intersection.

Table 1 summarises the results of this survey.

Table 1 – Speed and Volume Count Results

Streetand Location

DirectionAverage Weekday

Volume(vehicles per day)

85th PercentileSpeed*(km/h)

Rushworth StreetEast of Reeves Street

Combined 332 48

East 169 49

West 163 47*The 85

thpercentile speed is the speed at which 85% of vehicles are travelling at or below.

Item 2e – Request from VicRoads an area-wide 40kph speed zone in localstreets bounded by Grimshaw Street, Watsonia Road and GreensboroughHighway.

Meagher Street currently has a 40km/h speed limit. VicRoads has advised thatconsideration could be given to an area wide 40km/h speed zone, but indicated thatthis approach is likely to generate requests for the installation of traffic managementtreatments so that motorists are physically forced to slow down to 40km/h.

In accordance with Australian Standards, traffic speeds may be controlled to lessthan the default built-up area limit of 50km/h by means of an area speed zone, if aLocal Area Traffic Management scheme has been implemented. Given the lack oftraffic management treatments in this residential area, it is considered that an areawide 40km/h speed zone is not appropriate at this time. It is estimated that the cost ofthe design and construction of suitable traffic safety measures would be around$465,000. This is based on the provision of treatments at appropriate locations ineach of the ten (10) streets and selected intersections in the proposed speed zone,at an average cost of $20,000.

DISCUSSION

The traffic speed and volume survey revealed that the average daily traffic volume onRushworth Street was 332 vehicles and the 85th percentile speed (the speed atwhich 85% of the vehicles are travelling at or below) was 49km/h.




2.1

The 85th percentile speed is the recommended figure used in accordance withAustralian Standards for Speed Controls as the primary determinant of theappropriate speed limit on roads. Further, the 85th percentile speed is taken asrepresentative of drivers’ general perception of a reasonable travel speed on aparticular section of road.

The traffic survey data indicates that the speed and volume of traffic in RushworthStreet are within acceptable limits and consistent with other local residential roads ofsimilar status within the municipality. A review of VicRoads’ CrashStats data foundthere have been no reported casualty crashes in the past five (5) years at theintersection of Rushworth Street and Reeves Street.

Based on the available traffic data, the installation of devices to reduce the speed ofvehicles along Rushworth Street, or at its intersection with Reeves Street, is notwarranted at this stage. Further, there are many locations in Banyule which havemore significant traffic issues and have a higher priority for road safety consideration.

The sight distance, width of the intersection for pedestrians, linemarking andalignment of the intersection warrant consideration to make the intersection safer forpedestrians and turning traffic. A proposed treatment to improve the intersectiondesign is discussed below.

From a broader area perspective, the issues of rat-running and concerns of trafficspeed and volume using this local street network to get from Grimshaw Street toWatsonia Road have been investigated in the last year or so. The outcome of theinvestigation was that traffic speeds and volumes are well within acceptable limits,and as such no further action was taken. Victoria Police were asked to enforce turnbans on Grimshaw Street, and they have as they have been able.

POSSIBLE TREATMENT

The existing painted island at the intersection (Figure 2) does not provide protectionfor pedestrians crossing the road, or reduce the speed at which vehicles travel on theroads. Therefore, it is proposed that the intersection of Rushworth Street and ReevesStreet be modified to control the movement of turning vehicles and improvepedestrian facilities.

Kerb outstands and a splitter island can be installed, on a trial basis, to control themovement of turning vehicles and reduce the width of road for pedestrians crossingReeves Street. Any permanent modifications to the intersection would need toconsider existing stormwater pits, kerb ramps and residential crossovers. A proposedtrial layout of the intersection which takes in to consideration line marking, sightdistance and turning circles is provided in Figure 3.




2.1

Figure 3 – Proposed Trial Layout of the Rushworth Street and Reeves StreetIntersection

It is recommended that funding be considered as part of the 2016-17 budget for theinstallation of temporary treatments. The estimated cost of the proposed trial works atthe intersection is $12,000 which is based on the use of rubber kerbing, line markingand compliant give way markings. A typical example of this treatment is provided inFigure 4.

The trial is reasonably straightforward and could be implemented within threemonths. Drivers usually take several months to become familiar with changes totraffic layouts of this nature. It is proposed that the trial be monitored for six monthsand a report be provided to Council following an assessment of the trial, including asurvey of local residents, and recommending further actions.

Figure 4 – Typical Example of Rubber Kerbing




2.1

CONCLUSION

Following Council’s resolution on 7 March 2016, road safety concerns wereinvestigated at the intersection of Rushworth Street and Reeves Street, Watsonia.

The speed and volume of traffic in Rushworth Street was found to be withinacceptable limits and consistent with other local residential streets in the municipality.No casualty crashes have been recorded. However, concerns were found to existregarding the intersection alignment and speed of turning vehicles and pedestriansafety at the intersection of Rushworth Street and Reeves Street.

To address these concerns it is proposed to redesign the intersection through theinstallation of kerb outstands, splitter island and line marking, on a trial basis, at anestimated cost of $12,000 as part of the 2016/17 budget.

From an area perspective, there is no casualty crash history, traffic speeds andvolumes are within acceptable limits, and other areas within the municipality have agreater need for intervention. Despite VicRoads support for a 40km/h speed zone,the cost to implement such a scheme would cost in the order of $400,000 - $500,000.Therefore it is not considered appropriate to pursue an area wide 40km/h speed zoneat this time.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil



2.22.2 DRAFT CHILD YOUTH AND FAMILY PLAN

2016-2020

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council has worked with the local community and other key stakeholders to preparethe draft Child, Youth and Family Plan 2016 – 2020. This draft document has beenprepared to give long-term strategic direction for the coordination and development ofprograms, activities, services and facilities to support children, youth and familiesacross the 0 – 25 years age continuum in the municipality.

The draft Child, Youth and Family Plan 2016 – 2020 has been shaped by communityinput and local expertise. Information collected through consultation to date has beenused to develop the Plan’s objectives as well as the supporting strategic directionsand actions.

The draft is now ready for further community consultation. Responses to the draft willhelp inform a final Child, Youth and Family Plan.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Approve the draft Child Youth and Family Plan 2016 – 2020 for consultationuntil 6 June 2016.

2. Receive a further report on 11 July 2016, to consider the consultation receivedand adopt the final Child Youth and Family Plan 2016 – 2020.




CITY PLAN

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

BACKGROUND

Council’s Municipal Early Years Plan (0 – 8yrs) has expired and development hasprogressed on a new plan for the municipality.


DRAFT CHILD YOUTH AND FAMILY PLAN 2016-2020 cont’d


2.2

Council has a key legislated role in working with local stakeholders to plan for theirmunicipality. The plan is based on State and Federal government frameworks,current policy direction, best practice, current literature and local benchmarking andneeds analysis.

In consultation with key internal and external stakeholders, the scope of the Plan hasbeen widened to extend the age range to include 0 -25 years aligning to current bestpractice. This will allow the new Plan to be more effective and efficient across theearly years and youth age continuum. It is proposed to call the new Plan the Child,Youth and Family Plan 2016 – 2020 (the Plan).

The Plan has been developed under a governance structure consisting of an internaland external stakeholder working group representing key members from Maternaland Child Health, Early Childhood services, Youth and Community Partnerships;other early years and youth sector non-government organisations and agencies,including the disability sector and members of the Early Years Advisory Network.Community feedback also came in the form of surveys and information gathered atfestivals and events.

The Plan articulates high level strategic direction for programs, services and theBanyule community. The actions will form the basis of organisational strategies thatcan be adopted by both internal and external groups, networks and relevant sectors.This creates opportunities for:

• Municipal wide shared approach/responsibility• Multidisciplinary collaboration• Bridge the gap between early years and youth• Common language and shared understanding

Child, Youth and Family Plan Key Objectives

1. Capacity Building

1.1. Support families to raise happy and confident children and young people.1.2. Support children and young people to develop capacity and capability.1.3. Support communities to protect and nurture vulnerable children and

young people.1.4. Build capacity of professionals to provide support, with a focus on

vulnerable and at risk communities.

2. Health, Well Being and Development

2.1. Work with the community to improve health, wellbeing and developmentaloutcomes.

2.2. Promote healthy lifestyle choices and positive health behaviours.

3. Connections and Partnerships

3.1. Develop sustainable connections and partnerships between sectors andprofessionals.

3.2. Connect with young people and children in a meaningful way.


DRAFT CHILD YOUTH AND FAMILY PLAN 2016-2020 cont’d


2.2

4. Engagement

4.1. Create places, spaces and activities that encourage people to cometogether and build sustained connections.

4.2. In partnerships with families, children and young people, provideopportunities for celebrations and acknowledgement of our successes

4.3. Foster the next generation of environmental stewards.





CONSULTATION

Consultation will commence in conjunction with the public release of the draft Child,Youth and Family Plan 2016 – 2020.

The community will be invited to provide feedback on the draft document over a fourweek period, through:

The Banyule Website, including links to the draft Child, Youth and Family Plan2016 – 2020 and the feedback summary paper.

Copies of the draft Child, Youth and Family Plan 2016 – 2020 being availableat Council’s customer service centres and libraries.

Presentations to relevant sector Networks.

The draft Child, Youth and Family Plan 2016 – 2020 will be available for consultationuntil Monday 6 June 2016. The feedback will assist in the preparation of a final Child,Youth and Family Plan 2016 – 2020 for future Council adoption. It is expected thatthis document will be considered by Council on 11 July 2016.

CONCLUSION

The draft Child, Youth and Family Plan 2016 – 2020 has been prepared after anextensive development and consultation process. Further consultation is proposed toinform the final document.

The Child, Youth and Family Plan 2016 – 2020 will give long-term strategic directionfor the coordination and development of programs, activities, services and facilities tosupport children, youth and families across the 0 – 25 years age continuum in ourmunicipality.

ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 DRAFT Child Youth & Family Plan 2016-2020 138



2.32.3 2016-2017 COMMUNITY SPORTS

INFRASTRUCTURE FUND APPLICATIONOUTCOME

Author: Tom Zappulla - Leisure Facilities, Place & Partnership Co-Ordinator,Community Programs

File: D16/66237

Previous ItemsCouncil on 17 August 2015 (Item 2.1 - 2016-2017 Community Sport Infrastructure

Fund)

Council on 19 October 2015 (Item 2.1 - 2016-2017 Community Sports InfrastructureFund from the State Government Victoria)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Community Sports Infrastructure Fund (CSIF) for 2016-2017 was released on 19July 2015. At the meeting of 19 October 2015, Council resolved to endorse seven (7)projects, based on the best fit with the grant funding criteria and the potential toaddress the highest community need.

The following four (4) applications were successful:

• Minor Facilities: Cyril Cummins Reserve Hockey Pitch Replacement• Female Friendly Facilities: Ivanhoe Park Pavilion Redevelopment• Female Friendly Facilities: Olympic Park - Kelly Pavilion Change Rooms

Redevelopment.• Planning: Regional Paddle Sports Centre Feasibility (Manningham CC lead)

The following four (3) applications have not been successful:

• Major Facilities: N.J Telfer Reserve Precinct Redevelopment• Planning: Sub- Regional High Ball Court and Soccer Facility Plan• Planning: Main Yarra Trail Bridge Feasibility Study

The four successful projects will result in $2,615,138M of community asset upgradesand development. Banyule City Council will be required to fund $1,832,638M for thefour (4) projects. An allocation of $555,000 is required as matching funding for threeof the projects within the 2016/17 draft budget. The matching allocation of$1,277,638 for Ivanhoe Park Pavilion has already been allocated in the 2014/15 and2015/16 financial years. The 2016/17 CSIF will fund $337,500 towards the projectthrough State Government funding and $445,000 will be provided from local clubsand external organisations.

On 12 April, the Minister for Sport John Eren also officially opened the 2017-2018Community Sports Infrastructure Fund. Officers will provide a further briefing toCouncil regarding potential projects which meet the selection criteria within the 2017-2018 Community Sports Infrastructure Fund in May.


2016-2017 COMMUNITY SPORTS INFRASTRUCTURE FUND APPLICATIONOUTCOME cont’d


2.3

RECOMMENDATION

That Council

1. Note the outcome of the funding applications within the 2016-2017 CommunitySports Infrastructure Fund (CSIF).

2. Confirm the allocation of $555,000 within the draft 2016/17 Budget for thematching funding requirement for the three following projects:

a. Cyril Cummins Reserve Hockey Pitch Replacement ($450,000)b. Olympic Park - Kelly Pavilion Change Rooms Redevelopment ($100,000)c. Regional Paddle Sports Centre Feasibility - Manningham CC lead

($5,000)

3. Note the funding contribution of $100,000 from the Community SportsInfrastructure Fund (CSIF) towards Ivanhoe Park Pavilion redevelopment.

4. Inform all stakeholders regarding the outcome of the funding applications.

5. Note the time frames regarding the 2017-2018 Community Sports InfrastructureFund.




CITY PLAN


BACKGROUND

The Community Sports Infrastructure Fund (CSIF) for 2016-2017 was released on19 July 2015. The funding program is administered by Sport and Recreation Victoria(SRV) and provided grants for planning, building new, and improving existingfacilities where communities conduct, organise and participate in sport andrecreation.

Council officers identified potential projects and held several discussions with SRVrepresentatives who have provided further advice during the project proposaldevelopment. At the meeting of 19 October 2015, Council resolved to endorse seven(7) projects, based on the best fit with the grant funding criteria and the potential toaddress the highest community need.




2.3

On 12 April, the Minister for Sport John Eren officially opened the 2017-2018Community Sports Infrastructure Fund. The Community Sports Infrastructure Fundaims to support the development of high quality, accessible community sport andrecreation facilities across Victoria with a focus on increasing participation of allVictorians. The funding categories are similar to the 2016/17 funding round.

The application process requires both the submission of both a Project Proposal andFull Application for all categories. Project proposals are due on the 8 June 2016.SRV will advise Councils of Project Proposals supported to Full Application stage by18 July 2016 SRV and Full Applications must be submitted by 31 August 2016.Funding announcements and notification of outcomes will be made from November2016 onwards.

Officer will provide a further briefing to Council regarding potential projects whichmeet the selection criteria within the 2017-2018 Community Sports InfrastructureFund.

CURRENT SITUATION

The department of Sport and Recreation Victoria informed Council of the results ofthe applications on 12 April 2016. The results are outlined below:

The following three (4) applications were successful:

Category: Facility and Project: SRV FundingContribution:

CouncilContribution

Minor Facilities Cyril CumminsReserve Hockey PitchReplacement

$100,000 $450,000

Female FriendlyFacilities

Ivanhoe Park PavilionRedevelopment

$100,000 $1,277,638

Female FriendlyFacilities

Olympic Park - KellyPavilion ChangeRoomsRedevelopment

$100,000 $100,000

Planning Regional PaddleSports CentreFeasibility (RegionalPlanning -Manningham lead)

$37,500 Banyule $5,000Darebin $5,000Nillumbik $5,000Canoe Vic $10,000




2.3

The following four (3) applications were unsuccessful.

Category: Facility and Project: SRV FundingContribution:

CouncilContribution

Major Facilities: N.J Telfer ReservePrecinctRedevelopment

$500,000 $1,500,000m

Planning Sub- Regional HighBall Court and SoccerFacility Plan

$40,000 Banyule $10,000Darebin $10,000Nillumbik $10,000

Planning Main Yarra TrailBridge FeasibilityStudy

$120,000 $30,000

Council officers have received feedback from SRV in relation to the unsuccessfulapplication and have also made some further suggestions regarding each project.

Project SRV Feedback Officer CommentN.J TelferReservePrecinctRedevelopment

The project did not demonstratethe regional / sub-regionalsignificance which is expected forprojects from the MajorsCategory.

This project is a high priority andofficers are currently re-scoping theproject and will provide a furtherbriefing to Council to confirm whatcan be delivered within the confirmedbudget allocation.

Sub- RegionalHigh Ball Courtand SoccerFacility Plan

Football Federation Victoria (FFV)has been provided with fundingfor the State Facilities Plan.Netball Victoria has also recentlyreleased its State Facilities Planand Basketball Victoria is alsoundertaking some strategic facilityplanning. This project mayduplicate the work beingundertaken by the State SportingAssociations (SSA’s).

Even through the SSA’s areundertaking further State wideplanning, officers believe there is stilla need to undertake focused sub –regional planning for high ballfacilities. Officer are recommendingfurther discussions be held withneighbouring municipalities to confirmtheir interest in funding furtherplanning within the 2016/17 financialyear.

Main Yarra TrailBridgeFeasibilityStudy

Project did not align sufficientlywith the objectives of theCommunity Sports InfrastructureFund.

Council has included $75,000 in its2015/16 budget and the money hasbeen requested to be carried forward.Manningham C.C has included$75,000 in its draft 2016/17 budget tomatch Banyule’s contribution whichwill enable the project to proceed in2016/17.

Sport and Recreation Victoria will arrange funding arrangements for successfulprojects and Officers will contact relevant Clubs to confirm the outcome of eachapplication.




2.3

FUNDING IMPLICATIONS

The four successful projects will result in $2,615,138 of community asset upgradesand development. Banyule City Council will be required to fund $1,832,638M for thefour (4) projects. An allocation of $555,000 is required as matching funding for threeof the projects within the 2016/17 draft budget.

The matching allocation of $1,277,638 for Ivanhoe Park Pavilion has already beenallocated in the 2014/15 and 2015/16 financial years.

The 2016/17 CSIF will fund $337,500 towards the project through State Governmentfunding and $445,000 will be provided from local clubs and external organisations.

CONSULTATION

As previously mentioned in this report Council have held several discussions withSRV representatives who have provided guidance on the development andsubmission of proposals and also provided feedback following the assessmentprocess. Detailed consultation was completed with key stakeholders during theapplication phase.

Officers will inform all stakeholders regarding the outcome of the funding applicationsand will hold further discussions regarding the delivery of projects which have beensuccessful and also discuss the future of projects which have not been successful inattracting funding.

TIMELINES

Successful projects will commence in the 2016/2017 financial year. Officers willprovide a further briefing to Council regarding potential projects which meet theselection criteria within the 2017-2018 Community Sports Infrastructure Fund in May2016.

CONCLUSION

The SRV 2016/17 CSIF will assist Council in providing a total estimated cost of$2,615,138 of community asset upgrades and development.

This funding will assist in the delivery of key projects within Councils capital worksprogram, and importantly will provide improved community access and participationopportunities across key recreation facilities within Banyule.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil



2.42.4 DISABILITY REVIEW - PROVISION OF

SERVICES WITHIN THE NATIONALDISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME (NDIS)

Author: Shawn Neilsen - Inclusion Access & Equity Social Planner, CommunityPrograms

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council has been conducting a review of its disability services in preparation for theintroduction of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) in Banyule from July1st 2016.

The NDIS will directly impact the funding Council currently receives for some of itsDisability Services. The review has been designed to assist Council to identify how itbest supports people with a disability into the future within a NDIS environment.

Council is required to decide whether it registers as a NDIS scheme provider. Thisreport outlines the key considerations that have emerged from the review andpresents recommendations related to Council’s ongoing role in supporting peoplewith a disability.

Some of the key considerations in deciding whether to register as a provider include:

• Council’s most effective role in supporting people with a disability• the increased cost to Council of providing services within the NDIS• whether Council is placed to be a specialist provider of its current disability

services within an NDIS environment

The report recommends that Council not register as a National Disability InsuranceScheme service provider.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council;

1. Not register as a National Disability Insurance Scheme service provider.

2. Assist the transition of current Home and Community Care clients that will beeligible for the National Disability Insurance Scheme through the support of adedicated transition officer.

3. Strongly advocates to both the Department of Health and Human Services andthe National Disability Insurance Agency for continued funding to support anextended transition period beyond December 2016 for current Jets CreativeArts clients until appropriate choices are available for Jets clients to receivesimilar services under the National Disability Insurance Scheme.


DISABILITY REVIEW - PROVISION OF SERVICES WITHIN THE NATIONALDISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME (NDIS) cont’d


2.4

4. Continue to expand its core role to reduce barriers, advocate for and increasethe inclusion of people with a disability in community life, including through;advocating to Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and theNational Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) for the continuation of theMetroAccess program and furthering Council’s partnership with theBrotherhood of St Laurence in the delivery of Local Area Coordination serviceswithin the National Disability Insurance Scheme.




CITY PLAN

This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction to “provide services forpeople at important life stages”.

BACKGROUND

The landscape of disability services in Australia is changing due to the introduction ofthe National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) and associated disability reforms.Through the implementation of the NDIS, existing funding arrangements and serviceprovision will undergo significant changes. This includes a direct impact on servicescurrently provided by Council that are wholly or partially funded through other levelsof government.

These changes have required Council to give consideration to its involvement indisability services in an evolving landscape. Council staff have been undertaking athorough review of Council’s disability services to better understand our current workin the disability space and to assist future planning.

This report deals with the consideration relating the future of Council’s direct disabilityservices including the Home and Community Care Service (HACC) for those underthe age of 65 and the Jets Creative Arts Service, a fully funded creative respiteprogram for people with a disability aged between 12 – 25.

A description of these services along with the key changes anticipated as a result ofthe introduction of the NDIS is contained in Attachment 1 of this report.






2.4


It is considered that the subject matter does not conflict with any human rights issuesbut supports the principles contained in the Charter by seeking to further Council’ssupport of people with a disability.

CURRENT SITUATION

Outcomes of Disability Review

The disability review highlighted that Council is involved in supporting people with adisability in a variety of ways including the delivery of direct services and workingwithin the community to make Banyule more accessible and inclusive. The reviewalso identified that as a result of the introduction of the NDIS Council needed toconsider its future role in disability given significant changes to the fundingarrangements for current services.

The review highlighted that Council was extremely well placed and legislativelyrequired to continue its efforts to reduce barriers, advocate for and increase theinclusion of people with a disability in community life. It was highlighted that thisimportant function should be the primary focus of how Council supports people with adisability.

The review also identified that while Council has received government funding toprovide valued direct services (HACC & Jets Creative Arts) to people with a disability;continued provision of these services under the NDIS was not the preferred direction.This conclusion was based on various factors including consideration of Council’smost effective role in supporting people with a disability, the increased cost toCouncil of providing services within the NDIS, and the fact that Council is not wellplaced to be a specialist provider of its current disability services within an NDISenvironment.


Council’s current direct disability services are either fully or partially funded throughother levels of government. The introduction of the NDIS will affect the fundingCouncil currently receives for these services. This report outlines the keyconsiderations and known impacts for Council associated with these changes.

CONSULTATION

Extensive consultation has occurred in relation to the content of this report includingseveral briefings with Council, workshops with Council’s Disability and InclusionAdvisory Committee and individual surveys and follow up with clients directlyaffected.




2.4

DISCUSSION

Communication with clients

During March and April 2016, Council delivered an extensive communicationsprogram with current clients, state and federal governments, disability services andthe general community. This program outlined Council’s disability review process andintroduced the likelihood that Council would not provide its current services within theNDIS.

The communications program included a detailed survey with current clients,designed to better understand the concerns, impacts and support required in theevent that Council did not provide current services within the NDIS. The results ofthis survey were presented to Council briefing on April 11 along with considerationsof how best to respond to the concerns that were raised.

While the concerns identified differed depending on what services individual clientsaccessed from Council, several key themes emerged:

1. Most people knew little about the NDIS and look to Council for moreinformation.

2. A large number of people have some concern with transitioning from receivingservices from Council to receiving services from another provider under theNDIS.

3. A large number of people are looking for individualised support from Council tomake the transition to the NDIS as seamless as possible.

Transition Options

The concerns raised around the transition to the NDIS vary between HACC and JetsCreative Arts and specific and tailored responses are required for each service area.A summary of the key issues and proposed responses to support a smooth transitionto the NDIS are outlined below. The following options have been presented within aguiding principle; people will not be left without a service that they are currentlyreceiving.

HACC

It is estimated that approximately 160 current HACC clients will be eligible for theNDIS and will have the option to transition to receive the services they require fromregistered disability service providers under the NDIS. It is expected that theseclients will gradually transition into the NDIS from August/September 2016.

The key concern for many HACC clients relates to the relationship the individual haswith the Council staff member providing services to them. Many people havereceived support from the same staff members for many years and are anxious aboutlosing this relationship. Additionally, people expressed some concern and anxietyabout knowing who they could access services from under the NDIS.

Given the generalist nature of the services provided by HACC and the presence ofmany large organisations planning to offer these services under the NDIS it is seenthat there will be varied and appropriate choices available for clients to receiveservices from other providers once the NDIS begins to roll out in Banyule.




2.4

Given the concerns raised by clients and Council’s desire to support a seamlesstransition for current clients, the HACC area is exploring the option of a dedicatedtransition officer to work with individuals to assist them to address their concerns andtransition to the NDIS.

Jets Creative Arts

It is estimated that all 35 current Jets clients will be eligible for the NDIS and will havethe option to transition to receive the services they require from registered disabilityservice providers under the NDIS. It is expected that these clients will graduallytransition into the NDIS from December 2016.

The key concerns for all Jets families relates to there being no youth specific similarsocial programs to transition to, the negative impact of change on vulnerable youngpeople at a critical life stage and ultimately the lack of continuity of service.

Delivering a diverse range of programs at Jets, all free to young people aged13-25 years, the focus of Jets is to provide a safe place for young people of allbackgrounds and abilities to build personal and technical skills, promote socialconnectedness and encourage self-expression through music and the arts.

Given the uniqueness of the services provided by Jets and the lack of existingorganisations planning or able to offer these services under the NDIS it is seen thatthere will be no appropriate choices available for Jets clients to receive similarservices from other providers once the NDIS begins to roll out in Banyule.

Given the concerns raised by Jets families and Council’s desire to support aseamless transition for current clients, it is on this value basis that a number ofoptions have been explored for advocacy to Department of Health and HumanServices (DHHS) and National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) for consideration.

Most effective role of Local Government

In addition to considering Council’s role in the delivery of direct services, the disabilityreview project has required additional consideration to the most effective role of localgovernment in supporting people with a disability. This includes the legislativerequirements that apply to Victorian councils.

The Victorian Disability Act 2006 outlines Council’s responsibilities to;

1. reducing barriers to persons with a disability accessing goods, services andfacilities;

2. reducing barriers to persons with a disability obtaining and maintainingemployment;

3. promoting inclusion and participation in the community of persons with adisability;

4. achieving tangible changes in attitudes and practices which discriminateagainst persons with a disability.

Similarly the National Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and the Victorian Charter ofHuman Rights and Responsibilities require Local Government to reducediscrimination and protect the human rights of people with a disability.




2.4

Council’s has a strong history of meeting its requirements in this area. Localgovernment is uniquely placed to address access and inclusion for people with adisability at this more strategic and systemic level.

Much of this work depends on the allocation of resources to directly meet thelegislative requirements along with staff resources to direct and coordinate theplanning and delivery of these efforts. In the event that Council chooses to not be aprovider of direct services under the NDIS there is a need and opportunity focusresources to better address access and inclusion at a whole of community level.

Greatest Impact & Need

Historically, Council has entered into the delivery of direct disability services basedon gaps in existing service provision. As an example, Council’s Jets Creative Artsprogram which is funded by the DHHS was created as a unique program thatresponded to the needs of people with a disability and a gap in service delivery.Similarly the HACC program was established to meet the needs of older people andlater people with a disability who needed extra in home and respite support.

The NDIS is expected to bring about new and expanded service organisations and agreater range of choice and control over where people with a disability can accessthe supports they require.

While Council has been a provider of valued services that have responded to servicegaps it is considered that under the NDIS a broader range of options will be availablefor people with a disability and Council may not have the same need to be a providerof direct services under the NDIS.

Many people with a disability will not be eligible for the NDIS. The NDIS targets thosewith the most need for support. It is estimated that 2,200 Banyule residents under theage of 65 have a disability that requires assistance with daily living skills. Initialinformation from the NDIS suggests that approximately 1,650 people with a disabilitywill be eligible for the NDIS in Banyule. The ABS survey of disability and carersestimates that 23,000 people (18.5% of the total population) in Banyule experience adisability of some kind.

While the NDIS represents an increase in the support available for people with themost significant disability it is considered that Council has a critically important role insupporting the whole population of people with a disability through meeting itsbroader responsibilities in increasing community inclusion, accessibility andadvocacy.

The role that Council plays in supporting people with a disability through advocacy,community development and community planning work has been complimentedthrough the MetroAccess Community Building Program, a partnership betweenDHHS and local government designed to make local communities more inclusive ofpeople with a disability. Under the NDIS the future of this program and the fundingCouncil receives is uncertain. The program is currently funded until July 2017.




2.4

The NDIS has also developed policies and frameworks that focus on the importantwork of building community inclusion. Some of this work is included in the scope ofthe Local Area Coordination program which is a service of the NDIS that will bedelivered by the Brotherhood of St Laurence (BSL) in the North East Melbourne Area(NEMA) this includes Banyule.

Council has signed a statement of intent to work with BSL in the design and deliveryof the Local Area Coordination services locally. A critical part of Council effectivelyfocusing on its core role of supporting inclusion and access at the whole ofcommunity level is to work closely with BSL to further define how Council isspecifically involved in these services.

CONCLUSION

The Disability Review project has identified that Council is involved in supportingpeople with a disability in a variety of ways including direct and indirect disabilityservices and projects. The introduction of the NDIS requires Council to consider itsfuture role in disability particularly in relation to the delivery of direct services withinthe NDIS.

The considerations presented in this report outline the critical steps required tosupport current clients through the introduction of the NDIS and to position Council tocontinue its essential work in reducing discrimination and increasing advocacy andsupport to ensure people with a disability are meaningfully included in community life.

The recommended direction is to not continue the provision of the services HACCand Jets Creative Arts services, this is based on various factors includingconsideration of Council’s most effective role in supporting people with a disability,the increased cost to Council of providing services within the NDIS, and the fact thatCouncil is not well placed to be a specialist provider of its current disability serviceswithin an NDIS environment.

ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 Disability Review - Stage One - SUMMARY - July 2015 205

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment


4.14.1 RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT POLICY

2016-2020

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

File: D16/52521

Previous ItemsCouncil on 22 February 2016 (Item 4.2 - Draft Residential Parking Permit Policy)

Council on 7 March 2016 (Item 4.5 - Draft Residential Parking Permit Policy -Consultation Timeframes)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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

The RPPP defines who is eligible for a parking permit, the type and number ofparking permits available, where permits allow holders to park, and the cost ofparking permits. The RPPP includes an expansion of the eligibility requirements toallow 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 theintroduction of a residential permit area system, which will allow permit holders topark on-street within a defined area.

Consultation on the RPPP was conducted during March 2016, with 101 submissionsreceived. A multi-signatory letter with 159 signatures was also received during theconsultation period. A varied response both for and against the RPPP across anumber of themes was received, including commentary on the provision of trader andstaff parking permits, limiting non-residential parking within residential streets and theconcerns on the introduction of a new residential permit area system. The feedbackhighlighted the importance of parking to the community, and the wide range of viewson how parking within the municipality should be managed.

In consideration of the feedback received, the wording of the RPPP has beenupdated and the residential parking permit areas have been further refined to ensurethat each parking permit area does not promote relocating parking from one locationwithin the parking permit area to another location.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Adopts the Banyule Residential Parking Permit Policy 2016-2020(Attachment 1 of this report).

2. Implements the Banyule Residential Parking Permit Policy 2016-2020 as of 1July 2016.


RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT POLICY 2016-2020 cont’d


4.1

3. Promotes the new policy to explain changes to the public including thepreparation of a brochure, details on the Council web site and an article in theBanyule Banner.

4. Thanks submitters for their comments and feedback on the Residential ParkingPermit Policy 2016-2020.




CITY PLAN

This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction to “support sustainabletransport”. One of the key initiatives is ‘Review the Residential Parking PermitScheme’.

BACKGROUND

The recently adopted Banyule Integrated Transport Plan 2015-2035 placessignificant emphasis on ‘managing road space to give priority to sustainable transportmodes’, and ‘approaching parking as a limited, shared resource’.

The Banyule Activity Centre Car Parking Policy and Strategy (ACCPP) providesbroad policy on the management of car parking in and around Activity Centres. Akey 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 parkingassociated with commercial and higher density residential uses’.

Council’s current Banyule Residential Parking Permit Policy was adopted in August2011. This policy includes provisions to assist in managing the availability ofon-street parking spaces through a Residential Parking Permit Scheme inaccordance with the key directions set out in the policy.




4.1

Over the past nine months, the current policy and scheme have been reviewed and adraft Residential Parking Permit Policy prepared. At its meeting on 22 February 2016,Council considered a report on the draft Residential Parking Permit Policy andresolved:

“That Council:

1. Approve the draft Residential Parking Permit Policy for consultation until 18March 2016;

2. Propose the fees as follows:

Permit Type Current Fee Proposed FeeFirst Residential Permit $25 per annum FreeSecond Residential Permit $40 per annum $25 per annumFirst Visitor Permit $40 per annum $40 per annumSecond Visitor Permit $60 per annum $60 per annum

3. Receive a further report on the feedback received during the consultation.”

The Residential Parking Permit Policy 2016-2020 (Attachment 1) has been refinedin response to the feedback received from the community and key stakeholdersduring the March 2016 consultation period.





CONSULTATION

Current permit holders, residents and the wider community were invited to providefeedback on the draft RPPP over a one month period (23 February –24 March 2016). During the consultation period, 79 responses were received to anonline survey together with 22 written submissions.

A multi-signatory letter with 159 signatures was also received from Ivanhoe PrimarySchool staff, volunteers and parents opposing the draft Residential Parking PermitPolicy. The submission does not meet the requirements for a petition in accordancewith Council’s guidelines, however it has been considered in the overall submissionsreceived on the draft Residential Parking Permit Policy.

A comprehensive assessment of the consultation and the feedback received,including details on the multi-signatory letter, is provided at Attachment 2.




4.1

The consultation highlighted a varied response both for and against the draft policyacross a number of themes. This includes:

Significant support for the provision of parking permits for local traders,teachers and employees. In addition, there were a number of commentsopposing non-residential parking within residential streets.

Many responses highlighted the importance to the community that developersinclude sufficient on-site parking.

There was concern over the relaxing of the permit restriction to multi-unitdevelopments. A smaller amount of comments supported the provision ofparking permits to multi-unit developments.

There were some reservations expressed over the new zonal permit system.Concerns included congestion issues, a preference to be limited to a residentialstreet and a general uneasiness with the change. Parking around IvanhoePrimary School was of concern and the school community collected signaturesto object to the draft policy and the use of permit zone restrictions.

On the positive side a few responses highlighted that a zonal system willremove the street identification currently included on the permit which is visiblein the parked car.

The introduction of a first free residential parking permit was highly agreeableto most. However significant concern was raised over residents and especiallyconcession card holders not obtaining a second permit free as well. A furtherbreakdown of the responses around permit fees highlighted a number ofrespondents opposing the permit fees reside in the trial parking restriction areaaround Ivanhoe Grammar School, where residents were allowed access to freeparking permits for the duration of the trial.

There were some concerns expressed over the current enforcement practices.In terms of the new policy there were a small number of comments concerningoperational issues including being able to apply for a permit on-line andconcerns over parking restrictions.

There was in general agreement that the number of permits available was fairalthough there was some opinion either way that there are too many or too fewavailable.

The feedback highlighted the importance of parking to the community, and the widerange of views on how parking within the municipality should be managed.

DISCUSSION

On-street parking is a very important component of the overall parking supply withinBanyule. There are many users competing for limited kerbside space, as such,Council is committed to encouraging the most efficient use of on-street parking, andcarefully managing all day parking in streets where there are competing uses in aplanned, fair and consistent way.

It is expected that there will be competition within high demand areas, such as withinand around Activity Centres and around railway stations. However while permitsprovide greater opportunity for residents and their visitors to park, they do notguarantee an on-street parking space will be available.




4.1

The eligibility requirements for parking permits, including the exclusion of new multi-dwelling developments from the RPPP, resulted from extensive communityconsultation during the development of the Activity Centre Car Parking Policy and theexisting residential parking permit policy. These requirements help to provideresidents with first priority for all-day parking in their local street and help parking inresidential areas remain protected from higher density development and any impacton parking in residential streets.

The relaxation of the higher-density development requirement to allow smallerdevelopments of 2-4 dwellings access to the scheme was introduced in response toconcerns raised during the operation of the RPPP. It was identified thatdevelopments of this size are not required to provide visitor parking onsite inaccordance with the planning scheme, and subsequently disadvantaged someresidents beyond the intentions of the ACCPPS. The change aligns with theprinciples of the Activity Centre Car Parking Policy in protecting existing residentialareas, as the number of permits to be issued would be equal to or less than existingpermit eligibility levels.

Parking permit fees are set each year as part of the annual budget process. Thecurrent permit fee structure is a ‘user pays’ system to offset the costs ofimplementing the parking permit scheme, including recovering the administration costof the permit. The fee structure has been in place since 2010.

Any change to the permit fees will impact the overall cost to Council in the operationof the permit scheme. The overall administration cost of the current permit scheme,and the expected cost of the updated scheme in alignment with the changes to theRPPP is discussed further in the sections following.

It is noted that a trial of parking restrictions around Ivanhoe Grammar also includesfree parking permits during the trial, however if restrictions are maintained at the endof the trial then permit fees will be in accordance with the adopted RPPP at the time.

In consideration of the feedback received, the residential parking areas have beenfurther refined to ensure that each parking permit area, in its location and sizing,does not promote relocating parking from one location within the parking permit areato another location. This considers the location of train stations and major bus stops,places of employment and activity centres, and the likely walking distance based onthe principles of the Activity Centre Car Parking Policy and Strategy.

The wording within the RPPP has also been updated to remove confusion on thenumber of parking permits available to new medium density development, and clarifywhere permit holders are entitled to park within a residential parking area.

BANYULE RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT POLICY 2016-2020

The Residential Parking Permit Policy (RPPP) provides the framework to manage theavailability of on-street parking spaces in residential areas through a ResidentialParking Permit Scheme. The RPPP allows residents and their visitors greateropportunity to park in areas of high demand, in accordance with the key directionsset out in the policy.

The RPPP details who are eligible for a parking permit, the type and number ofparking permits available, where permits allow holders to park, and the cost ofparking permits. These are further detailed in the sections following.




4.1

Eligibility Criteria

The RPPP specifies three criteria that must be meet in order for residents to beeligible for parking permits. To be eligible for a permit as part of the ResidentialParking Permit Scheme, an applicant must meet the following requirements:

1. Be a resident of the municipality in a property adjacent to prohibitive parkingrestrictions (i.e. No Stopping, No Parking, or a Permit Zone) or adjacent totimed restrictions of one hour or greater.

2. The ground floor frontage of the building must be residential in nature.

3. For higher density development with an occupancy permit issued after8 November 2010, there are must be four (4) or less dwellings on the lot.

Allowing new medium density development (i.e. four (4) or less dwellings on the lot)access to the RPPS with a reduced number of permits is a new criterion in theRPPP. This aligns with the principles of the Activity Centre Car Parking Policy inprotecting existing residential areas, as the number of permits to be issued would beequal to or less than existing permit eligibility levels.

Type and Number of Parking Permits Available

The RPPP allows eligible residents access to two types of parking permits;Residential Parking Permits (fixed vehicle permits) and Visitor Parking Permits(transferable permits). Table 1 summarises the type and number of permits availableper dwelling type under the RPPP.

Table 1: Number of Permits Available per DwellingNumber of dwellings Residential

ParkingPermits

VisitorParkingPermits

MaximumNumber of

PermitsSingle dwelling on a lot Up to 2 Up to 2 4Higher density developments built priorto 8 November 2010

Up to 2 Up to 2 4

Higher density developments built after8 November 2010, where there are nomore than 4 dwellings on the lot

1 OR 1 1

Higher density developments built after8 November 2010, where there are 5 ormore dwellings on the lot

Not eligible for parking permits

Parking Permit Fees

Residential and Visitor parking permit fees are set annually as part of Council’sannual budget. The RPPP amends the parking fee structure in alignment withCouncil’s resolution of 22 February 2016, as demonstrated in Table 2.




4.1Table 2: Number of Permits Available per Dwelling

Permit Type Permit FeeFirst Residential Permit FreeSecond Residential Permit $25 per yearFirst Visitor Permit $40 per year*Second Visitor Permit $60 per year*Concession Card Holders and Disabled Parking Permit Holders will be eligiblefor a reduced fee ($10 per annum) for the first Visitor Permit.

Parking Permits Entitlements

The RPPP shifts from the current street-based permit system (i.e. permits whichallow the holder to park on a specified street) to an area based system. Thisapproach provides permit holders greater clarity in understanding where they arepermitted to park, and allows greater flexibility in managing local parking demand.Permit areas are defined by arterial roads, sub-arterial roads, collector roads andnatural features such as rivers and parks to form area boundaries.

Permits allow the holder to park in any permissive parking space located in front ofresidential properties within the Residential Area for which it has been issued. Theymay be used in streets with permit zones or with timed restricted parking zones of1 hour or greater, where the vehicles may remain for longer than the time limitsshown on the parking sign and when used in accordance with the permit conditions.

Permits do not permit holders to park in No Stopping, No Parking or in any otherlocation contrary to the Victorian Road Rules; on-street outside non-residentialfrontages for longer than the time indicated, for example outside schools, commercialproperties or community centres; or exemption from paid parking fees or parkinglonger than the time indicated within Paid Parking Areas.

The definition of the parking areas can also be adjusted from time to time to fine tuneany anomalies that arise from both the initial implementation and any land use orparking changes that may occur in the future. It is considered important to maintainthis flexibility to respond to any issues that arise without having to revisit the actualpolicy.

IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING IMPLICATIONS

In accordance with relevant Australian Standards it is not required to update parkingsigns to show residents are exempt from restrictions. However, to assist enforcementand new residents to identify the residential permit area they are in, plates and/orlabels will progressively be installed below parking signs in residential areas.

The implementation of the RPPP will require changes to Council’s permit database toensure properties are updated with the current permit area information. Furtherinvestigations are currently underway to identify improvements to the system,including providing a mechanism to allow online permit applications.

The introduction of a free parking permit is likely to increase the uptake of parkingpermits across the municipality, as residents may obtain a parking permit regardlessof need. This aligns with the findings of the Ivanhoe Grammar parking restriction trial,where 58% of properties have applied for at least one free parking permit, incomparison to the 24% of eligible properties who have purchased a parking permit inother areas.




4.1

Table 3 identifies the overall cost of the administration of the parking permit schemebased on current parking permit levels, and the expected cost of the updated schemein alignment with the changes to the RPPP. The updated scheme considers theuptake of the first free permit in line with the uptake of the Ivanhoe Grammar trial,and the uptake of the subsequent permits in line with current demand.

Table 3: Permit Scheme Cost and Recovery ComparisonCurrent Scheme(inc. Ivanhoe

Grammar Trial)

Current Scheme(exc. IvanhoeGrammar Trial)

Updated Scheme

Administration Cost $ 59,372 $ 30,718 $ 102,685

Cost Recovery $ 41,125 $ 41,125 $ 28,415

Overall Cost to Council $ 18,247 $10,408 (revenue) $ 74,270

It is recognised that with the introduction of a free parking permit Council is unlikely torecover the cost of administrating the parking permit scheme and therefore all ratepayers subsidise the RPPP to some degree.

For ease of implementation and to allow an opportunity to promote the changes tothe Policy it is proposed to commence operation of the Policy from 1 July 2016 andany permit rollovers that occur after that time. Education and promotional activitiesare proposed are a publicly available brochure, information via Council’s web siteand the Banyule Banner.

CONCLUSION

The Residential Parking Permit Policy 2016-2020 has been prepared in line withBanyule’s Integrated Transport Plan and Activity Centre Car Parking Policy. Itprovides the framework to manage the availability of on-street parking spaces inresidential areas and allows residents and their visitor’s first opportunity to park inareas of high demand, in accordance with the key directions set out in the policy.

The final policy considers over 100 submissions received during the consultationperiod, and has been further refined in response to the feedback received during thisperiod.

ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 Residential Parking Permit Policy 2016-2020 219

2 Residential Parking Permit Policy - Consultation Feedback Summary 233



4.24.2 PROGRESS REPORT FOR A DEVELOPMENT

CONTRIBUTION PLAN

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

Previous ItemsCouncil on 20 July 2015 (Item 4.1 - Development Contribution Schemes for land

developers)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Investigation is continuing for a Development Contribution Plan (DCP) in Banyule.By reserving the right for the final 2016/17 budget and future capital budgets to beconsidered for a future DCP, Council will be able to continue analysis for a futureDCP to consider these budgets.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council reserves the right for the final 2016/17 budget, and budgets for futureyears, to be considered for a future Development Contributions Plan.




CITY PLAN

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

BACKGROUND

Council previously received a report after preliminary investigation looked at differentschemes for by land developers to financial contribute to local infrastructure,including public spaces and community facilities. This early work found that variousfunding mechanisms are available to Council to fund infrastructure commitments.These include Development Contribution Plans (DCPs).

Further investigation has revealed that DCPs help to partially fund the cost ofinfrastructure, because a portion of total cost can be attributed to land development.In established municipalities, such as Banyule, the portion of infrastructure cost thatcan be collected from development is informed by a projected rate for futuredevelopment and the scope of works that is described in an approved Councilbudget.


PROGRESS REPORT FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTION PLAN cont’d


4.2

Investigation has also revealed that the mapping of DCP suitable, Council approvedworks items may be linked with a long-term timeframe, such as 20 years, to collectdevelopment contributions for infrastructure that is constructed early in thetimeframe. Consequently DCPs in established municipalities enable partial-reimbursement for constructed infrastructure over a long timeframe.

DCPs sit alongside other development contribution schemes in a strategicframework. This framework is shown below.

Figure 1: Strategic Framework for Contribution Schemes

The above framework highlights that DCPs sit alongside other developmentcontribution mechanisms. Consequently the future creation of a Banyule DCP willneed to be cognisant of other mechanisms that are being used, reviewed or underdevelopment. This includes separate progress being made for a specifiedcontribution rate for public open space and a Parking Overlay for Heidelberg Centraland Bell Street Mall, in the Banyule Planning Scheme.

CURRENT SITUATION

To enable ongoing progress for a future DCP in Banyule, it is necessary for Councilto reserve the right for its 2016/17 and future budgets to be considered for a DCP.By doing this, a future DCP can consider 2016/17 line-items that are appropriate for afuture DCP and a contribution by land developers.

WHERE TO NEXT

After Council has approved its 2016/17 budget, work can begin for the preparation ofa Banyule DCP. Then, after Council has approved a DCP, a planning schemeamendment process can be pursued to introduce the DCP into the Banyule PlanningScheme. This would include public exhibition of the DCP proposal, and anopportunity for unresolved submissions to be referred to an independent PlanningPanel that is appointed by the Minister for Planning.


PROGRESS REPORT FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTION PLAN cont’d


4.2

Successful preparation, operation, maintenance, review and the Government’s futureauditing of a Banyule DCP requires alignment with legislation and Governmentguidelines to satisfy: Need, Nexus, Equity, Accountability and Transparency.

Future operation of a DCP will call for creation of workflow processes and systemsthat are linked with a council approved administration policy for the DCP.

CONCLUSION

Investigation has revealed the benefit of Council ‘reserving the right’ for its final2016/17 and future years budgets to be considered for a future Banyule DCP. Thiswill enable ongoing progress for the preparation of a DCP that will be reported toCouncil in the future, after a draft DCP has been prepared.

After Council has approved its 2016/17 budget, work can begin for the preparation ofa Banyule DCP that includes this budget and future budgets.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil



4.34.3 CHANDLER HIGHWAY WIDENING

Author: Michelle Herbert - Senior Transport Engineer, City Development

Previous ItemsCouncil on 4 April 2016 (Item 3.1 - Chandler Highway widening)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The State Government made an announcement on 28 January 2016 that it will adoptVicRoads’ recommendation on widening Chandler Highway, Alphington whichincludes a new six lane bridge over the Yarra River on the west side of the existingbridge. Council has received letters from both Yarra City Council and Darebin CityCouncil advising of their respective Council resolutions against the proposal.

The scope of the project appears to be inconsistent with the objectives of theTransport Integration Act (2009) and Banyule’s Integrated Transport Plan, as such itis considered reasonable to request a review of the project scope and aninvestigation of the concerns raised by both the Yarra City Council and Darebin CityCouncil.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Writes to the Yarra City Council and Darebin City Council acknowledging theirrespective resolutions on the proposed widening of Chandler Highway,Alphington including the new six lane bridge over the Yarra River; and

2. Writes to the Minister for Roads and Road Safety in relation to the six laneChandler Highway proposal:

a. Identifying that it is inconsistent with the philosophy of the BanyuleIntegrated Transport Plan which looks to prioritise walking cycling andpublic transport over private cars and minimise any road widening insupport of private cars; and

b. Seeking a review of the scope of the project with the concerns raisedYarra City Council and Darebin City Council being fully investigated andconsidered.





CHANDLER HIGHWAY WIDENING cont’d


4.3CITY PLAN

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



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

BACKGROUND

The State Government made an announcement on 28 January 2016 that it will adoptVicRoads’ recommendation on widening Chandler Highway. The recommendationincludes a new six lane bridge on the west side of the existing bridge (Plan attached).Council has received letters from Yarra City Council and Darebin City Counciloutlining details of resolutions made on this topic (Attachments 2 and 3).

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

• Does not support the construction of a six lane Chandler Highway widening ora six lane bridge which will encourage traffic, resulting in increased levels ofcongestion and cause environmental damage and air pollution, amongst otherdetrimental impacts.

• Supports a road and bridge design that:o Primarily provides practical options for integrated public transport; ando Builds in future proofing design options for the construction of the

Doncaster Rail.• Notes that the decision appears to fail to adhere to the Transport Integration

Act (2009).

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

• Calls on the Minister for Roads to release the business case for the project inthe interests of transparency; and

• Once more, calls on the State Government to:o respond to the concerns of residents on the west side of the proposal and

along Grange Road who would bear the brunt of the current ‘preferredoption’, and

o produce a new design which protects amenity of existing residents to thewest, protects the Yarra Corridor habitat and environs, moves peoplerather than just vehicles across the Yarra River and provides genuineoptions for local commuters, in particular, the construction of theDoncaster Rail.


CHANDLER HIGHWAY WIDENING cont’d


4.3

A report on the matter was on the Council agenda at its meeting of 4 April 2016.Following debate Council deferred the item for consideration at a future Councilmeeting.

DISCUSSION

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

However; it is uncertain whether there is a need for a six lane cross section throughthis part of the network unless dedicated facilities (lanes and connections) areplanned for public transport in accordance with the objectives of the TransportIntegration Act (2009). The proposal does however include a Shared User Path tothe west of the duplication, which will provide safer and more convenient access forcyclists, including removing the need to use the 70 steps at the Main Yarra Trail. Theproposal does not appear to address public transport provision in terms of separatebus lanes. Consideration should be given to the movement of people and goodsrather than individual vehicles, which includes buses travelling along the link and thepotential for connections to a future Doncaster rail link.

The Banyule Integrated Transport Plan identifies a Road User Hierarchy thatprioritises pedestrians, cyclists and public transport over private cars (Action 45) andseeks to minimise the construction of new roads or widening of existing roads toprovide for private cars (Action 46). A six lane configuration for the ChandlerHighway project is inconsistent with this philosophy. As such a review of the project,as called for by the Yarra City Council and Darebin City Council, is considered to beappropriate and worthwhile.

CONCLUSION

Council has received letters from the Yarra City Council and Darebin City Counciloutlining their recent resolutions on the proposed Chandler Highway widening. Itappears that the proposal for a six lane configuration does not meet the objectives ofthe Transport Integration Act (2009) or the philosophy of Council’s IntegratedTransport Plan which looks to prioritise walking cycling and public transport overprivate cars and minimise any road widening in support of private cars.

Accordingly it is appropriate to acknowledge the positions of both Yarra City Counciland Darebin City Council, and to write to the Minister for Roads and Road Safetyseeking a review of the project scope and consider consideration of the concernsraised by both Yarra City Council and Darebin City Council.

ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 Chandler Highway Duplication Plan 251

2 Yarra City Council Letter 252

3 Darebin City Council Letter 254



4.44.4 METROPOLITAN OVER-DIMENSIONAL

VEHICLE ROUTES

Author: David Bailey - Engineering Co-Ordinator, City Development

Ward: All

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

VicRoads is seeking Council endorsement of Victoria’s revised Over-Dimensionalvehicle network to include Metropolitan Ring Road, Greensborough Highway,Rosanna Road, and Banksia Street.

Formally recognising Rosanna Road as an Over-Dimensional Route is inconsistentwith VicRoads efforts to alleviate Rosanna Road residents’ concerns and Council’sposition regarding the provision of a direct orbital route from the Metropolitan RingRoad to Eastlink to reduce through traffic and improve safety and amenity concernsin Banyule, particularly Rosanna Road.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Writes to VicRoads confirming that it does not endorse GreensboroughHighway, Rosanna Road and Banksia Street being included in VicRoads’revised Over-Dimensional vehicle network.

2. Writes to VicRoads and the Minister for Roads and Road Safety requesting thedevelopment of a North-East Link as a direct orbital route from the MetropolitanRing Road to Eastlink to cater for over-dimensional vehicles and reducethrough traffic in Banyule.




CITY PLAN


BACKGROUND

VicRoads is seeking Council endorsement of Victoria’s revised Over-Dimensional(OD) vehicle network. OD Routes provide for the transport of vehicles and loadswhich exceed normal width, height, length and mass limits. OD vehicles travelling onthese routes require VicRoads approval and authorised escort vehicles.


METROPOLITAN OVER-DIMENSIONAL VEHICLE ROUTES cont’d


4.4

The existing route OD1 through NE Melbourne (as shown in Melways – Appendix 1)is Mahoneys Road, High Street, Bell Street and Banksia Street. The proposed route(Appendix 2) is Metropolitan Ring Road, Greensborough Highway, Rosanna Road,Banksia Street.

Since the extension of the Greensborough Highway was completed about 10 yearsago, and more recently since Darebin City Council altered the road infrastructure inHigh Street, Northcote and Preston, OD vehicles have been using Rosanna Road.VicRoads has indicated that the OD vehicles are not subject to the overnight truckcurfew on Rosanna Road.

VicRoads has carried out a review of the Rosanna Road infrastructure to confirm itsacceptability for OD vehicles. VicRoads has indicated that the number of permitsissued for vehicles using Rosanna Road is around two per month.

The amended route is proposed to be formalised by gazettal.

ADVOCACY

Council has advocated for a North-East Link as a direct orbital link from theMetropolitan Ring Road to Eastlink, this is included in the Banyule IntegratedTransport Plan (Action A50). The completion of this link would provide a suitablealternative OD Route for large freight movements in the north-east of Melbourne.





DISCUSSION

While there are currently few OD vehicle movements through Banyule, there issignificant community concern about freight vehicles using Rosanna Road. VicRoadsis currently trialling a night time truck curfew to determine whether this will assist inalleviating residents’ concerns regarding amenity, environmental and noise issuesalong Rosanna Road. Although the number of OD vehicle movements alongRosanna Road is minimal, these vehicles often travel at night and could contribute toresidents’ concerns.

Formally recognising Rosanna Road as an OD Route is inconsistent with VicRoadsefforts to alleviate Rosanna Road residents’ concerns and Council’s positionregarding the provision of an alternative route to reduce through traffic in Banyule,particularly Rosanna Road.


METROPOLITAN OVER-DIMENSIONAL VEHICLE ROUTES cont’d


4.4CONCLUSION

VicRoads request for Council to endorse the revised metropolitan Over-Dimensionalnetwork to include Greensborough Highway, Rosanna Road and Banksia Street isinconsistent with Council’s position regarding the completion of the North-East Linkas a direct orbital route from the Metropolitan Ring Road to Eastlink to reducethrough traffic in Banyule.

ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 Existing OD Network 255

2 Proposed OD Network 256



4.54.5 DRAFT BANYULE SAFE TRAVEL PLAN 2016 -

2026

Author: Michelle Herbert - Senior Transport Engineer, City Development

Ward: All

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council has worked with the local community and other key stakeholders to preparethe draft Banyule Safe Trave Plan. This draft document has been prepared to givelong-term direction to safe travel in the municipality.

The draft Banyule Safe Travel Plan has been shaped by community input and localexpertise. Information collected through consultation to date has been used todevelop the plan’s vision and themes, as well as the supporting strategic directionsand actions. The draft is now ready for further consultation.

Responses to the draft will help inform a final Banyule Safe Trave Plan. The finaldocument will provide an overall framework to address safe travel issues, and createa more accessible, safe, liveable and sustainable community.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Approve the draft Banyule Safe Travel Plan for consultation for a four (4) weekperiod.

2. Receive a further report to consider feedback and submissions received duringthe consultation period and adopt the final Banyule Safe Travel Plan.




CITY PLAN





DRAFT BANYULE SAFE TRAVEL PLAN 2016 - 2026 cont’d


4.5



BACKGROUND

Banyule has recently developed the Banyule Integrated Transport Plan (BITP) whichencourages people to make a change from private vehicular transport to activetransport – walking, cycling and using public transport. In aligning with the BITP,unless our transport network becomes safer, the safety of our transport users couldbecome a barrier to sustainable transport. The Banyule Safe Travel Plan extendsthat plan and puts the focus on safety for walkers, cyclists and public transport users.

Action A56 of the Banyule Integrated Transport Plan states: Review and Update theBanyule Road Safety Plan

Council’s Road Safety Plan 2010-2015 has expired. In September 2015, Councilreceived a $25,000 funding grant from the Transport Accident Commission’sCommunity Safety Grants program to assist in the development of a new RoadSafety Plan.

In subsequent discussions with key internal Council stakeholders, the scope of thePlan was widened to improve safety for all travellers and environments rather thanlimiting the Plan to road users and the road/footpath space. This allows the new Planto align better with other Council plans such as the Banyule Integrated TransportPlan, Safer Banyule Plan and the Place: Health and Wellbeing Plan. It is proposed tocall the new Plan the Banyule Safe Travel Plan 2016-2026.

The draft Banyule Safe Travel Plan has been developed under a Governancestructure consisting of a Project Steering Group, Project Management Group, KeyStakeholder Group and a wider external reference group, similar to the processadopted for the Banyule Integrated Transport Plan.

Consultation was undertaken with key stakeholders including Council unitrepresentatives, Victoria Police and VicRoads with a draft Vision, Themes andObjectives workshop undertaken on 8 December 2015. At this workshop, a draftvision and key themes were developed. Following consultation with the community,key stakeholders, wider reference group and Council advisory committees, the draftVision, Themes and Objectives were changed slightly to read as follows:

VISION - Pathways to safer journeys - moving freely via people-friendly streets.

KEY THEMES and OBJECTIVES

SAFER WALKING, CYCLING AND TRAVELLING BY PUBLIC TRANSPORT

Systematically improve the safety of walking, cycling and travelling by public transportin Banyule. Remove physical, logistical and perceived barriers to safe, convenientand confident local journeys on foot, by bike, and by bus/tram/train.




4.5

REDUCE VEHICLE IMPACTS

Reduce towards zero the direct and indirect potential negative impacts of vehicularroad traffic on the health, safety and well-being of local people and visitors toBanyule, and on the long term health of the planet. Action via a combination ofinfrastructure and road user behaviour improvements. Reduce the number, distanceand speed of vehicular journeys within Banyule.

THINK SAFE TRAVEL

Integrate safe travel thinking into all policy, planning and operational decisions withinBanyule City Council, from long term planning to everyday decision making byCouncillors, Officers, and Council’s partners. Include community groups who useCouncil facilities or engage with Council-led programs.

SHIFT COMMUNITY SAFETY CULTURE

Shift community awareness towards a clearer and more realistic appreciation of thepotential negative effects of vehicular transport in Banyule. Seek to obtain activesupport and participation by individuals, community groups and businesses in effortsto achieve safe travel and to make a shift to non-powered local transport.

On 8 March 2016, further consultation was undertaken with the wider ReferenceGroup and other interested parties in the form of a Banyule Safe Travel Plan Forum.The aim of the Forum was to give feedback on the outcome of the draft Vision,Themes and Objectives consultation and to commence discussion and drafting of theStrategic Directions and Actions of the draft Banyule Safe Travel Plan.

Approximately 900 people from a wide variety of community and agency backgroundshave had an input to the draft Banyule Safe Travel Plan. More information isavailable in the attached Consultation Paper – What you told us, Feedback SummaryPaper March 2016 (Attachment 1).

DRAFT BANYULE SAFE TRAVEL PLAN

The draft Banyule Safe Travel Plan (Attachment 2) aims to support the transition toactive transport and public transport advocated through the Banyule IntegratedTransport Plan, making it safer to walk, ride or use public transport. Vehicle driversand passengers are not forgotten – their safety is a target of many of the actions inthe plan.

In particular, the draft Banyule Safe Travel Plan invites the community – individuals,clubs, organisations and businesses – to play their part in encouraging safe localtravel, and supporting a progressive change to walking, cycling and using publictransport. A comprehensive listing of resources available to promote safe travel hasbeen included as part of the plan.




4.5

The draft Banyule Safe Travel Plan details a number of Strategic Directions alignedto each key Theme as follows:

Key Theme One: Safer Walking, Cycling and Travelling by Public Transport

Strategic Directions:

• SD1: Remove physical barriers to safe, convenient and confident localjourneys.

• SD2: Remove logistical barriers to safe, convenient and confident localjourneys.

• SD3: Build confidence among local people to walk or ride instead of travellingby car.

Key Theme Two: Reduce Vehicle Impacts


• SD4: Reduce vehicle speed limits in Banyule to speeds compatible with thedesign speed and safe use of roads by all road users, at each level of roadhierarchy, according to the specific road use and conditions.

• SD5: Encourage and enforce compliance with speed limits.• SD6: Support and educate young drivers.• SD7: Support and educate drivers with reduced capabilities.• SD8: Discourage high risk driving.• SD9: Discourage drink driving and drug driving.

Key Theme Three: Think Safe Travel


• SD10: Incorporate safe travel considerations into all key planning documents ofCouncil.

• SD11: Include safe travel in relevant Council officers’ position descriptions andin operational work plans.

• SD12: Ensure that safe travel considerations are included in all road works andnew developments.

• SD13: Promote safer vehicles and safer driving policies.• SD14: Promote safe cycling.• SD15: Identify and access relevant funding opportunities for improving safe

travel.

Key Theme Four: Shift Community Safety Culture


• SD16: Promote safe travel through a range of communications and marketingactivities.

• SD17: Promote safe, active travel and road safety educational programs tofamilies taking young children to school.

• SD18: Promote safe, active travel and road safety educational programs tostudents and families accessing local primary schools and secondary schools.




4.5

• SD19: Encourage local partners including community groups and schools todevelop and promote safe travel initiatives.

Specific actions are identified to support the Strategic Directions.

CONSULTATION

Consultation will commence with the public release of the draft Banyule Safe TravelPlan. The consultation program has been developed in conjunction with Council’sSocial Planning team in consideration of the consultation completed to date.

Residents and community will be invited to provide feedback on the draft documentover a four week period, through:

The Banyule Website, including links to the draft Banyule Safe Travel Plan andthe feedback summary paper.

An article in the May/June Banyule Banner. Copies of the draft Banyule Safe Travel Plan being available at Council’s

customer service centres and libraries. Presentations to relevant Council advisory committees.

The draft Banyule Safe Travel Plan will be available for consultation for a four (4)week period, until at least Monday 6 June 2016. The feedback will assist in thepreparation of a final Banyule Safe Travel Plan for future Council adoption. It isexpected that this document will be considered by Council on 27 June 2016.

CONCLUSION

The draft BSTP has been prepared in response to a key initiative in Council’sBanyule Integrated Transport Plan, after an extensive consultation process.

Further consultation is proposed to inform the final document. The Banyule SafeTravel Plan will give long-term direction in safe travel in our municipality.

ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 Consultation Paper - What you told us- Draft Banyule Safe Travel Plan 257

2 Draft Banyule Safe Travel Plan 274



4.64.6 WATSONIA RAILWAY STATION

INFRASTRUCTURE AND AMENITYIMPROVEMENTS

Author: David Bailey - Engineering Co-Ordinator, City Development

Ward: Grimshaw

Previous ItemsCouncil on 18 April 2016 (Item 8.3 - Watsonia Station Infrastructure and Amenity

Improvements)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

At its meeting on 18 April 2016, Council sought a report outlining the costs ofundertaking a survey of local residents to identify opportunities for potentialimprovements to Watsonia Railway Station to assist in future advocacy for theimprovements including the installation of a lift, improvements to toilet facilities andbicycle facilities.

Watsonia Railway Station is a State Government asset managed by Metro Trainsunder a PTV lease. It is a premium station with ramp access to the central platform.The Station has good access from the arterial road and bicycle networks and forms avery significant link in Banyule’s transport network. Toilet facilities are provided onthe platform and PTV is currently constructing a new Parkiteer bicycle parking cage.

The likely cost for resources associated with conducting a survey of local residents inWatsonia, Watsonia North, Bundoora and Yallambie to determine potentialimprovements is estimated to be $23,000.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Notes that Watsonia Railway Station is owned by the State Government andmanaged by Metro Trains under a PTV lease.

2. Allocates $23,000 from its 2015/16 budget to send a survey to residents inWatsonia, Watsonia North, Bundoora and Yallambie to determine communitysupport for potential improvements to Watsonia Station.

3. Receives a further report on the outcomes of the community survey.





WATSONIA RAILWAY STATION INFRASTRUCTURE AND AMENITYIMPROVEMENTS cont’d


4.6

CITY PLAN

This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction to “provide services forpeople at important life stages”.

BACKGROUND

At its meeting on 18 April 2016, Council considered the potential for improvements atWatsonia Station. It was resolved:

That Council seek a report, including costings and resources associated with points2 and 3 below, at the next Council meeting:

1. Noting that Watsonia Station is a State Government asset and responsibility.

2. Considering writing to local residents in Watsonia, Watsonia North, Bundooraand Yallambie advise of its strong support for improvements to the amenitiesand infrastructure at Watsonia Station and the advocacy it is undertaking to seeimprovements delivered.

3. The letter should include a brief survey, with a reply paid envelope forresponses, on the nature and priority of potential improvements that could beconsidered at Watsonia Station including the installation of lift, improvements totoilet facilities and bike facilities. The survey results will inform future advocacyon this matter.

4. The letter should be coordinated with the two Ward Councillors and distributedunder their names on behalf of the Council.

Watsonia Railway Station is a State Government asset owned by VicTrack andmanaged by Metro Trains under a PTV lease. Metro Trains is responsible for themaintenance of the infrastructure and manages improvements in conjunction withPTV. A plan showing the location of Watsonia Station is provided at Figure 1.

Figure 1 – Watsonia Railway Station




4.6

In late 2014 Council adopted a vision for Watsonia Village, “Picture Watsonia”, whichidentifies the importance of the railway station both as a transport hub and as asignificant opportunity to improve the vibrancy of the neighbourhood centre.

ADVOCACY

Council continues to advocate for improved public transport services andinfrastructure. The Banyule Integrated Transport Plan 2015-2035 states in relation topublic transport that ‘Council will work with State Government agencies to ensure theprovision of a reliable public transport network across Banyule that meets the needsof the community’. The Plan includes the following strategic directions:

• SD 13 - Public transport upgrades to will improve infrastructure and services.• SD 14 – The public transport system will be universally accessible.

Following Council advocacy, PTV has recently installed a Parkiteer bicycle storagecage at Watsonia Station.



In developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered inaccordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights andResponsibilities. The right to freedom of movement (section 12) described below issupported by this report.

Your Right to Freedom of Movement (section 12).People can stay in or leave Victoria whenever they want to as long as they are herelawfully. They can move around freely within Victoria and choose where they live.

CURRENT SITUATION

Watsonia Station is a Premium Station staffed Monday to Sunday, from first train tolast train. The Station has an island platform accessed by ramps from WatsoniaRoad and the car park adjacent to Greensborough Highway, which has 498 parkingspaces and a bus interchange. It is understood that PTV is consideringimprovements and extensions to the car park. There is a public toilet and an indoorsheltered waiting room on the platform together with 4 bicycle lockers. There are also5 bicycle racks adjacent to the Railway Station and, following discussion betweenCouncil and PTV, a new Parkiteer bicycle cage has recently been constructed usingPTV funding.

DISCUSSION

Watsonia Railway Station is a premium station that has significant provision for carparking, attracting many commuters from both within and outside Banyule. It hasgood access from the arterial road network and forms a very significant link inBanyule’s transport network. With improved passenger facilities, it has the potentialto reduce the number of vehicles on the road due to people using their cars tocommute through Banyule.




4.6

Providing improved passenger facilities at Watsonia Railway Station is consistentwith Action 43 of the Banyule Integrated Transport Plan – ‘Work with StateGovernment and other stakeholders to improve integration between public transport,walking and cycling’.

An assessment has been carried out of the costs and resources required to write tolocal residents in Watsonia, Watsonia North, Bundoora and Yallambie includingsending out a brief survey and a reply paid envelope for responses. There areapproximately 8,800 households in the nominated suburbs.

It is estimated that the total cost of the preparation of the letters, survey anddistribution list in coordination with the two Ward Councillors, and receipt andanalysis of the survey would be approximately $23,000. This includes contractor andstaff costs of approximately $6,500 to prepare the letters and analyse the surveyresults; and outsourcing the printing and distribution of 8,800 letters (includingpostage) and postage of return surveys (based on a return rate of 35%) at a quotedcost of $16,500.

Other lower cost options are available; however these would achieve a lowerresponse rate and potentially limit the number of potential improvements identified bythe community for Watsonia Station. Options include:

1. Letter drop 8,800 generic letters with a survey (rather than specificallyaddressed letters), with return envelopes and inviting residents to submitresponses by email (indicative response rate 30%).

Estimated Cost $15,000

2. Letter drop 8,800 generic letters with a survey (rather than specificallyaddressed letters), without return envelopes and inviting residents to submitresponses by email (indicative response rate 25%).

Estimated Cost $13,000

CONCLUSION

Watsonia Railway Station is a State Government asset under the control andmanagement of Metro Trains. It is a Premium Station with ramp access to theplatforms; a public toilet and an indoor sheltered waiting room are provided on theplatform. A new Parkiteer bicycle storage cage has recently been constructed.

To obtain the maximum response to the survey, the preferred option would bepersonally address the letter and survey, including a reply paid envelope

The indicative cost of this option, including writing to approximately 8,800 localresidents in Watsonia, Watsonia North, Bundoora and Yallambie with a brief surveyand reply paid envelope for responses, including contractor and staff time to preparethe letters in coordination with the two Ward Councillors and assess the results of thesurvey, is approximately $23,000. The results of the survey would assist indetermining the nature and priority of potential improvements that could beconsidered to advocate for future at Watsonia Railway Station.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil



4.74.7 54-62 MAIN STREET, GREENSBOROUGH -

PROPOSED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT(P1024/2015)

Author: Andy Wilson - Development Planning Team Leader, City Development

Ward: Bakewell

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

It is proposed to construct a mixed use development across 9 levels including45 dwellings, residential building (63 serviced apartments), 2 office tenancies(including a bank), restaurant and 3 retail tenancies, reduction in car parking and useof the land for a residential building. The height of the building would exceed thepreferred height by at least 11 metres at the front of the site and reduction of 39 carparking spaces is proposed.

It is considered that the proposal, in its current form, should not be supported.However, in response to the concerns raised, the applicant has provided a conceptplan which reduces the height of the building by 2 levels and sets the upper levelfurther from the street frontage to ensure that what is viewed within the street issubstantially compliant with the preferred height. In addition, the revised conceptincludes an additional basement level for car parking and reduces the number ofdwellings and serviced apartments therefore seeking a smaller reduction in onsite carparking. The revised concept also introduces more appropriate materials andcolours, consistent with the objectives of the Main Street precinct within the ActivityCentre Zone.

On this basis a permit should be granted but acknowledging the extent of car parkingreduction, the applicant should be required to make a contribution towards streetscape improvement works in the locality to enhance the pedestrian experience alongMain Street which is recognised as a Key Pedestrian Area within the GreensboroughActivity Centre.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council having complied with Section 52, 58, 60, 61 and 62 of the Planning andEnvironment Act 1987, resolves that a Planning Permit be issued in respect ofApplication No. P1024/2015 for the construction of a mixed use development across9 levels including 34 dwellings, residential building (42 serviced apartments), officetenancy (including a bank), café and retail tenancies, reduction in car parking waiverof loading requirements and use of the land for a residential building at 54-62 MainStreet GREENSBOROUGH subject to the following conditions:

1 Before the use and development permitted by this permit starts, amendedplans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to andapproved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will beendorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn toscale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must begenerally in accordance with the advertised plans submitted on 8 October 2015but modified to show:


54-62 MAIN STREET, GREENSBOROUGH - PROPOSED MIXED USEDEVELOPMENT (P1024/2015) cont’d


4.7

(a) The plans modified to accommodate the changes provided in the conceptplans provided 19 January 2016 and 4 April 2016 including:

(i) A reduction in the height of the building by two levels;

(ii) A recession of level 6 on the east and west elevations;

(iii) The provision of three basement levels and at least 53 car parkingspaces;

(iv) The use of more earthy tones and colours, particularly on the frontelevation;

(b) The provision of at least 8m2 of outdoor space for each dwelling(measured inside the balcony) with a minimum depth of 1.6 metres;

(c) An appropriately sized area for the storage of hard waste ready forcollection in a convenient location with easy access from Grimshaw Laneto the satisfaction of Council;

(d) An amended Sustainable Design Assessment which achieves at least apass score for the Water category within the BESS assessment;

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

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

Landscaping Plan

2 The development permitted by this permit must not be commenced until asatisfactory detailed landscaping plan is submitted to and approved by theResponsible Authority. Such plan must be prepared by a person suitablyqualified or experienced in landscape design and shall include:

(a) A schedule of all plants including the botanical names and location andsize at maturity of such plants including planting within balconies or anyvertical gardens;

(b) Location, details and cross section drawings of all Water Sensitive UrbanDesign features in accordance with the endorsed Sustainable DesignAssessment and STORM report, with reference to connection details onthe engineering plans

Secondary Consent

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

Prior to occupation

4 Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority the proposeddevelopment must not be occupied until:-

(a) The parking area(s) shown on the endorsed plan(s) have beenconstructed to the requirements and satisfaction of the ResponsibleAuthority;




4.7

(b) The landscape areas shown on the endorsed plans have been planted tothe requirements and satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

(c) Drainage works have been undertaken and completed to therequirements and satisfaction of the Responsible Authority; and

(d) The bicycle parking area and end-of-trip facilities are made available forresidents and commercial tenants.

(e) The submission and approval of a Waste Management Plan inaccordance with condition 11 of this permit.

(f) Basement and under-croft lighting is installed in accordance with therelevant Australian Standards.

(g) The contribution set out in condition 14 is provided.

Maintenance and Urban Design

5 The walls of the development on the boundary of adjoining properties must becleaned and finished in a manner to the satisfaction of the ResponsibleAuthority.

6 Any air-conditioning or cooling units, condensers and the like located onbalconies must be concealed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

8 All telecommunications and power connections (where by means of a cable)and associated infrastructure to the land must be underground to thesatisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

Graffiti prevention measures

10 Any walls or spaces accessible to the public must be treated in accordancewith Safer Design and CPTED (Crime Prevention Through EnvironmentalDesign) Principles. Where appropriate the following measures must beimplemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:

(a) textured or rough services that make it difficult to apply graffiti;

(b) permeable fencing instead of solid walls;

(c) buildings with high-density, low absorbency materials;

(d) anti-graffiti coating to protect the surface when building or revitalising thewalls (including façade);

(e) sensor lighting and/or enhanced surveillance to deter graffitists;

(f) the break up of large surfaces to minimise the canvas available forgraffitists; and

(g) measures to make surfaces less liable to graffiti.




4.7

11 The permit holder/occupier must promptly remove or obliterate any graffiti onthe subject site which is visible to the public and keep the site free from graffitiat all times to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Waste Collection

12 Prior to the commencement of the development, an amended WasteManagement Plan prepared by a suitably qualified person must be submitted toand approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Such plan mustspecify that collection is to be by way of private contractor and detail:

(a) Reflects the approved plans including number of dwellings and servicedapartments;

(b) How waste and recycling materials are to be managed within the site andcollected from the subject site;

(c) Anticipated frequency, hours and duration of collection(s) having regardto the areas provided for bin storage.

(d) How bin storage areas will be maintained to ensure there is nounreasonable emission of odour or noise;

Once approved, this management plan must be adhered to by the owner(s),permit holder(s) and operator(s) of the dwellings at all times unless otherwiseapproved by the responsible authority.

13 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 thoroughfareand odour must not be emitted from any such receptacle(s) so as to causeoffence to any person(s) outside the subject land.

Section 173 Agreement

14 Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority, prior to theoccupation of the development, the owner of the land at 54-62 Main StreetGREENSBOROUGH must enter into an agreement with the ResponsibleAuthority pursuant to Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 tothe satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and such agreement must state:

(a) The owner acknowledges that all waste collection from the land will becarried out by a private provider.

Contribution

(b) A cash payment in-lieu of providing a full complement of car parking mustbe provided. The contribution details are as follows:

(i) The amount to be provided is for a reduction in 52 car parkingspaces on site;

(c) The owner acknowledges that and will bring to the attention of all tenantsor employees of the development on the subject site that there should beno expectation of obtaining permanent car parking, whether or not, in thevicinity of the development hereby approved and that there will notnecessarily be any entitlement to on street parking by way of parkingpermits. Tenants and employees are encouraged to utilise alternativemeans of transport.




4.7

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

Construction Management Plan

15 Before the development starts, a construction management plan must beprepared and submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval. The planmust be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Once approved, theplan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Theplan must address the following issues:

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

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

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

(d) site security;

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

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

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

(h) cleaning and maintaining surrounding road surfaces;

(i) maintenance of access along the full length of the laneway

Once approved, this management plan will be endorsed to be read inconjunction with all other endorsed documents and must be adhered to by theowner(s), permit holder(s) and operator(s) of any use at all times unlessotherwise approved by the Responsible Authority.

Car Parking Management Plan

16 Unless otherwise agreed in writing, prior to the commencement of the usehereby approved, a Car Park Management Plan must be prepared andapproved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Such a plan mustclearly identify, although is not limited to outlining:

(a) Unless otherwise agreed in writing, parking must be allocated as follows:

(i) The 14 spaces on basement level 1 for short term parking

(ii) 16 spaces on basement level 2 for the serviced apartments andmanaged using a valet system.

(iii) One space to each of the commercial and retail tenancies;

(iv) 9 spaces allocated to 9 of the two bedroom dwellings;

(v) 9 spaces allocated to 9 of the one bedroom dwellings;

(b) Details of any warning light / boom gate systems etc. to control andmanage the movement of vehicles in the basement.




4.7

(c) Details as to how it will be brought to the attention of prospectivepurchasers that occupants of the dwellings or commercial premises onthe land have no entitlement to on-street or off-street parking by way of aresident or trader vehicle parking permit.

Car Parking / Access

17 Areas set aside for the parking of vehicles together with the aisles and accesslanes must be properly formed to such levels that they can be utilised inaccordance with the endorsed plans and must be drained and provided with an allweather seal coat. The areas must be constructed, drained and maintained in acontinuously useable condition to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

19 The boundaries of all car spaces, access and egress lanes and the direction inwhich vehicles should proceed along the access lanes must at all times beclearly indicated on the ground to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

Amenity

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

22 Noise emissions from the food and drink premises must comply with StateEnvironment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry andTrade) No. N-1, State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Music Noisefrom Public Premises) No. N-2, the Environment Protection Authority’s NoiseControl Guidelines Publication 1254, October 2008 and the Public Health andWellbeing Act 2008.

23 Effluent or polluted drainage must not be allowed to discharge beyond theboundaries of the subject land onto other land or any street or road or directlyor indirectly into any watercourse.

Time Limits

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

• The development is not commenced within two years of the date of thispermit;

• The development is not completed within four years of the date of thispermit;




4.7

• The use is not commenced within four years of the date of this permit; or

• The use is discontinued for a period of two years.

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

(a) Before the permit expires, or

(b) Within six months afterwards, or

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

PERMIT NOTES

A. Expiry of Permit

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

B. Building Permit Required

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

C. Building over Easements

No structure, including sheds and water tanks shall be built over any easementon the subject land except with the consent of the relevant ResponsibleAuthority.

D. Completion of Development

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

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

E. Street Numbering

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

F. Memorandum of Consent for Works

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




4.7

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

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

G. Building Site Code of Practice

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

Planning Permit Application: P1024/15

Development Planner: Andy Wilson

Address: 54-62 Main Street, GREENSBOROUGH

Proposal: Construction of a mixed use development across 9levels including 45 dwellings, residential building (63serviced apartments), 2 office tenancies (including abank), restaurant and 3 retail tenancies, reduction in carparking, waiver of loading requirements and use of theland for a residential building

Existing Use/Development: Single storey shops

Applicant: Fortune Alliance

Zoning: Activity Centre Zone (ACZ1)

Overlays: Parking Overlay (PO1)

Notification (Advertising): Sign on site and notices to surrounding properties.

Objections Received: Nil

Ward: Bakewell

The application, which was formally amended on 8 October 2015, consists of amixed use development of 9 levels and two basement levels of car parking. Thebuilding, as advertised, contains 63 serviced apartments across levels 1-3 and 45apartments from levels 4-8. At ground level the building contains three retailtenancies, a bank, commercial tenancy and restaurant all in an arcade style layout.Access to the serviced apartments and dwellings is gained through this arcade at therear of the ground level.

Vehicle access to the building is gained from Grimshaw Lane to the rear of the sitewhere vehicles would enter at basement level 1. A car lift provides access tobasement level 2 below. 43 Car parking spaces are provided with 10 spaces shownin tandem.17 bike parking spaces are also shown in basement level 1.

The 63 serviced apartments consist of open plan studio style rooms with a separatebathroom and toilet. 27 of these serviced apartments also have access to a balconyor terrace ranging in size from 5.6m2 to 20m2 in area.




4.7

The 45 dwellings consist of 30 one bedroom apartments and 15 two bedroomapartments. Plans indicate that balconies range in size from 8.2m2 to as high as44m2. However, when measured on the plans the smallest balconies are closer to6.75m2.

The building is proposed to be approximately 29.2 metres in height at the Main Streetfrontage and 33 metres at the rear. The building is to be constructed to all boundariesat ground level and would include 2 metre setbacks to balconies at all levels abovelevel 1 however, some apartments are still constructed to the boundary up until level4. From level 4 and above, the building is setback two metres on the north and southelevations and 1.2 metres from the West (Main Street) frontage. The building isconstructed to the boundary for its entire height on the East (rear) boundary.

For complete details of the advertised plans, refer to Attachment 1.


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


BACKGROUND/HISTORY

During the application process concerns were raised with the applicant regarding theheight of the building and the use of materials and finishes and the way it presentedto Main Street. Concern was also raised regarding the extent of car parking reductionsought by the applicant. No changes were made to the design prior to the publicnotification period.

A concept plan was submitted on 19 January 2016 following public notice whichattempts to address concerns raised. This reduces the height of the dwelling by twolevels and further sets back the top level. A further concept was provided on 4 April2016 which introduces a third basement level for additional car parking. A copy of allthese revised concept plans can be viewed at Attachment 2.

Permit P422/09 was granted in 2010 for a five storey mixed use development,reduction to the standard car parking and loading bay requirements. This permit wasextended until December 2014 but has not been acted upon and has thereforeexpired.




4.7

Figure 1. Locality Plan

SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

The subject site sits on the southern side of Main Street within the centre of the stripshopping centre. The surrounding area is defined by commercial uses with Council’sOne Flintoff building sitting behind the subject site. The site is located less than 500mto the Greensborough railway station.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

The proposal was advertised by way of 2 signs on site and notices to surroundingproperties. No objections have been received to date.

REFERRAL COMMENTS

ENGINEERING SERVICES

Council’s traffic engineers were initially concerned about the proposed reduction inon site car parking. However, through discussions with the applicant including theprovision of a modified layout, Council’s traffic engineers are comfortable with theproposed reduction on the basis that the proposed number of spaces are allocated inthe following way:

• 14 spaces for short term parking = 14 spaces in Basement Level 1• 0.4 spaces per hotel room = 16 spaces in Basement Level 2, to be managed

with a valet system• 1 space per commercial/retail tenancy = 5 spaces in Basement Level 2• 0.65 spaces for 2-bedroom dwellings = 9 spaces in Basement Level 3• 0.5 spaces for 1-bedroom dwellings = 9 spaces in Basement Level 3




4.7

PLANNING CONTROLS

Table 1: Planning ControlsControl Clause Permit

TriggeredActivity Centre Zone (ACZ1) 37.08 YesParking Overlay 45.09 YesCar Parking 52.06 YesHigher Density Residential Guidelines 52.35 No

POLICIES CONSIDERED

Relevant policies considered in the assessment of this proposal are outlined inTable 2 below:

Table 2: Relevant Planning Scheme PolicyPolicy ClauseSPPFSettlement 11Built Environment and Heritage (including sub clauses) 15Housing (including sub clauses) 16LPPFLand Use 21.04Built Environment (Diversity area) 21.06Local Places 21.08Safer Design Policy 22.03Environmentally Sustainable Development 22.05

An assessment of the proposal against the relevant planning policy, including anassessment against the Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development isdetailed in Attachment 3 to this report.

TECHNICAL CONSIDERATION

HEIGHT

The subject site sits within precinct 1A of the Greensborough Activity Centre. Thepreferred maximum building height for this precinct is 11.5 metres within 8 metres ofthe Main Street frontage and 18.5 metres elsewhere. The preferred setback from thefront and sides is 0 metres.

The proposed development seeks to exceed the preferred height by 11 metres atthe frontage of the site and 14.5 metres at the rear. This is a substantial departurefrom the preferred heights outlined within the Activity Centre Zone.




4.7

Concerns were raised with the applicant regarding the height of the building and itslikely dominant presence within the Main Street streetscape. In response to theseconcerns, the applicant has provided a concept plan which demonstrates how theproposal can be modified to achieve a more appropriate response. The conceptreduces the building in height by two levels and further recesses the top level of thebuilding from Main Street so that it will not be dominant when viewed within the streetand slightly recesses the building at the rear. This will result in the building beingapproximately 5.5 metres (1.5 levels) above the preferred height at the Main Streetinterface and 8.3 metres (2.5 levels) at the rear of the building. A more appropriatematerial and colour palette has been used which responds to the relevant policywhich seeks materials that are natural and subdued. By comparison with theapproved building at 1 Flintoff Street, the proposed building will sit approximately 2.5metre above this.

The modified concept, while still remaining above the preferred height specifiedunder the Activity Centre Zone, will result in an acceptable outcome with regards toheight. This is due in part, to the way in which the building has responded to the Mainstreet interface, reducing the height of the building, recessing the upper level furtherfrom the street and incorporating more natural materials and colours which soften theappearance of the building.

It is also noted that the Greensborough Structure Plan is currently being reviewed.Planning Scheme Amendment C110 is on public exhibition and seeks to introducegreater building heights to precincts 2, 5 and 6 on the southern side of theGreensborough Activity Centre. While no change in heights is proposed for Precinct1A where the subject site sits, it is considered that greater flexibility can be exercisedin this precinct given its location within the heart of the Activity Centre where agreater intensity of development is encouraged. Furthermore, the building sits in acontext that has few sensitive interfaces, ensuring that it will not unreasonablyovershadow or be overbearing to neighbouring properties.

CAR PARKING

The proposal seeks a reduction in on site car parking from the statutory demand. Atotal of 43 car parking spaces are provided on site with 10 spaces in tandem. Thestatutory demand for retail, office, restaurant and residential is 82. No rate isspecified for serviced apartments. The statutory shortfall is therefore 39 spaces.

As no car parking rate is specified for the serviced apartments, this must be providedto Council’s satisfaction. In determining an appropriate number of spaces, the mostsimilar use listed in the planning scheme is Motel which has a rate of 1 space perroom. This would generate a requirement for 63 spaces. However, an existingserviced apartment use in Ivanhoe is operating at a rate of 0.5 spaces per room. Thiswould result in a requirement for 31 spaces for the serviced apartments. Adding thisto the statutory requirement of 82 spaces would result in a total requirement of 113parking spaces.

Council raised concern regarding the extent of reduction sought. This was respondedto by the applicant in a modified layout, resulting in an additional basement level anda total of 53 on site spaces. This modified design also resulted in a reduction in thenumber of apartments to 34 and serviced apartments to 42.




4.7

The statutory requirement for the modified layout is 106 spaces (using the rate ofMotel for the serviced apartments). The applicant has achieved 50% of thisrequirement outlined below in Table 1:

Use Spaces required Proposed Shortfall

Dwelling 34 (1 x 34) 34 (1 x 34) 0Servicedapartment

42 (1 x 42 based onMotel rate)

13 (0.3 x 42) 29

Retail & Café 9 (4.6 x 218.4m2) 2 (1 x 219m2) 7Office 14 (3.5 x 421m2) 4 (1 x 422m2) 10Visitor 6 (0.2 x 34) 0 6Total 105 53 52

This remains a reduction from the statutory demand. However, it is thought that themodified layout including the provision of an additional basement level is anacceptable response given the location of the site having good access to publictransport and ample short term parking nearby. In addition, the spaces provided forthe serviced apartments can be managed through the use of a valet parking servicewhich the applicant would accept as a condition of any approval granted.Furthermore, staff employed at the new retail and commercial tenancies will beaware of the extent of onsite parking available and find alternative means of transportaccordingly.

Council’s traffic engineers have assessed the revised concept plan and support thereduction on the basis that a sufficient number of short term spaces are provided onsite. This will result in one space being provided for only 65% of the two bedroomdwellings and one space for 50% of the one bedroom dwellings. This is considered tobe an acceptable outcome given the site’s access to public transport includingGreensborough railway station and numerous bus services. This should also assistto reduce car dependency in the locality.

Encouraging investment in large scape redevelopment projects such as this isimportant to continue to see Greensborough revitalise. And while the proposal wouldresult in a reduction of car parking, it is considered the site is appropriate for suchdevelopment. However, it is also considered that to balance this outcome, theapplicant should make a contribution towards improving the Main Street streetscapeand car parking opportunities to help achieve some of the aims of the Activity CentreZone. This should include improved urban design and landscaping works to enhancethe pedestrian experience and encourage walking and cycling in the centre. Acondition of any approval granted could require a contribution towards such works.

RESPONSE TO MAIN STREET PRECINCT GUIDELINES

One of the objectives of the Activity Centre Zone is to ensure that access to sunlightis maintained throughout winter. Shadow diagrams provided by the applicant indicatethat no unreasonable overshadowing will occur across the public spaces andfootpaths along Main Street. The diagrams indicate that almost no shading will occurafter 9am on 22 June (Winter solstice).




4.7

Furthermore, the revised concept shows the building as being much more of apedestrian scale and incorporates vertical articulation with a clear podium treatment.The recession of the top level ensures that the building as viewed from the street willlargely be consistent with the preferred height for this precinct. The use of morenatural materials including vertical timber battens is also welcomed and provides fora softer appearance than the original concept.

A combination of retail, commercial and food and drink is proposed at ground level,including a high use of glazing to ensure an activated frontage to the site. However,to further enhance the presentation of the building, as noted above, the applicantshould make a contribution towards streetscape improvement works along MainStreet to further the objectives of the Activity Centre Zone which identifies MainStreet as a key pedestrian area.

CONCLUSION

The proposed development in its form as submitted with the application is of a scalethat is inappropriate for the site and seeks a reduction in car parking that would resultin unreasonable impacts on the centre. However, the concept plan provided by theapplicant that reduces the height of the building and provides greater articulation anduse of appropriate materials, and increases the number of onsite car spaces isconsidered to be an acceptable response in the context of Main Street. Conditions ofany approval granted can require the changes as shown on the concept plan.Furthermore, while the scale of development is encouraged, the applicant should beasked to provide for a contribution towards streetscape improvement works toenhance the pedestrian experience along Main Street.

ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 Advertised Plans 319

2 Revised concept plans 362

3 Planning Assessment 369



4.84.8 PROACTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF

REPLACEMENT TREE PLANTING - RESULTS

Author: Amanda Cuxson - Development Planning Team Leader, CityDevelopment

Previous ItemsCouncil on 19 October 2015 (Item 8.2 - Proactive enforcement of replacement tree

planting)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Approximately 400 planning permits are issued for tree removal on private propertiesthroughout the Municipality each year, and this number is growing. The replacementof the canopy trees with indigenous canopy trees ensures the long term benefit ofvegetation on private land to Banyule’s Urban Forest continues. An Audit of 20% ofthe 400 permits issued in 2014 has recently been undertaken. Of the 80 inspections,only 27% were found to have replaced the vegetation removed. Of those, it wasfound that only seven of the plantings were in good condition, and 12 were in faircondition.

Banyule’s neighbourhood character is compromised when non-compliance withconditions is extensive, or the long term viability of vegetation is compromised. Thedegradation of the canopy tree cover will have long-term environmental, social andeconomic risks, and undermine the integrity and vitality of Banyule’s landscape andenvironment.

Whilst the compliance numbers are low, the Audit findings encouragingly revealedthat when a combination of education and investigation techniques is used, the levelof compliance increases. It is considered that refinement of the inspection regimeshould include permits issued in the previous year, but to also include permits issued5 years prior is to ensure the long-term replacement planting is surviving and is beingmaintained. It is also considered that further opportunities for education beundertaken, through dissemination of information and advice on both the regularinspection program to increase compliance, and on caring and protecting trees toreach maturity.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That Council:

1. Notes the outcomes of the Proactive Enforcement of Replacement TreePlanting Audit.

2. Enact a procedure to schedule regular proactive inspections for compliancewith permit conditions on properties which have had permits issued for treeremoval in the 12 months prior, in accordance with the Planning and BuildingEnforcement Framework.


PROACTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF REPLACEMENT TREE PLANTING - RESULTScont’d


4.8

3. Expand the inspection program to schedule inspections of properties issuedwith a removal permit issued 5 years prior, (within a 12 month period), to checkthe level of compliance with conditions for trees to remain in place over the longterm.

4. Undertake a review to ascertain whether the replacement planting ratios andpermit conditions are adequate to ensure the long-term contribution ofvegetation on private properties to Banyule’s Urban Forest.

5. Undertake an education program of owners, by sending out letters to all permitholders scheduled into the inspection program, advising of forthcoming auditsspecifying the requirement that plantings are to be in place. Education shouldalso include availability of materials to raise awareness of the protection ofexisting vegetation and replanting requirements when vegetation removal isundertaken.




CITY PLAN


BACKGROUND

Council resolved on 19 October 2015 that:

1. A report be prepared by the Development Planning Unit setting out a processto undertake a review of planning permits issued for tree removal during the2014 calendar year, and to inspect a random sample of approximately 80 of theaffected properties to ensure that the required replacement planting has beeninstalled and maintained. This report was approved at the 9 November 2015Council meeting.

2. Council also resolved on the 19 October 2015 that a further report be preparedfor Council to consider in the first quarter of 2016 to outline the actionundertaken and the level of compliance achieved. This report is to provide andexamine the results of the inspections undertaken in January and February2016.

Approximately 400 planning permits were issued for vegetation removal (notassociated with development) in 2014. To undertake the inspection Program,80 properties were inspected for compliance with conditions for replacement planting.This equates to approximately 20% of the total number of vegetation removalpermits.




4.8

Approximately 20% of the permits issued for each of the seven Wards were selectedto ensure that there was a spread of sites across the Municipality. A letter was sentto both the property owner, and where different, the permit applicant, advising themof the planned inspection to be conducted. The letter introduced the Audit andoutlined the reason for the inspection.

A briefing note was presented to Council on 7 April 2016 which provided the findingsof the audit.





INTRODUCTION

Private spaces and residential properties make up a larger percentage of the totalarea of the municipality than public areas and as such the scope for private trees tocontribute to Banyule’s urban forest, and neighbourhood and landscape character isvast. However, the mechanisms to maintain and manage tree canopy cover in privatespace can be challenging.

All vegetation on private and public land needs management, and from time to time,removal and replacement is appropriate. Conditions are included on planningpermits for tree removal to ensure that replacement vegetation is provided, andsurvives to maturity.

Inspections have been undertaken on 20% of the properties where a permit issued in2015 for vegetation removal which required replacement planting. It did not includepermits issued for development (i.e. a new or extended building) where there wasassociated vegetation removal, as replacement landscaping including canopy treeson development sites is managed through the endorsement of landscape plans, andcompliance is managed through the development permit.

DISCUSSION

Framework for data collection at inspections

A total of 80 inspections were conducted, distributed across the seven Wards:




4.8

Figure 1: Number of inspection undertaken, by Ward.

The data collected evaluated the extent of compliance with permit conditions forreplacement planting, including partial compliance. The condition of the replacementvegetation was examined, to enable a subjective analysis of the likely success of thereplacement planting reaching maturity.

Partial compliance describes:

• When only one or some of the new trees have been planted within the property,rather than all which were prescribed in the permit conditions; or

• Where one or some have died since planting.

Non-compliance was taken to be:

• Where no replacement plantings were provided; or• Where new plantings were recorded however these were not the species

prescribed and the species planted would not reach the canopy dimensionsrequired in the permit conditions.

The condition of the vegetation was rated as good, fair or poor, based on both thephysical condition and vitality of the planting, and the conditions in which thevegetation has been planted.

RESULTS

In all cases, the permit had been acted upon, and the tree or trees had beenremoved. Replacement planting was required, via permit conditions, for allproperties.

Compliance Rate:

A total of 34 of the 80 properties inspected had replacement plantings in place.However, as Figure 2 shows, the level of compliance with the conditions forreplacement planting was low, with only 27% achieving partial or full compliance withthe conditions of the permit:

9 9

16

10

1314

9

0

5

10

15

20

Bakewell Beale Griffin Grimshaw Hawdon Ibbott Olympia

Inspections Conducted - By WardInspections conducted - By Ward




4.8

Figure 2: The extent of compliance with Replacement Planting requirements

Of the 58 properties which were deemed non-compliant, there were 12 where a treehad been planted, however the tree was not the species prescribed in the permitcondition, and at maturity, the species planted would not reach the canopydimensions of the prescribed tree.

Where replacement planting had occurred, 53% were estimated to have beenplanted in the previous 3 weeks, and 47% were estimated to have been plantedwithin the previous 12 months, indicating a high proportion of replanting resulted fromforewarning of the inspection. Whilst not ideal, if the advice that the inspection wasto be undertaken resulted in compliance, then it is considered that the objective tohave the replacement tree planted has been achieved. It is considered that thisinformation is important to inform how the compliance rate can be improved in thefuture.

To determine the health of the planting in place, officers made an assessment of thehealth of the tree, in accordance with some established parameters (as outlined inthe attachment at Appendix 1).

Figure 3 below provides an analysis of the condition of the plantings, which showsthat there are no plantings in poor condition for the plantings undertaken inaccordance with the permit conditions (possibly because they have already died andbeen taken out, however this was not established). The more recent plantingsincluded some in poor condition, and it is expected that some of these will also die.Permit conditions would require that they be replaced, however the level ofcompliance with this was not explored as part of this Audit.

19

3

12

46

Analysis of quality of Repacement PlantingTree is planted and theconditions are satisfied

One or some tree/s are plantedand the conditions are partiallysatisfiedTree is planted however it doesnot meet the origin ordimensions requiredNo trees planted




4.8

Figure 3: Assessment of the condition of the replacement plantings, defined by theestimated planting timeframe.

The replacement plantings which were planted in accordance with the timeframes ofthe permit have had the benefit of time to adapt to their surrounding environment.As shown in Figure 3, of the 10 trees which were planted in accordance with thepermit conditions, a total of eight were in fair condition, and two were in goodcondition.

When this is expanded to include the plantings undertaken in the three weeks prior tothe inspection, a total of 22 properties had undertaken the replanting. Seven of thesewere in good condition, 12 were in fair condition, and three were in poor condition.

When combined with the 46 properties where no plantings were provided at all, andten where the plantings were the wrong species, this is a low success rate. Theresult, without investigation and follow up, is a compliance rate which is incompatiblewith the objective for protection and long term renewal of the urban forest on privateproperties.

Provision of satisfactory replacement planting outcomes

Ultimately, the objective in including replacement planting conditions on any permit isto replace the tree with a canopy tree of an appropriate species, which will grow tolong-term maturity.

Of the 34 occasions where a tree had been planted, 14 of those did not satisfy therequirements of the permit conditions, in that it comprised a species which is notindigenous, or the species selected will not meet the mature canopy dimensionssought to ensure the long term contribution of canopy trees on private land toBanyule’s neighbourhood and landscape character.

Overall, the results found only 20 of the 80 inspections where the condition of thepermit had been completely satisfied and another three where the condition waspartially satisfied.

0

2

4

6

8

10

FAIR GOOD FAIR GOOD POOR

Planted 3-6 months after treeremoval

Planted after audit letter sent

Assessment of Replacement Planting Condition




4.8

NEXT STEPS

Following on from the findings of the Audit, the Development Planning Unit hasalready implemented a procedure to advise owners of their obligations forreplacement planting when a permit for vegetation removal is granted. This hasbeen included as a paragraph in the permit letter to remind owners of the replantingrequirements, and also advise that future proactive inspection Audits may beundertaken to ensure compliance.

A number of further improvement opportunities to be considered include:

1. Follow up on non-compliant propertiesThe result of the Audit showed that compliance increased when notification ofthe Audit was undertaken. This would suggest that a second follow up lettersent to the owners should result in further improvement in the compliance rate.The letter should advise the owners where the replacement planting had notbeen undertaken, of the Audit’s findings, reminding them of their obligation todo so, and requiring the replacement planting to be undertaken within onemonth of the letter.

2. Introduction of a Regular Proactive Tree Inspection Audit Program –

The results demonstrate that the level of voluntary compliance is low, however,increases when notice of the Audit was given. Scheduling a regular Audit,including a letter of advice to all permit holders of the upcoming Audit, shouldincrease the impetus to comply with permit conditions for replacementplantings. Such a program will also enable Council to issue a PIN when non-compliance is found.

It is viable to inspect approximately 10% of permits issued between six and 12months prior to the Audit date, to avoid expiry of any ability to undertakeenforcement action

A supplementary Audit program could include an inspections program for thepermits issued five years prior. This would be a long-term follow up, to checkthe ongoing retention and maintenance of the replanted trees. It would alsoinform and educate owner of the ongoing obligations of the property owner toretain the tree in the long-term.

3. A review of the replacement planting requirements –

Given the moderate health of plantings of around 12 months old, and likelylonger-term attrition rate, Council could review the replacement planting ratiosto require a higher number of trees to be planted per tree to be removed, givingregard as to whether any increase in replacement planting ratios canreasonably be achieved based on the available landscape space on privateproperties.




4.8

4. Undertake a review of how Council provides information to owners relating torevegetation of their land –

The Audit revealed that the compliance rate was increased after notification ofthe Audit, and discussions with owners at the time of inspections revealed thatthey were often either not aware of their obligations to replant after thevegetation was removed, or they did not know where to get the plantings. Apositive information and education program could be developed, aimed at thepermit holder and property owners of the obligation for planting, retaining andprotecting planted trees. The information could include options of where tosource indigenous plantings, how to manage the plantings into the future, andhow the replacement planting on their land contributes to the urban forest, theneighbourhood and landscape character, and the environmental health ofBanyule.

CONCLUSION

The findings of the Audit undertaken suggest that, when a planning permit forvegetation removal is granted, the extent of voluntary compliance with conditions forreplacement planting of canopy trees is low. Therefore the environmental, social andeconomic risk to Banyule is significant.

However, when proactive information and advice is disseminated and follow upinvestigation is undertaken, the level of compliance with the planning permitconditions is improved. This results in a higher rate of replacement planting,resulting in a better long term outcome for the neighbourhood and landscapecharacter of Banyule.

The Audit also found that even when replacement planting has been provided, thelong term viability of the planted vegetation is likely to be low. It is for this reason theprovision of replacement planting, in accordance with conditions, is critical inBanyule, supported with information regarding sourcing, planting and maintainingcanopy trees to reach maturity.

The Planning Enforcement Framework identifies the level of risk of vegetationremoval as medium to high, depending on the circumstances, which requiresmanagement and implementation of controls. This loss of canopy cover on privateland adversely impacts the community on a social, economic and environmentallevel.

ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 Descriptor Table 381



4.94.9 PUBLIC OPEN SPACE PLAN

Author: Jeff Parkes - Open Space Planning Co-Ordinator, Assets & City Services

Previous ItemsCouncil on 9 May 2016 (Public Open Space Plan)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A draft Public Open Space Plan has been prepared after undertaking extensivepublic consultation. It is anticipated that the draft plan will update the previous OpenSpace Strategy which was developed in 2007. A key aim of the plan is the provisionof public open space within a 5 minute walk for residents for the purpose ofcommunity health and wellbeing. The plan’s objectives replicate the six pillars whichform the basis for the draft Melbourne Metropolitan Public Open Space Strategy,currently being prepared by the Metropolitan Planning Authority. These are:

• Quantity• Quality• Access /Connectivity• Equitable distribution• Diversity• Sustainably

The plan includes strategic actions that are intended to guide decision making inrelation to public open over the next 15 years. It is proposed that the plan be placedon public exhibition for a period of four weeks to enable the community to review theproposed strategic actions prior to the plan being presented to Council for adoption.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The draft Public Open Space Plan be placed on public exhibition for a period of4 weeks.

2. Following the public exhibition, the Plan be finalised based on commentsreceived and presented to Council for adoption.

CITY PLAN

In preparing this strategy, due consideration was given to strategic directionschampioned by the Banyule City Plan, Council’s existing Public Open SpaceStrategy, the Banyule Recreation Plan, Banyule’s draft Playspace Strategy, the StateGovernment’s “Plan Melbourne Refresh 2016” document and the MetropolitanPlanning Authority’s draft Public Open Space Strategy.


PUBLIC OPEN SPACE PLAN cont’d


4.9

The Public Open Space Strategy has strong connections to the overall Banyule CityPlan 2013-2017 at a number of levels. The stated vision of the City Plan is Banyule,a green, liveable and prosperous city, sustaining a healthy and engaged community.This is extremely compatible with the vision, guiding principle and objectives of thedraft Public Open Space Plan.

Ensuring Banyule has good quality accessible public open space available, now andinto the future for all of its residents is supported by one of the City Plan’sfundamental principles; i.e. Community Health Wellbeing. It is also supported by anumber of elements within of the City Plan’s key directions:

• Place – “Enhance Banyule’s public open spaces”• Planet- “Protect and enhance our natural environment”

• People – “Promote and support health and wellbeing”

BACKGROUND

Banyule’s current Public Open Strategy was prepared in 2007 and is due to beupdated. Council has provided funding to assist with a review and the preparation ofa new Public Open Space Plan. The plan also includes strategic direction forplaygrounds. An initial draft of the revised plan has now been prepared forconsideration.

The aim of the review is to produce a plan which will guide Council’s decision makingin relation to public open space provision for the next 15 years. During this time it isexpected that there will be a significant growth in Banyule’s population, accompaniedby an increase in population density as well as feeling the impacts of climate change.

DISCUSSION

Importance of public open space

There is an abundance of research, both in Australia and internationally, whichconfirms the important role green public open space has in the physical and mentalhealth and wellbeing of urban communities. This research indicates that the majorityof health problems society will face, now and into the future, are likely to be stressrelated illnesses, mental health problems and cardiovascular health problems. Thereis a growing body of research that indicates that access to green open spaces, be itfor experiencing the natural environment, community based activities, or structured orunstructured physical activity enhances physical and mental health and helps reducethe risk of chronic diseases.

Guiding Principle, Vision and Objectives

Guiding Principle - The overall guiding principle of the plan is “Community Health andWellbeing.” Research throughout the world supports the significant health benefits ofregular exposure to natural phenomena such as trees, plants and grass brings tohumans. Visiting public open space is often the only regular opportunity many citydwellers have to experience such natural phenomena. In addition public open spaceprovides opportunities for health giving passive and active recreation. In areas ofhigh density public open space can provide respite for the effects of climate byproviding cooling green spaces.




4.9

The plan also recognises the importance play has in the health and wellbeing on thecommunity generally, as well as in the physical, social and psychologicaldevelopment of children specifically.

Vision - A green City that provides high quality, sustainable, accessible and wellmaintained public open space within a 5 minute walk for residents

The Six Pillars of Open Space (Objectives) - The Guiding Principle and Vision aresupported by six objectives. These objectives replicate the six pillars which form thebasis for the draft Melbourne Metropolitan Public Open Space Strategy, currentlybeing prepared by the Metropolitan Planning Authority. These are:

• Quantity

• Quality

• Access /Connectivity

• Equitable distribution

• Diversity

• Sustainably

Challenges

The plan identifies a number of future challenges for Council in relation to publicopen space provision, these include:

• Population growth & residential density - particularly as a number of areaswithin Banyule have been identified by the State Government’s “PlanMelbourne Refreshed 2016 Report as having increased residential density andhigher population.

• Climate change – Melbourne’s weather patterns have been trending for sometime towards a warmer drier climate with more extreme weather events.

• Barriers to Access – Banyule has a number of significant barriers that limitaccess to public open space. These barriers include major roads, theMelbourne Hurstbridge railway line, as well as a number of significant river andcreek corridors.

• Cost of land – The high cost of purchasing land in Banyule will make itincreasingly expensive to purchase land to create new public open spaceshould this be required. The challenge for Banyule is to identify creative waysto address this issue.

• Environment – The potential for urban encroachment and predictions ofharsher climate conditions will provide future challenges to Banyule to protectand enhance nature areas and native habitat.




4.9

Opportunities

The plan identifies a number of future opportunities for Council in relation to publicopen space provision, these include:

• Community use agreements – There are a significant number of schools inBanyule, as well as land owned by a range of other public authorities, wherejoint community use arrangements could potentially be negotiated in order toadded to the quantity of public open space in Banyule where and whenrequired.

• Road and/or intersection closures – there are opportunities to potentially createnew open space by utilising road reserves, wide nature strips and in someinstances through road and/or intersection closures. This has been successfullydone in other cities around the world and there are some local examples in theCities of Melbourne, Yarra and Maribyrnong.

• Joint Projects – There are potential opportunities to work with neighbouringCouncils and other public authorities controlling public open space, such asLatrobe University and Parks Victoria to improve the quantity and quality ofpublic open space and associated facilities available for the benefit of Banyuleresidents.

• Pop up parks – There are opportunities to create short term temporary parksand/or public urban spaces intermittently, for specific periods of time or forspecial events.

• Trail Connectivity – There are opportunities to improve access by strengthenthe connectivity of the Banyule Shared Trail Network with broader MetropolitanTrails Network.

Public Open Space Levy

Since 2014 it has been Council practice to seek a 5% (of total land value) publicopen space contribution rate from subdivision applications. This is the maximum rateallowed through the Subdivisions Act. However, Council can require an open spacecontribution that is tailored to meet its local open space needs, provided the rate canbe justified via a planning scheme amendment.

A priority implementation item for the draft Public Open Space Plan is securing anappropriate, specified public open space contribution rate in the Banyule PlanningScheme. Extensive analysis must be undertaken to determine a rate sufficient tomeet increased demand for public open space, as described in this draft Public OpenSpace Plan. To identify the appropriate, specified rate a specialist consultant hasprepared an Open Space Levy Analysis. The draft report has found that a 5% flat-rate contribution across the municipality is strategically justified to meet future publicspace requirements.

For Council to achieve a specified rate for the planning scheme, the rate has to beunderpinned by a Council adopted plan that gives the strategic high-priority to updatethe planning scheme for a specified rate.

Council’s consideration of a draft Public Open Space Plan includes a strategic actionto progress a planning scheme amendment to ensure there is a sustainable level ofdevelopment contributions to public open space to meet anticipated increaseddemand due to population growth and changing community profile.




4.9CONSULTATION

A range of community engagement strategies were used during the consultationphase in order to ensure that the draft Plan reflects community views and needs. Asummary of the engagement strategies included:

1. Community on-line survey

2. Interviews/surveys at Malahang & Banyule Festivals

3. Community Workshops

4. Youth Workshops

5. Community Reference Group

6. Council Reference Groups

(a) Multi-Cultural Reference Group

(b) Disability Reference Group

(c) GLBTI Reference Group

(d) Age Friendly Reference Group

(e) Internal Reference Group (relevant Council staff)

Future Consultation

It is proposed that the draft Public Open Space Plan be placed on public exhibitionfor a period of 4 weeks. During this period it is proposed that it be placed onCouncil’s website and hard copies be placed in Council’s Customer Service Centresand at libraries within Banyule. It is also proposed to hold a public informationsession and advise the various reference groups involved in the preparation of thepublic exhibition period.

CONCLUSION

It is anticipated that this Plan will build of the actions achieved in the previous OpenSpace Strategy that was adopted in 2007. The current draft plan was developed byundertaking a substantial public consultation process to ensure that the needs of thecommunity were considered. The plan recognises the community health andwellbeing benefits of accessible public open space and replicates the draftMelbourne Metropolitan Public Open Space Strategy methodology. It is premised on6 objectives that will provide a framework in order to assist in future decision makingprocesses. The draft Plan is now ready to be placed on public exhibition forcommunity comment prior to being presented to Council for adoption.

ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 Draft Public Open Space Plan 382



4.1

0

4.10 GREENSBOROUGH WAR MEMORIALSCULPTURES

Author: Colin James - Art & Cultural Team Leader, Community Programs

Previous ItemsCouncil on 19 October 2015 (Item 2.2 - Greensborough War Memorial Park

Sculptures)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On 9 October 2015, Council resolved (CO2015/356) to apply for $50,000 fundingthrough the Federal Government, ANZAC Centenary Arts and Culture Fund, tosupport the Greensborough War Memorial Park Sculpture Project, which seeks torenew the park sculptures.

Officers were notified on 12 April 2016 that Council was unsuccessful in itsapplication for the ANZAC Centenary Arts and Culture Fund.

The total project cost was estimated at $158,000. Council’s commitment to theproject was $83,000 ($60,000 cash which is included in the draft 2016/17 budget and$23,000 in kind which includes officer time). Greensborough RSL applied for $25,000via the State Government’s Restoring Community War Memorials and Avenues ofHonour Grants Program however the application was also unsuccessful.

The projects development was accelerated to take advantage of the above fundingopportunity and to tie in with both the WW1 centenary commemorations and the 50thanniversary of the Battle of Long Tan.

Council’s Public Art Policy is currently being developed and is scheduled to bepresented to Council for adoption in August 2016. This policy is significant as it willprovide further advice for Council in relation to how to appropriately respond to publicart which has reached the end of its life.

Given the unsuccessful funding announcement it is suggested that Council continuewith the project using the allocated funds of $60,000 listed in the 2016/17 Councildraft budget and undertake the consultation and design phase of the project.

The consultation phase will include the development of a website which will be usedto collect and present community stories and document the progress of the project.The artists will also consult with key stakeholders through meetings and interviewswith veterans, families, veteran support groups and local historical societies.

Once the concepts are developed a further report will be tabled to Council forconsideration of the implementation phase. The concept plans will be revealed in anon-site event with the RSL and greater community.


GREENSBOROUGH WAR MEMORIAL SCULPTURES cont’d


4.1

0

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Note the unsuccessful outcome of the application to the Federal Government,ANZAC Centenary Arts and Culture Fund, for $50,000 to support theGreensborough War Memorial Park Sculpture Project.

.2. Note that the Greensborough RSL was unsuccessful in obtaining State

Government funding of $25,000 through the Restoring Community WarMemorials and Avenues of Honour Grants Program towards the project.

3. Continue to work in partnership with key stakeholders to commence theconsultation and concept phase of the project, with a community launch tocoincide with the Long Tan celebrations in August 2016.

4. Consider a further report to consider implementation phase and costings forproject construction




CITY PLAN

This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction to “enhance Banyule’spublic and open spaces”.

BACKGROUND

The Greensborough War Memorial sculptures have strong ownership by localresidents using the park and the local veteran community and their families. Theyhave reached the end of their contracted life and are showing signs of disrepair.Some are at a stage of degradation where it will soon be impossible to maintain themand they will need to be removed, for both aesthetic and, in some cases, safetyreasons.

On 9 October 2015, Council resolved (CO2015/356) to apply for funding through theFederal Government, ANZAC Centenary Arts and Culture Fund, to support theGreensborough War Memorial Park Sculpture Project, to maintain and renew thepark sculptures.

The project was to build on the ownership and affection for these works and expandit to commemorate service in the Borneo, Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan conflicts.This commemoration would be further enhanced with a unifying element whichacknowledges the impact of this service at home, particularly on the returned servicemen and women and their families.




4.1

0

The total project cost was estimated at $158,000. Council’s current commitment tothe project was $83,000 ($60,000 cash which is included in the draft 2016/17 budgetand $23,000 in kind which includes officer time). Greensborough RSL also appliedfor $25,000 via the State Government’s Restoring Community War Memorials andAvenues of Honour Grants Program.

Two broader outcomes of the original project were:

1. A sculptural outcome commemorating the service of residents of Banyule andsurrounding suburbs in all major theatres of war over the last century as well asthe impact of this service on their families and communities at home. Thesculpture/s will be informed by a consultation process which includes thecollection of stories of service men / women and their families from these areasand their subsequent distribution and archiving on a dedicated website.

2. Through consultation and using the principles of place-making and communitycultural development that the service of veterans from more recent conflicts willbe more broadly acknowledged in the wider community and that through thisprocess an environment will be created which supports improvements in theirmental health.

The projects development was accelerated to take advantage of the above fundingopportunity and to tie in with both the WW1 centenary commemorations and the 50thanniversary of the Battle of Long Tan. Given the delay in the funding announcementthe delivery of key milestones of the project to coincide with these anniversaries willneed to be adjusted.




It was considered that in its original form the project had the capacity to addressissues considered under section 8 of the Human Rights charter – the right torecognition and equality before the law – by educating the broader community aboutthe impacts on service men and women and their families of post-traumatic stressdisorder.

CURRENT SITUATION

Officers were notified on 12 April 2016 that Council was unsuccessful in itsapplication for $50,000 via the Federal Government, ANZAC Centenary Arts andCulture Fund.

Greensborough RSL also applied for $25,000 via the State Government’s RestoringCommunity War Memorials and Avenues of Honour Grants Program - however thisapplication was also unsuccessful.




4.1

0

LEGAL CONSIDERATION

Officers have considered the legal implication of this report and are unaware of anylegal issues which may arise.


As previously mentioned the $50,000 funding through the Federal Government,ANZAC Centenary Arts and Culture Fund has been unsuccessful and theGreensborough RSL were unsuccessful in their application for a $25,000 through theState Government’s Restoring Community War Memorials and Avenues of HonourGrants Program.

There is an allocation in the draft budget of $60,000 in 2016/17. Officers recommendthat we proceed with the consultation and design phase of the project and that afurther report be tabled after the completion of this stage to present Council with animplementation plan and funding considerations.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

While Council has an existing Public Art Strategy, a broader policy position isrequired and staff are currently developing a draft policy in consultation with theBanyule Arts and Cultural Advisory Committee.

The Public Art Policy is scheduled to be presented to Council for consideration inJuly and adoption in August 2016. This policy is significant as it will provide furtheradvice for Council in relation to how to appropriately respond to public art which hasreached the end of its life. Adoption of this policy will ensure the project has the bestpossible guidance with regards to decision making in this very complex environment.

CONSULTATION

The Greensborough RSL and the artists who were involved in the development of theapplication have been informed of the funding application outcome. TheGreensborough RSL is keen to remain a project partner however they are not in aposition at this time to provide additional funding for the project.

Given the high level of community ownership that exists with the current sculptures,officers are planning to maintain the high level of consultation with key stakeholdersincluding:

• Greensborough RSL• Veteran communities and representative organisations• Local Residents• The broader Banyule community

CONCLUSION

This is a complex project with a high level of community engagement through localresident affection for the existing works and the interests of the RSL and veterancommunities.

Given the unsuccessful funding announcement it is suggested that Council continuewith the project using the allocated funds of $60,000 listed in the 2016/17 Councildraft budget and undertake the consultation and design phase of the project.




4.1

0

The consultation phase will include the development of a website which will be usedto collect and present community stories and document the progress of the project.The artists will also consult with key stakeholders through meetings and interviewswith veterans, families, veteran support groups and local historical societies. Acommunity launch of the project to coincide with the Long Tan celebrations in August2016will be held to signify the importance of the project.

This consultation will be used by the artist to create a design for the new sculpturalworks incorporating the themes and stories.

Once the concepts are developed a further report will be tabled to Council forconsideration of the implementation phase.

The concept plans will be revealed in an on-site event with the RSL and greatercommunity.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life


5.15.1 OLYMPIC PARK - SPORTS FIELD TRAINING

LIGHTS UPGRADE

Author: Darren Bennett - Manager Leisure, Recreation & Culture, CommunityPrograms

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Heidelberg United Football Club (HUFC) has called the Olympic Park precincthome for over 35 years. The HUFC is now part of the Men’s and Women’s NationalPremier League Victoria which is one level below the A-League and provides a clearpathway to elite competition.

The supply of electricity to the area surrounding Olympic Park has been an ongoingissue for some time which may be caused by the number of infill residentialdevelopment occurring in the immediate area. This issue is outside the jurisdiction ofCouncil and HUFC however it has a profound effect on the ability for the HUFC tosafely accommodate the training needs of its members.

This report specifically relates to the existing training lights which are used for womenand junior training. A short term solution and can be delivered for an estimated$45,000 - $60,000. The HUFC have provided the technical documentation to deliverthis work which has been reviewed and approved by officers. The HUFC haverequested Council consider an allocation of funds to deliver this project in the shortterm.

While it is unusual for Council to consider a funding allocation outside of the budgetcycle, on this occasions it is appropriate given the issue is created by outsideinfluences, the preferred solution is not achievable in the short term, the HUFC willfund the majority of the project and the outcome will benefit predominantly junior andwomen members within the HUFC providing for safe training conditions.

Officers believe a contribution of $20,000 toward the cost of this project isappropriate which will be available at the completion of the project to Council’ssatisfaction.

In order for the project to proceed as soon as possible, Council will be required toconsider an allocation from the 2015/16 capital works program. There are sufficientsurplus funds within the program to accommodate this allocation.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Allocate $20,000 from the 2015/16 capital works program to assist theHeidelberg United Football Club upgrade the sports field training lights atOlympic Park.

2. Provide the funding on completion of the project to Council’s satisfaction.


OLYMPIC PARK - SPORTS FIELD TRAINING LIGHTS UPGRADE cont’d


5.1




CITY PLAN


BACKGROUND

The Heidelberg United Football Club (HUFC) has called the Olympic Park precincthome for over 35 years. Following the formation of the National Soccer League in1977, the club commenced negotiations with the City of Heidelberg to relocate fromgrounds in Fitzroy to Heidelberg.

The HUFC is now part of the Men’s and Women’s National Premier League Victoriawhich is one level below the A-League and provides a clear pathway to elitecompetition.

Council is currently preparing a Masterplan for Olympic Park which will help guidedecision making regarding the overall the precinct into the future. Olympic Park hastwo distinct precincts, the main fenced football (soccer) precinct adjacent to SouthernRoad and the broader public open space area which incorporates multipurposesports field, car parking, open space, playgrounds and the Darebin Creekenvironment. The Masterplan is scheduled to be finalised in the next few months.

The supply of electricity to the area surrounding Olympic park has been an ongoingissue for some time which may be caused by the number of residential infilldevelopment occurring in the immediate area. The Olympic Park Master Plan willprovide some further recommendations for Council to consider which will addressthis issue in the longer term.

This issue is outside the jurisdiction of Council and HUFC however it has a profoundeffect on the ability for the HUFC to safely accommodate the training needs of itsmembers.




5.1Locality Plan





CURRENT SITUATION

The football (soccer) precinct has a substantial amount of existing infrastructurewithin it which is detailed in Attachment One.

This report specifically relates to the existing training lights in area 2 which is used forwomen and junior training. The Club erected training lights in this area many yearsago. The Club applied to Council in 2014 to upgrade the lights in this area toaccommodate their women’s and junior training requirement to support theirapplication to the Women’s National Premier League bid to Football FederationVictoria (FFV).




5.1

Over time the electricity supply in the area has become inadequate to accommodatethe needs within the reserve and surrounding residential area. The most appropriateand preferred option is to Upgrade and Consolidate the supply coming into thereserve however this is very expensive (estimated at $500,000), will require detaileddiscussion with the energy supplier and is considered a long term option. A shortterm option has been identified which involves taking supply form the VIP facility(area 5) and connecting to the existing light poles in area 2.

This option provides a short term solution and can be delivered for an estimated$45,000 - $60,000. The HUFC have provided the technical documentation to deliverthis work which has been reviewed and approved by Officers. The HUFC haverequested Council consider an allocation of funds to deliver this project in the shortterm.

TECHNICAL CONSIDERATION

Council and the Club jointly funded a site investigation and commissioned RexelHoldings Australia to look at options to provide adequate supply to area 2. Theoutcome of this investigation identified a number of options which are included in thetable below:

Option CostEstimate

1 Load ‘Shedding’ – not recommended N/A2 Connection via VIP Room $45 - $60K3 Upgrading Existing Lighting on the main pitch to be more energy

efficient$400 –$850K

4 Creating New Title $100K5 Upgrade and Consolidation $500K

Option 2 is considered the most cost effective and presents the logical short termsolution.


The total project cost is estimated to be $45,000 - $60,000. The HUFC arecommitted to delivering this sport filed light upgrade to meet demand for trainingfacilities and have requested Council consider an allocation of funds to assist with thedelivery of the project in the short term.

Officers believe a contribution of $20,000 toward the cost of this project isappropriate payable at the completion of the project to Council’s satisfaction.

CONSULTATION

Officers, representatives from the HUFC and Jemena have met on a number ofoccasions to discuss the options presented prior and the specific details of thisproject. The project proposal has been reviewed and approved by the appropriateOfficers within Council.

TIMELINES

In order for the project to proceed as soon as possible, Council will be required toconsider an allocation from the 2015/16 capital works program. There are sufficientsurplus funds within the program to accommodate this allocation.




5.1CONCLUSION

While it is unusual for Council to consider a funding allocation outside of the budgetcycle, on this occasions it is appropriate given the issues is created by outsideinfluences, the long term solution is not achievable in the short term, the HUFC willfund the majority of the project and the outcome will benefit predominantly junior andwomen members within the HUFC.

ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 Football Precinct - Existing Infrastructure 438



5.25.2 SENIORS FESTIVAL MORNING TEA

Author: Catherine Simcox - Senior Community Services Development Officer,Community Programs

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The aim of the Aged Friendly Advisory Committee is to provide Council with adviceon older adult issues and ageing well in Banyule. The Committee oversees Councilsinvolvement in the World Health Organisations Global Network of Age-friendly Cities.

At its meeting of the 12 February 2016, the Banyule Age-Friendly AdvisoryCommittee made a recommendation to Council seeking support for the considerationof holding a duplicate Seniors Festival morning tea to enable a higher number ofolder people (frail and more active residents) to participate in this event.

This recommendation was presented to Council at its ordinary Council meeting on18 April as part of the minutes for the Aged Friendly Advisory Committee. This reportdetails the resource allocation that is needed to hold a duplicate event and theduplicate event is costed at $8,000.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Consider a budget allocation of $8,000 as part of its 2016/17 draft budget for aduplicate event of the Seniors festival morning tea held at The Centre Ivanhoein October 2016.

2. Consider a further report after the 2016 event to evaluate and assess seniormorning tea events provision for the future.




CITY PLAN



SENIORS FESTIVAL MORNING TEA cont’d


5.2BACKGROUND

Council enjoys supporting older people in celebrating the Seniors Festival heldannually in October. It encourages local clubs to get involved through theimplementation of small community grants and the publication of 4000 eventprograms. The costs are covered from an annual State Government grant, withminimal cost to Council.

In 2015 Council had over sixty five (65) free and low cost activities across themunicipality as part of seniors week.

The main event conducted by Council is the Seniors Festival morning tea. Each yearthis event attracts a high level of interest from older residents living in their ownhomes and from frail older residents living in supported care facilities within Banyule.

The 2015 event was fully booked out. A number of residents reported that by thetime they received the advertising material the event was already booked out.

Councillors and staff have taken numerous phone calls from disappointed residentswho were unable to access tickets. For those who attended the event it was notedthat there is a need for a larger dance floor space combined with the need tocontinue to offer space for mobility aids.




CURRENT SITUATION

The current cost of a single event (morning tea) to Council is approximately $6,000.Nursing homes and Social Support groups are invited first in August each year toascertain their seating requirements. The remaining seats at are then madeavailable for the more active residents to book.

In 2016 Council will introduce an official opening booking date which will be the firstMonday in September. Residents will also be only eligible to book up to four tickets.This will reduce groups booking an entire table and assist in getting people to mixwith others, as there will not be single group tables.

The exception to this will be the nursing home and social support group bookings.

As seen in previous years, the 2016 event includes a formal morning tea andentertainment for 350 people in the Grand Ballroom at Centre Ivanhoe. Guests willbe seated at tables with waiter staff providing beverages and food to the tables.

The entertainment for 2016 is a Beatles tribute band and an area for dancing androom for people to move around the tables and for mobility aids has beenaccommodated for in the layout.




5.2 FUNDING IMPLICATIONS

In previous years, Epicure has provided partial sponsorship of the morning tea event.Epicure cover costs for the hall hire and setup, staff and morning tea for 200 peopleto attend. Council pays for the extra 150 places and Epicure offers us a subsidisedcost for the additional food and beverages.

The event cost to Council in 2015 after sponsorship was $5,917.

If Council decide to offer a second event, it would need to be held on a different dayof the same week. It would include the same band and set up, as it would be aduplicate event. It is anticipated that the event would be at full cost to Council.

The approximate cost for the second event would be $8,700.

$1,700 for hall hire and set up,$4,200 for catering$2,800 for band hire

Total cost for two events with the same set up and entertainment $14,617.

To successfully duplicate the Seniors Festival morning tea there is a requirement toincrease the budget by $8,000 to ensure minimal impact on the Age-Friendly Banyuleprogram.

CONSULTATION

The Age-Friendly Banyule Advisory Committee at their December 2015 and February2016 meetings considered the purpose of Seniors Month and the role of the BanyuleSeniors festival morning tea.

After considering resident demand, the events ability to address age-friendly prioritiesand achieve positive outcomes for the community. At its meeting of the 12 February2016, the Banyule Age-Friendly Advisory Committee made a recommendation toCouncil seeking support for the consideration of holding a duplicate Seniors Festivalmorning tea to enable a higher number of older people (frail and more activeresidents) to participate in this event.

TIMELINES

The Banyule Seniors festival morning tea(s) will be the inaugural event of SeniorsMonth. This event will take place in the first week of October 2016.




5.2CONCLUSION

At its meeting of the 12 February 2016, the Banyule Age-Friendly AdvisoryCommittee made a recommendation to Council seeking support for the considerationof holding a duplicate Seniors Festival morning tea to enable a higher number ofolder people (frail and more active residents) to participate in this event.

This recommendation was presented to Council at its ordinary Council meeting on18 April as part of the minutes for the Aged Friendly Advisory Committee. This reportdetails the resource allocation that is needed to hold a duplicate event and theduplicate event is costed at $8,000.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil



5.35.3 DEFENCE FORCE SCHOOL OF SIGNALS

(DFSS) TO EXERCISE ITS RIGHT TO MARCHIN BANYULE CITY BY GRANTING OFFREEDOM OF ENTRY (FOE)

Author: Trish McEune - Communications Coordinator, Corporate Services

The EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council on April 4, 2016 resolved to invite the Defence Force School of Signals(DFSS) to exercise its right to march in Banyule City by Granting of Freedom of Entry(FOE) on Saturday 27 August 2016. The march and parade is proposed to take placein the forecourt of the Ivanhoe Service Centre and would be followed by a morningtea at The Centre Ivanhoe. As part of its resolution, Council requested that Officersreport back on the costs associated with the event.

This report seeks Council endorsement for the event and approval of funding fromthe 2016/17 Budget.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council approve a funding allocation of $11,000 from the 2016/17 Budget tocover traffic management and morning tea costs for granting of the Freedom of Entryfor the Defence Force School of Signals.




CITY PLAN

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

BACKGROUND

In considering a notice of motion at its meeting on 4 April 2016, Council resolvedthat:

• The Defence Force School of Signals (DFSS) be invited to exercise its right tomarch in Banyule City by Granting of Freedom of Entry (FOE).

• A report be presented to Council on the costs associated with the event.


DEFENCE FORCE SCHOOL OF SIGNALS (DFSS) TO EXERCISE ITS RIGHT TOMARCH IN BANYULE CITY BY GRANTING OF FREEDOM OF ENTRY (FOE)cont’d


5.3

Granting of Freedom of Entry upon Military Units is mostly ceremonial and gives theright of general entry to the Unit to parade through the streets on ceremonialoccasions, and to be present at official functions and ceremonies such as Anzac Dayand wreath laying services.

In accordance with military law and tradition, this gives the Unit the right to marchthrough the streets with swords drawn, bayonets fixed, drums beating, bands playingand ensign flying.

DISCUSSION

It is proposed the FOE parade would take place on Saturday, August 27 2016 withthe DFSS marching up Upper Heidelberg Road to the Ivanhoe Service Centre. Afterforming up on the south of the Service Centre, it will come to halt in the forecourtwhere a short parade will take place.

The ceremony would be followed by a morning tea reception for approximately 250people in the McCubbin Room, The Centre Ivanhoe.

The DFSS has previously been granted Freedom of Entry to the City in 1985, 1988and 2014. It is anticipated that in future this ceremony will take place every twoyears.





Indicative Costings:

Traffic management for the rolling closure of UpperHeidelberg Road, Ivanhoe

$5,000

Morning tea for 250 in The Streeton Room @ $22 per head $5,500Streeton Room (room hire) $500

The resolution of the 4 April 2016 sought consideration for the funding of theproposed event to be included in the 2016/17 budget allocations.


DEFENCE FORCE SCHOOL OF SIGNALS (DFSS) TO EXERCISE ITS RIGHT TOMARCH IN BANYULE CITY BY GRANTING OF FREEDOM OF ENTRY (FOE)cont’d


5.3

CONCLUSION

Officers have undertaken discussions with the Defence Force School of Signalsregarding the granting of its right to the March in Banyule City by granting ofFreedom of Entry in line with Council’s previous resolution. The DFSS has previouslybeen granted Freedom of Entry to the City in 1985, 1988 and 2014. This projectprovides Council with the opportunity to continue the tradition already given to theDefence Force. It is anticipated that in future this ceremony will take place every twoyears.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely


6.16.1 ITEMS FOR NOTING

Author: Gabrielle Hegarty - Council Governance Liaison Officer, CorporateServices

RECOMMENDATION

That Council note the responses received on the Victims of Crime resolution ofCouncil.

The following Minutes or Reports are presented for noting:

1 Noting of Responses: Victims of Crime - responses receivedOfficer: Gabrielle HegartyBrief explanation: Council at its meeting 21 September 2015 resolved

the following:

“That Council write to the Prime Minister and FederalAttorney General as well as every State Premier andAttorney General seeking their support for banningpublication of any material relating to any prisonerscurrently severing multiple life sentences for theirhorrific crime and stating:

• That the publication of these stories doesenormous harm to the surviving victims, familymembers, friends and associates.

• Governments have the responsibly to protect allvictims of crime against unwanted and often self-seeking publicity of these criminals.”

Council has to date received responses (lettersattached) from the following:

• The Hon Malcolm Turnbull MP Prime Minister• Senator The Hon Mitch Fifield• The Hon John Rau MP Government of South

Australia• The Hon Michael Mischin MLC Attorney General;

Minister for Commerce.• The Hon Martin Pakula MP Attorney General• The Hon John Elferink MLA Attorney General

Minister for Justice (Northern TerritoryGovernment)

• The Hon Vanessa Goodwin MLC AttorneyGeneral, Minister for Justice (TasmanianGovernment)

• The Hon David Clarke MLC ParliamentarySecretary for Justice

• The Hon Colin Barnett MLA Premier of WesternAustralia


ITEMS FOR NOTING cont’d


6.1

ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 Responses received relating to Victims of Crime 439



6.26.2 QUARTERLY FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

REPORT - 31 MARCH 2016

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Quarterly Financial Management Report for March 2016 is presented inaccordance with section 138 of the Local Government Act 1989 which requiresquarterly statements to Council on the budgeted revenue and expenditure for thefinancial year with the actual revenue and expenditure to date.

Operational Performance:

Banyule City Council (BCC) has forecast to deliver an operating surplus of $6.815m.An Underlying surplus of $3.431m for 2015/16 after adjusting for capital grants andcapital contributions.

The operating surplus is $4.898m higher than the previous quarter figure andrepresents a projected increase against the adopted budget of $4.086m

Income and expenditure are favourable to budget by $3.013m and $1.073mrespectively.

The significant contributions to the surplus are due to:

• a net gain on the disposal of assets after adjusting for property expenses• investment income due to holding greater cash balances and obtaining

competitive investment returns, and• better than expected Public Open Space contributions from completed

developments during 2015/16• Green waste disposal and waste recovery centre operating costs• Fleet management costs including fuel and insurance premiums

The Victoria Grants Commission (Financial Assistance Grants) revenue in the currentyear $2.284 million partially offsets the above (and other) favourable movements dueto receiving the 2015/16 payment in the 2014/15 financial year.

KEY variances are explained throughout the report under each activity type. (ReferAppendix: Profit & Loss Summary and Graphs – 31 March 2016)

Capital Works and Initiatives Performance:

At the end of March 2016 a total of $17.289m excluding committals has been spenton capital works and initiatives against the approved year to date budget of$34.282m (includes carry-forward projects).


QUARTERLY FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT REPORT - 31 MARCH 2016 cont’d


6.2

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1) note that the Banyule City Council (BCC) has forecast to deliver an operatingsurplus of $6.815m and this represents a projected operating surplus increaseof $4.086m against adopted budget of $2.729m. (An Underlying surplus of$3.431m for 2015/16 after adjusting for capital grants and capital contributions).

2) note that the current position is a result of efficient and prudent expensemanagement along with the ability to achieve higher than planned non-raterevenue.

3) note that based on the current forecast the Council is in a good financialposition leading into the 2016/17 budget and rate capping environment.

4) receive the Operating Financial Report for the period 31 March 2016.

CITY PLAN

This report is in line with Council’s City Plan objective to "manage our financialresources in a sustainable manner".

BACKGROUND

REPORT

The Quarterly Financial Management report comprises a review of the currentperformance against year to date budget, full year budget and full year forecast.

FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE – as at March 2016:

YEAR TO DATE (YTD) VARIANCE

The current year to date (YTD) surplus as at 31 March 2016 is tracking above YTDbudget by $3.152m.

Income is currently 3.44% unfavourable to budget due to phasing of the propertysales later in the financial year. The timing of property sales can occur during theyear but are not known at the time of setting the budget. The full year forecast hasbeen adjusted for actual proceeds and written down values to correctly reflect newprojections. All other income variances of significance have resulted in a forecastadjustment and represent a net favourable variance YTD.

Expenditure is 7.90% favourable to budget YTD with all operating expenditurecurrently favourable to YTD budget.

Capital Works and Initiatives planned spend for the year is projected to be $42.225m.The reduction in forecast against budget is partially due to projects being carriedforward into the next financial year totalling $14.616m.

(Refer Appendix: Capital Works and Initiatives Report – 31 March 2016)




6.2FULL YEAR FORECAST VARIANCES

Banyule City Council (BCC) has forecast to deliver an operating surplus of $6.815m.The 2015/2016 adopted budget is for an operating surplus of $2.729m. The varianceis $4.898m higher than the previous reported quarter and represents a full yearprojected operating surplus increase against budget of $4.086m.

The significant contributors to the movement in the operating surplus against budgetare:

Favourable variance:

• Adjusted Net Gain on Disposal of Assets - $3.118m

(offset by a reduction in Rental Income and additional expenses within thecategory Materials, Contracts and Services expense related to the sale of theproperties and legal costs)

• Investment income $1.376m

• Materials, Contracts and Services $1.343m

• Public Open Space contributions $0.949m

(this is incorporated into Contributions income however the impact has beenoffset by a number of unfavourable variances further explained throughout thereport).

Unfavourable variance:

• Grants & Subsidies – $2.483m

Recurrent: 50% of the Financial Assistance Grants for 2015/16 were paid toBanyule in June 2015 by the Victoria Grants Commission. This represented$2.284m reported as income in 2014/15 in accordance with the Legislativereporting requirements and Accounting Standards.

Capital Initiatives – Projects

• Capital initiatives

An amount of $0.517m in expenditure within the category of materials,contracts and services expense is to be carried forward to next year andtherefore will not be expensed this year. This will be offset by $0.693m capitalinitiatives grants & subsidies non-recurrent and contribution income that willalso be carried forward to next year.

Explanations for key movements, variances since December 2015 report and otherless significant variances are identified further within this report.




6.2

Quarterly forecast movement (December 2015 to March 2016)

Compared to the previous quarter, the forecast variance for both income andexpenditure has been favourable by $1.589m and $3.309m respectively. Thisrepresents a total favourable movement of $4.898m against December 2015.

The forecast movement against budget for the quarter ending March 2016 areexplained by:

INCOME:

• the proceeds of $0.500m related to property insurance claims;• $0.666m better than projected proceeds from property sales; and• $0.889m increase in investment income.

These favourable movements are offset by:

• $0.450m of contribution income that will be received next year after thecompletion of Ivanhoe Park redevelopment project; and

• $0.227m less income from waste disposal, in particular green waste.

EXPENDITURE:

• $2.912m favourable variance in Materials, Contractor, and Services categorydue to:o identified savings in vehicle insurance premiums and fuel costs; ando expenses against initiatives projected to be carried forward to next year.

• Depreciation saving of $0.475m this year due to assets not completed as perbudget; and

• a positive forecast review of $0.331m for Employee Benefit costs as a result ofvarious units not filling vacant positions and other associated staff savings;

These favourable movements are offset by Property related expenses in otherexpense category of $0.561m




6.2KEY FULL YEAR (FY) FORECAST VARIANCES ANALYSIS – MARCH 2016

The below key variances of significance for consideration are as follows:

*figures provided are rounded to the nearest $’000 - small rounding differences exist across various categories

INCOME

The total full year income forecast compared to annual budget reflects afavourable movement of $3.013m (2.24%). Details are noted below.

Description AnnualBudget$’000

Forecast$’000

Variance$’000

General Rates & Charges(Movement from December: $0.010m favourable)

(89,555) (89,949) 394

Favourable movements:

o Additional $0.394m from supplementary rates due to a number of long termdevelopments within the municipality now completed.


Forecast$’000

Variance$’000

Grants & Subsidies – Recurrent(Movement from December: $0.060m unfavourable)

(13,637) (11,153) (2,484)

Unfavourable movements:

o Victoria Grants Commission payment of $2.284m was received last year(2014/15) which has resulted in an unfavourable movement for the currentfinancial year. This amount represents 50% of the Financial Assistance Grantsfor 2015/16, which was reported as income in 2014/15 in accordance with theLegislative reporting requirements and Accounting Standards.

o Child Care Centres: $0.091m due to delay in completion of additional room inChild Care Morobe Street; although partially offset by greater than budgetedgrant income of $0.058m from Joyce Avenue (the full impact includes themovements in user fees and charges). A reduction in employee benefit costshas been forecast to manage the reduction in income.




6.2


Forecast$’000

Variance$’000

Grants & Subsidies - Non-Recurrent(Movement from December: $0.089m unfavourable)

(626) (606) (20)


o $0.180m favourable variance due to several Government Grants received thatwere not budgeted (TAC, VicHealth Walk to School, HACC and Department ofJustice).


o $0.200m unfavourable since the funding for the projects Anthony BealeRegional Play Space and Reconfiguration of Burgundy Street is expected to bereceived in 2016/17.


Forecast$’000

Variance$’000

User Fees & Charges Income(Movement from December: $0.227m unfavourable)

(16,427) (16,696) 269


o $0.319m due to increased income and revised contract negotiated forWaterMarc (Refer also contributions income where an offset of $0.269m is alsoreported. Net impact on income is $0.050m favourable).

o $0.120m due to additional income from larger bins and education programs inWaste Management area.

o $0.290 increased usage from Recreation Centre income including IvanhoeAquatic, Banyule Netball Stadium and sport grounds.


o $0.058m due to a reduced number of home delivered meals being purchasedthan budgeted. A reduction in contractor costs has been reported withinmaterials, contracts and services.

o Child Care Centres: $0.094m reduction in user fees has been forecast due toChildcare Joyce Avenue low utilization and the delay in completion of additionalroom in Child Care Morobe Street. (Refer also to grants & subsidies recurrentincome for the full impact).

o $ 0.219m due to less waste disposal at the Waste Recovery Centre (TransferCentre), in particular green waste.

o $0.095m income reduction from the Centre Ivanhoe function centre whichreflects the downturn in the wedding market.




6.2


Forecast$’000

Variance$’000

Statutory Fees & Charges(Movement from December: $0.059m favourable)

(6,860) (7,014) 154


o $0.146m favourable variance from undertaking a higher number of buildinginspections to cater for increased demand for these services.


Forecast$’000

Variance$’000

Interest income(Movement from December: $0.889m favourable)

(1,618) (2,994) 1,376


o $1.376m due to greater funds available upon which to invest and penaltyinterest income from outstanding rates and arrears. The additional cashholdings are attributed to proceeds from the sale of properties and prepaidgrant funding. Investment rates remain low.


Forecast$’000

Variance$’000

Rental Income(Movement from December: $0.009m favourable)

(1,926) (1,683) (243)


o $0.252m due to no longer receiving rental income as a consequence of thesale of 55 Main Street Greensborough. This commercial property was notbudgeted to be sold. The profit on sale is reported under ‘net gain on disposal’.


Forecast$’000

Variance$’000

Contributions Income(Movement from December:$0.456m unfavourable)

(3,094) (2,890) (204)


o $0.949m favourable due to higher than expected open space contributions.




6.2


o $0.269m unfavourable WaterMarc profit share (Refer also user fees andcharges income where an offset of $0.319m is also reported. Net impact onincome is $0.050m favourable).

o $0.250m unfavourable Stormwater Management plan which was incorrectlybudgeted as additional income of $0.750m instead of $0.500m which is forcontribution from Ivanhoe Grammar School.

o $0.450m unfavourable as it is forecast to receive the income after thecompletion of the Ivanhoe Park Redevelopment project.

o $0.040m works for the renovation of the AK Lines oval and grounds (PlentyValley Premier Cricket Club) will be deferred to next year due to externalfunding not yet being received

o $0.150m carried forward income to the next year related to Seddon ReserveNetball Courts and the reconfiguration of the Burgundy Street initiative projects.

Description Annual Budget$’000

Forecast$’000

Variance$’000

Other Income(Movement from December: $0.668m favourable)

(130) (777) 647


o $0.142m from sale of right of way.

o $0.500m property insurance claims.


Forecast$’000

Variance$’000

Net Gain on Disposal Of Infrastructure,Properties, Plant & Equipment Income(Movement from December: $0.666m favourable)

(310) (3,428) 3,118


o $3.118m due to known variations against the budgeted expected saleproceeds, written down value and/or timing related to properties held for sale.The variance includes 2 properties that have been sold during the year butwere not budgeted to be sold.




6.2EXPENDITURE

The total full year expenditure forecast compared to annual budget reflects afavourable movement of $1.073m (0.81%). Details are noted below.


Forecast$’000

Variance$’000

Employee Benefits(Variance to December: $0.331m favourable)

58,302 58,605 (303)

Favourable movement:

o $0.130m adjustment to salaries due to the delay in the completion of anadditional room in Child Care Morobe Street. (Refer also to grants & subsidiesrecurrent income and users, fees & charges).

o $0.261m savings are mainly due to a number of business units delaying thefilling of vacant positions or when staff are acting in other position, not replacingthese roles temporarily. These staff vacancies offset some of the netunfavourable movements noted below.


o Net divisional realignment costs within ‘Finance and Procurement’ and ‘Assetsand Infrastructure’ $0.192m –

This is anticipated to be a short term net effect where increased costs projected for2015 and 2016 will be partially offset from savings in other areas across therespective divisions within the same financial year. A favourable variance,related to not filling of vacant position or backfill of staff, has significantlyreduced the net impact of these realignments. Other reductions noted inemployee benefits have been offset by an increase in contractor costs. Theoutputs from these realignments will be monitored to ensure benefits arerealised in the longer term.

o Development Planning Unit $0.283m due to additional planning resources tocope with demand as authorised by Council.

o Health and Aged Services: $0.381m includes newly State funded AgedPlanning position $0.110m, and $0.271m due to additional salary and travelrelated costs for Home and Community Care services (the impact is offset inpart by $0.180m from the reduction in contractor costs net impact on surplusposition is $0.091m unfavourable).




6.2


Forecast$’000

Variance$’000

Materials, Contracts & Services(Variance to December: $2.912m favourable)

37,415 36,072 1,343

Favourable movement:

o A significant overall saving at the Waste Recovery Centre (Transfer Station) of$1.118m is generated by external influences, such as extremely dry weather,low fuel price and insurance premium charges. This results in savings acrossthe below areas:

• Disposal of Waste to landfill, $0.131m• Green waste disposal by Banyule and residents at the Waste Recovery

Centre due to the dry weather conditions, $0.292m• Fleet operating costs $0.492m - mainly due to continual low fuel prices

and lower than expected fleet insurance premiums.• Waste Recovery Centre (Transfer Station) general operating costs,

$0.302m

o $0.517m is projected to be carried forward to next year for the initiative projectsscheduled for this current year.

o Insurance premium on property and public liability $0.276m, as a result of achange of insurer after a competitive procurement process was undertaken.

o $0.180m from the permanent net saving several initiative projects in2015/2016.

o Only $0.080m of favourable movement contributed by the contractors cost.

Unfavourable movement:

o Capital projects expense of $0.384m included in the overall budget for – theGreensborough staff accommodation and community facilities – split betweencapital and operating costs of the project.

o Sale of properties cost $0.275m in total. The unfavourable movements will beoffset by capital sale proceeds reported within the category above ‘Net Gain onDisposal of Assets’ currently reported at $3.153m favourable variance tobudget.

o Unfavourable material cost of $0.112m is mainly due to the 40% increase inAustralia Post charges ($0.070m).




6.2


Forecast$’000

Variance$’000

Depreciation Expenses(Variance to December: $0.475m favourable)

19,594 19,119 475


o Depreciation can only be applied against assets that have been completed andare ready for use. For this year a variance to budget has been forecast fordepreciation related to those assets that have been carried forward into thenext financial year, or have been completed within the financial year but aftertheir budgeted completion date.


Forecast$’000

Variance$’000

Other Expenses(Variance to January: $0.561m unfavourable)

1,839 2,434 (595)


o $0.581m associated property expenses incurred to support in a favourable netposition for Council upon the sale and/or purchase of properties within themunicipality.

CAPITAL WORKS AND INITIATIVES:

The total Capital Works and Initiatives for the year 2015/16 is budgeted to be$45.55m plus a carry forward of $10.25m which makes the total capital works &initiatives budget for 2015/16 of $55.801m (including labour capitalisation of $0.900mand operating assets capitalisation of $0.769m). The budget, excluding labourcapitalisation and operating assets capitalisation, is $54.132m.

At the end of March 2016 a total of $17.289m was spent on capital works andinitiatives. This is behind scheduled spend by $16.992m of the YTD budget of$34.282m due to timing and delay in commencement of some projects.

In addition to the actual spend of $17.289m committals for works have been raisedfor $5.43m, total $22.72m, compared to YTD budget of $34.282m. An initial carryforward of $6.88m has also been predicted for various projects.

Refer attachment – Capital Works & Initiatives Report – 31 March 2016.

OTHER KEY INFORMATION

Council Investments

The official cash rate as set by the RBA is currently 2% which has been stable since6 May 2015 (down from 2.25%). Council is placing its investments in Term Depositswith major and second tier banks.




6.2

Despite the low interest rates Council’s investments have continued to be held inhigh rated short term Bank Term Deposits. Currently the Term Deposits are earninga weighted average of 2.97% as at 31 March 2016.

Council cash and cash equivalent investment comparison:

Note: Restricted Funds includes restricted funds and funds subject to future intended allocations

Contributing to the higher cash balances include last year school site sales andunexpended grants and contributions (included Victoria Grants Commission incomereceived early in 2014/15). As such the cash balances are expected to reduce whenthe Greensborough office accommodation project and other capital projects arefurther advanced.

Competitive rates are actively sort when funds are to be invested. Tier 2 banks are,however, less competitive in their offering of term deposit rates as compared to largerproviders.

Banyule City Council is compliant with its current investment policy.

-

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

Jun-15 Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16

Mill

ion

s

Cash and Cash Equiv. & Financial Assets

Restricted Funds Available Funds

Closing Balance 2014/15 - Annual Report Closing Balance 2015/16 - Budget




6.2

Term deposits are all currently held with A1+ and A2 rated banks (Standard & Poor’sShort Term Rating.) with an individual exposure to institutions as follows:

Fossil Fuel Divestment:

In line with the Council report item 3.2 ‘Fossil Fuel Divestment’ on the 9 November2015 Council Agenda reaffirmed Council’s commitments to clean energy through itsinvestments.

The paper stated that the City of Banyule has no direct investment (Shareholdings) inany fossil fuel companies or fossil fuel aligned companies. Council has committed tonot directly invest in any fossil fuel or fossil fuel aligned companies into the future andis working towards reducing our indirect investment in fossil fuels; but also requiredto continue to deliver a competitive investment return.

Banyule City Council has made an assessment during the month of availableinvestment returns as provided by some of the banks, credit unions and buildingsocieties that are not funding fossil fuels. The current investment made with theseinstitutions is 5%.

Days Outstanding – Creditors / Debtors

Rates Outstanding:

Rate debtors include general rates, municipal charge, additional waste servicecharges and Fire Services Property Levy (FSPL) balances.

For the 2015/16 year Banyule City Council has levied in total $102.27m in ratesrevenue (including Fire Services Property Levy and supplementary charges) of whichthe total outstanding amount is $24.106m*.

*includes arrears, interest and legal charges

Suncorp5%

CBA7%

NAB40%

Bank ofMelbourne

24%

Bankwest24%




6.2

The outstanding balance as at 31 March 2016 of $24.106m is 22.70% of adoptedrate income. Rate payment trends are now forming a more defined pattern withinstalment due dates, this is the third year rates have been payable by instalmentsonly.

4th Instalment – 31 May 2016

Refer attachment 3 – Comparison of Rates Debtors Outstanding

Debtors Ratios – Quarterly Update

Accounts Receivable:The accounts receivable function of Council raises revenue and collects paymentsfor Children's centres, HACC services, Health Department, Leisure bookings,Banyule BPI and sundry accounts. (This function does not include revenue for thePlanning Department, Animal registrations, BLFM, and parking infringements asthese are currently decentralised).

o The current accounts receivable turnover ratio is 11.87 (March 2016), this is adecrease from 12.45 (March 2015).

Accounts receivable turnover ratio is a measure of how efficiently anorganisation performs in converting its credit sales/services to cash. A highratio is preferred as a low ratio indicates that collection of payments may belagging. 12-month rolling period is the basis of the calculation.

o The current accounts receivable days are 30.76 (March 2016), this is anincrease from 29.33 (March 2015).

Receivable days are a measure of the average number of days that anorganisation takes to collect revenue after a sale/service has been made.

12-month rolling period is the basis of the calculation.

Creditors:all creditor invoices are paid within 30 days when received by accountspayable. Remaining invoices related to March 2016 will be keyed into the financialsystem and paid in the last week of April 2016.

CONCLUSION

Banyule City Council (BCC) has forecast to deliver an operating surplus of $6.815mand this represents a projected operating surplus increase of $4.086m againstadopted budget of $2.729m.

The current position is a result of efficient and prudent expense management alongwith the ability to achieve higher than planned non-rate revenue.

Based on the current forecast the Council is in a good financial position leading intothe 2016/17 budget and rate capping environment.




6.2

ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 Capital Works and Initiatives Report - 31 March 2016 450

2 Profit and Loss Summary and Initiatives - 31 March 2016 454

3 Rate Debtors Outstanding - 31 March 2016 456



6.36.3 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 ispresent or;A planned or scheduled meeting of at least half of the Councillors and one memberof 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 isrequired to report as soon as possible to an Ordinary Meeting of Council a record ofany assemblies of Councillors held. Below is the latest listing of notified assembliesof Councillors held at Banyule City Council.

RECORD OF ASSEMBLIES

1 Date of Assembly: 11 April 2016

Type of Meeting: Council Briefing

Matters Considered: 1. One Flintoff Street Honour Boards & MeetingRoom NamesDisability Review

2. Disability Review Update3. Strategic Planning Group4. Heidelberg & Bell Street Mall Parking Plan5. Chandler Highway Bridge

Councillors Present: Steven BriffaMark Di PasqualeCraig LangdonTom MelicanJenny MulhollandWayne Phillips

Staff Present: Simon McMillan – Chief Executive OfficerAllison Beckwith – Director Community ProgramsScott Walker – Director City DevelopmentGeoff Glynn – Director Assets & City ServicesMarc Giglio – Director Corporate ServicesKate Chapell – Greensborough Office ProjectCoordinatorLisa Raywood – Manager Health & Aged ServicesShaun Nielson – Community & Social PlannerGiovanna Savini – Manager Youth & Family ServicesRebecca Lonie – Jets Arts Respite OfficerFrances – Co-ordinator Youth & CommunityPartnershipsMichael Hutchison – School Sites Redevelopment


ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS cont’d


6.3

Project CoordinatorJoseph Tabacco – Manager Property & EconomicDevelopmentJeanette Kringle – Property Co-ordinatorBailey Byrnes – Transport Planning Team LeaderDaniel Kollmorgen – Manager Transport,Sustainability & Municipal Laws

Others Present: Nil

Conflict of Interest: Nil


Type of Meeting: Councillor Briefing

Matters Considered: Items on the Council Agenda for theOrdinary Meeting of 18 April 2016 (excludingconfidential items) as listed below:

1.1 Westley Avenue, Ivanhoe - Petition toIncrease Parking Enforcement

4.1 Heidelberg and Bell Street Mall ParkingPlan

4.2 Renaming the Reserve in CaseyCrescent, Viewbank

4.3 Leith Walk, Macleod - Permanent RoadClosure Between Munro Street andBraid Hill Road

5.1 Olympic Village 60th AnniversaryHistory Project

6.1 Councillor Motions - Status Update6.2 72 Turnham Avenue, Rosanna -

Widening of proposed accessway6.3 Preparation of City Plan 2013-2017

(Year 46.4 Preparation of Budget for Period 1 July

2016 to 30 June 20176.5 Items for Noting6.6 Assembly of Councillors6.7 Proposed Local Government (Electoral)

Regulations 2016 – Submission7.1 Sealing of Documents8.1 Consideration of Air Conditioning units

in development outcomes8.2 Great Forest National Park8.3 Watsonia Station Infrastructure and

Amenity ImprovementsCouncillors Present: Mark Di Pasquale

Rick GarottiCraig LangdonTom MelicanJenny MulhollandWayne Phillips




6.3

Staff Present: Simon McMillan – Chief Executive OfficerAllison Beckwith – Director Community ProgramsScott Walker – Director City DevelopmentGeoff Glynn – Director Assets & City ServicesMarc Giglio – Director Corporate ServicesKellie O’Shea – Senior Governance OfficerDaniel Kollmorgen – Manager Transport,Sustainability & Municipal LawsBailey Burns –Transport Planning Team Leader

Others Present: Nil



Type of Meeting: Multicultural Advisory Committee

Matters Considered: 1. Engagement with Victorian MulticulturalCommission

2. Cultural Diversity Week 2016 – summary3. Bell Street Mall Cultural Precinct4. Northland Prayer Space5. What Happened at the Pier – Exhibition of

Migration Stories6. Victorian Multicultural Commission Grants

Councillors Present: Mark Di PasqualeCraig LangdonTom MelicanJenny Mulholland

Staff Present: Theonie Tacticos – Team Leader Community &Social PlanningIndia Mortlock – Community & Social PlannerLisa Raywood – Manager Health & Aged Services

Committee MembersPresent:

Bev Moss, Rosemary Crossthwaite, George Guiliani,Simeon Yang, Hussein Haraco, Jane Grace, AminaGadid, Lela Carridi and Stavros Zikou


4 Date of Assembly: 2 May 2016

Type of Meeting: Councillor Briefing

Matters Considered: 1. Metropolitan Planning – Latrobe EmploymentCluster Framework Plan Consultation

2. Greensborough War Memorial Park Sculptures3. Residential Parking Permit Policy4. Child Youth & Family Plan5. Disability Review6. Open Space Strategy7. Quarterly Financial Report Update

Councillors Present: Steve BriffaMark Di PasqualeRick GarottiCraig LangdonTom Melican




6.3

Jenny MulhollandStaff Present: Simon McMillan – Chief Executive Officer

Allison Beckwith – Director Community ProgramsScott Walker – Director City DevelopmentGeoff Glynn – Director Assets & City ServicesMarc Giglio – Director Corporate ServicesJoseph Tabacco – Manager Property & EconomicDevelopmentColin James – Arts and Cultural Services TeamLeaderMichael Hutchison – School Sites RedevelopmentGiovanna Savini – Manager Youth & Family ServicesLisa Raywood – Manager Health & Aged ServicesShawn Neilson – Community & social PlannerPeter Benazic – Manager Parks & GardensJeff Parks – Open space Planning Co-OrdinatorFae Ballingall – Strategic Planner

Others Present: Members of the Metropolitan Planning Authority:Peter Seamer, Paul Burn, Lucy Botta


RECOMMENDATION

That the Assembly of Councillors report be received.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil



6.46.4 SALE OF 14A BANNERMAN AVENUE,

GREENSBOROUGH

Author: Michael Hutchison - Projects Coordinator, City Development

Ward: Bakewell

Previous ItemsCouncil on 14 December 2015 (Item 6.3 - Sale of 14A Bannerman Avenue,

Greensborough)

Council on 19 October 2015 (Item 6.1 - 14A Bannerman Avenue, Greensborough -Notice of Intention to sell)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

At its Ordinary Meeting of 14 December 2015 Council considered a report regardingthe sale of a surplus drainage reserve known as 14A Bannerman Avenue,Greensborough. Council resolved that:

1. Having complied with sections 189 and 223 of the Local Government Act 1989:a. by giving public notice;b. providing an opportunity to be heard at Council’s Ordinary Meeting of

14 December 2015;c. and no submissions having been received;

Council offers for sale of the former drainage reserve known as 14ABannerman Avenue, Greensborough (the subject land) to the owners of 14 and18 Bannerman Avenue, Greensborough.

2. A further report be considered in relation to the sale terms associated with theland.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Sell the 405m² of former drainage reserve land at the rear of 14 and18 Bannerman Avenue, Greensborough (subject land), now known asLot 1, 14A Bannerman Avenue (318m2) to owner of 14 Bannerman Avenue;and Lot 2, 14A Bannerman Avenue (87m2) to owner of 18 Bannerman Avenue.

2. Consider a further report in relation to confirming the final negotiated price forthe sale of the respective parcels of land.

3.





SALE OF 14A BANNERMAN AVENUE, GREENSBOROUGH cont’d


6.4CITY PLAN

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

BACKGROUND

Council is the owner of the land known as 14A Bannerman Avenue, Greensborough(subject land) which is situated between the Plenty River and the rear of 14 and 18Bannerman Avenue, Greensborough.

The subject land, shown hatched in the plan in Figure 1, has an area of 405m² and isconsidered surplus to Council’s and the community’s needs. This is because thesubject land is land locked, subject to significant overland flow, has negativetopography and is inaccessible to Council for maintenance purposes.

Figure 1: Locality Plan of 14A Bannerman Avenue, Greensborough (hatched)

It is understood that the subject land was set aside as reserve in a plan of subdivisionin 1979 (by the former Diamond Valley Council) for drainage and municipal purposes.Whilst it is unclear why the subject land was set aside as a reserve in isolation, it issurmised that it was intended to reserve land along the river should subdivisionsalong the north side of the Plenty River continue.




6.4

Further subdivisions within the vicinity of the subject land did not occur over time andconsequently, the subject land remains inaccessible and landlocked.

At its ordinary meeting of 14 December 2015 Council determined that there is nostrategic or long term purpose for retaining ownership of the subject land.


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

In developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered inaccordance with the requirements of the Charter. In particular, Section 20 (PropertyRights) which provides that “A person must not be deprived of his or her propertyother than in accordance with law”.

It is considered that the subject matter does not raise any human rights issuesbecause Section 189 of the Act gives Council the legislative power to sell land ownedand vested in Council’s name. Section 223 of the Act also provides an opportunity forany person to make a submission with respect to such proposal.

CURRENT SITUATION

Negotiations with the owners of number 14 and 18 Bannerman Avenue,Greensborough have progressed. The following has been proposed:

• Sale of Lot 1 (318m2) as identified in Figure 2, to owner of 14 BannermanAvenue.

• Sale of Lot 2 (87m2) as identified in Figure 2, to owner of 18 BannermanAvenue.

• Each party be responsible for their own conveyancing and legal costs.• The title to the newly acquired land be consolidate with the respective adjoining

titles as a condition of sale.




6.4

Figure 2: proposed plan on subdivision 14 Bannerman Avenue, Greensborough

As both adjoining land owners are interested in purchasing parts of the subject land,a plan of subdivision was prepared and application lodged. Planning PermitP200/2016 was issued by Banyule City Council for the reservation removal andsubdivision of the subject land on 14 April 2016. The plan is certified and a Statementof Compliance has been issued. It is now with Land Registry for registration viaCouncil’s legal representative.


On 11 April 2016 Council’s City Valuer assessed the subject land, and highlightedthe following:

a) The subject land is “land locked” which restricts the options for alternative saleor transfer of the land via the market. Therefore, sale by negotiation is the onlyoption.

b) The subject land is subject to controls under the Banyule Planning Scheme, inparticular inundation overlay and significant overland flow.

c) The negative topography, shape and steepness of the site in close proximity tothe Plenty River, would restrict any form of development.

d) Existing vegetation is likely to restrict any form of development.

Further discussion in relation to the valuation is reported to Council under a separateconfidential paper.

TIMELINES

After registration is completed at Land Registry, preparation documents to effect thesale completed and depending on the capacity of the purchasers, settlement couldbe achieved in during June 2016.




6.4 CONCLUSION

It has previously been determined by Council that there is no strategic or long termpurpose for retaining ownership of the subject land.

The proposal to offer for sale the subject land to the abutting owners 14 and 18Bannerman Avenue, Greensborough, should be supported on the basis is surplus toCouncil’s and the community’s needs.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil



6.56.5 EXTENSION FOR BANYULE SUPPORT AND

INFORMATION CENTRE 'S (BANSIC) USE OF80 HAWDON STREET UNTIL 31 JULY 2016

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

File: D16/71771

Previous ItemsCouncil on 22 April 2013 (Item 2.1 - Relocation of Banyule Support and Information

Centre (BANSIC))

Council on 14 April 2014 (Item 6.3 - Community Information and Support ServicesReview)

Council on 5 May 2014 (Item 6.3 - Community Information and Support ServicesReview)

Council on 7 September 2015 (Item 5.2 - Community Information and SupportServices - Integrated Service Model)

Council on 21 September 2015 (Item 5.3 - Community Information and SupportServices - Service Model)

Council on 7 March 2016 (Item 6.6 - Community Information and Support Services -Shop 48 The Mall, West Heidelberg)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council resolved on 21 September 2015 to reconfirm its commitment to a CommunityInformation and Support Service model with a service presence in the geographiclocations of Heidelberg West and Greensborough and seek a service provider for thenew West Heidelberg site via a public tender process.

Following an unsuccessful public tender outcome, Council proceeded to engage aconsultant as Facility Manager, to deliver on the Community Information and SupportService objectives for Shop 48 – The Harmony Centre in West Heidelberg, includingthe development of a strategic plan for the facility and overseeing the establishmentof the overall service centre with co-located services providers at the site.

At its meeting of 7 March 2016 Council resolved to:

1. Reconfirm its commitment to a consistent Community Information and SupportService model across Banyule municipality with a service presence in thegeographic locations of Heidelberg West and Greensborough.

2. Following the establishment of the new service centre in West Heidelberg,enter into new service level agreements across both service centres thatensure consistent service outcomes across the municipality for both the northand south service locations.

3. In relation to the lease at 80 Hawdon Street, Heidelberg, currently occupied byBanyule Support and Information Centre (BANSIC) and Volunteers of Banyule(VOB), give formal notice of Council’s intent to extend the current leasearrangements for a further three months until 30 June 2016.


EXTENSION FOR BANYULE SUPPORT AND INFORMATION CENTRE 'S(BANSIC) USE OF 80 HAWDON STREET UNTIL 31 JULY 2016 cont’d


6.5

Since this time Council has undertaken an Expression of Interest (EOI) processbetween the 18 April and 2 May 2016 for community information service providersand volunteer organisation’s to be co-located at Shop 48 - The Harmony Centre toprovide a full range of services to the community.

These submissions are currently being assessed.

Correspondence has been received from Banyule Support and Information Centre(BANSIC) on 28 April 2016, requesting Council consider an extension for them tovacate the premises at 80 Hawdon Street, Heidelberg from 30 June 2016 to31 July 2016 to allow for the finalization of the EOI process.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council give formal notice to Banyule Support and Information Centre (BANSIC)of its intent to extend the current arrangements for use of 80 Hawdon Street,Heidelberg, until 31 July 2016.




CITY PLAN

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

BACKGROUND

Council has made a number of resolutions over the past two years towards theestablishment of an integrated community information and volunteer support servicefor Banyule. This was the result of a review in 2013 of the three Council fundedagencies which delivered these services.

The overall objective of the new service model is to provide an integrated communityinformation and volunteer support service in the City of Banyule that encouragescollaborative partnerships in the sector and promotes community health andwellbeing, community connectedness and enjoyment of life.

Two satellite sites formed part of the new model one operating from Greensborough(currently serviced by DVCS) and the second located at Shop 48 The Mall WestHeidelberg (Shop 48).




6.5

Over the past two years, Council has worked closely with Volunteers of Banyule(VOB), Banyule Support and Information Centre (BANSIC) and Diamond Valleycommunity Support (DVCS) to achieve a merger to a new service which woulddeliver the integrated community information and volunteer support service inBanyule. It was anticipated that Council funding allocated to each of the threeagencies would subsequently be combined and redirected to the new ‘merged’service. Unfortunately, the merger negotiations were unsuccessful.

As a result, in late 2015 Council resolved to continue with its decision to establish anintegrated service model redirecting existing funding. DVCS was refunded to deliverthe Greensborough satellite site for the next three years.

The remaining funds previously allocated to BANSIC and VOB have been allocatedto the delivery of a satellite site at Shop 48. A public tender was offered for themanagement and delivery of a community information and volunteer support servicefrom Shop 48 as the second satellite site. Ultimately, no suitable tenders werereceived, and as a result Council determined to abandon the tender process andestablish and operate Shop 48 directly for the next 18 months during which time it willbring in and partner with a range of collocated services with the intention oftransitioning the service to a full community based model from July 2017.

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

It is also being planned for all current and past volunteers of VOB along with othervolunteers to be invited to visit Shop 48 once operational in the coming weeks,presenting the space and inviting individuals to engage and express interest involunteering through this new service centre.

Council has undertaken an Expression of Interest (EOI) process between the 18 Apriland 2 May 2016 for community information service providers and volunteerorganisations to be co-located at Shop 48 - The Harmony Centre to provide a fullrange of services to the community.








6.5

TIMELINES

Council officers are working closely with the engaged consultant in the establishmentof the community information and support service in West Heidelberg. The EOI forco-located services are currently being assessed and expect to be finalised by theend of May 2016 with intent to have services co- located as soon as possible.

CONCLUSION

Correspondence has been received from BANSIC on 28 April 2016, requestingCouncil consider an extension for them to vacate the premises at 80 Hawdon Street,Heidelberg from 30 June 2016 to 31 July 2016 to allow for the finalization of the EOIprocess.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Sealing of Documents


7.17.1 SEALING OF DOCUMENTS

Author: Vivien Ferlaino - Governance Co-ordinator, Corporate Services

RECOMMENDATION

That Council authorise the Chief Executive Officer, Simon McMillan to sign theagreement between the Victorian Electoral Commission and Council.

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

1 PARTY\PARTIES: Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC) and BanyuleCity Council

OFFICER: Vivien FerlainoDOCUMENT: AgreementADDRESS: N/AWARD: AllBRIEF EXPLANATION: The recent changes to the Local Government Act

1989 (Improved Governance Amendments) havemade the Victorian Electoral Commission thestatutory election service provider for LocalGovernment elections. The changes have removedthe requirements to publically tender for electionservices or seek exemptions from the Minister.

The VEC have issued Council with an agreement forfour years commencing 1 July 2016. This includesany contingencies for by-elections.

The Quote for the election service is $720,910.75.

Council is required to authorise the Chief ExecutiveOfficer to sign the agreement.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Notice of Motion


8.18.1 SPIRIT WALK BABARRBUNIN BEEK

Author: Cr Craig Langdon

TAKE NOTICE that it is my intention to move:

“That Council prepare a report for consideration on 30 May 2016 regarding theconsideration of the employment of an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander CulturalDevelopment worker to assist with the further development of the CommemorativeSpiritual Walk and the further activation of the Babarrbunin Beek Gathering Place.”

Explanation

On 5 May 2014, Council resolved to establish Babarrbunin Beek Aboriginal meetingspace at the Fred Howe Annex, and has since allocated more than $75,000 to therefurbishment of the building. The building is leased and managed by BanyuleCommunity Health.

On 21 Sep 2015 a Notice of Motion was moved to cost, plan and if approved,construct a Commemorative Spiritual Walk at Babarrbunin Beek.

The Banyule Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Advisory Committee have advisedthat the best outcomes for the Spirit Walk will be achieved if the design and scopingof this project is undertaken by an Aboriginal cultural development worker inpartnership with the local community. This way the project can also have a furtherbenefit of supporting the activation of the Babarrbunin Beek space.

At its meeting of the 14 April 2016, the Banyule Aboriginal & Torres Strait IslanderAdvisory Committee has made a recommendation to Council to consider theemployment of an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Development worker.

CR CRAIG LANGDONOlympia Ward

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Notice of Motion


8.28.2 MANAGING AMENITY IMPACTS AND

CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY FOR LARGEDEVELOPMENT SITES

Author: Cr Jenny Mulholland


“That a report be prepared which reviews the management of amenity impacts, carparking and construction activity for large development sites. The review shouldconsider:

• Construction management plans and when they should be used;• Construction activity which impacts on Council assets and the functioning of

roads, footpaths, car parks and other public spaces;• Construction vehicle and worker car parking impacts;• Resourcing required to better manage construction activity within the

municipality.”

Explanation

Council has a key role in the management of construction activity associated withdevelopment sites. With a significant increase in building activity in recent years,including large developments within activity centres there has been a noticeableincrease in amenity impacts associated with these sites.

Whilst construction management plans are put in place and Council undertakesinspections and enforcement in accordance with the relevant legislation there isconcern that the impacts are continuing and need to be further addressed. The‘Evergreen’ development in Westley Avenue Ivanhoe is an example of a large multilevel apartment development which is under construction at the moment and causingamenity impacts. There are times when Westley Avenue is blocked to the public andthe streets are filled with construction vehicles, cranes, delivery vehicles anddevelopment materials. The adjoining public car park is also filled with constructionworker vehicles from early in the morning which prevents visitors to the IvanhoeShopping strip from parking there. These sorts of activities are impacting not only theamenity of the area but also the customer base for the nearby Ivanhoe shops.

A review of how these large development sites are managed should be undertakenso that Council can consider whether there should be changes and improvements.

CR JENNY MULHOLLANDGriffin Ward

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Notice of Motion


8.38.3 SAFETY AND AMENITY IMPROVEMENTS -

ROSANNA ROAD AND STATION STREET,ROSANNA

Author: Cr Tom Melican


“That Council writes to the Minister for Roads and Ports, Luke Donnellen, local StateMembers and senior VicRoads representatives, to organise an onsite meeting onRosanna Road, to discuss possible safety and amenity improvements.”

Explanation

VicRoads has undertaken a safety assessment of the Rosanna Road / Station Streetintersection. At the same time, Council has done an assessment of issues at theRosanna Road / Banyule Road intersection.

There have been some improvements at the Rosanna Road / Darebin Streetintersection, however more improvements are still required.

Several recent accidents on Rosanna Road have further highlighted the safety andamenity concerns, and caused gridlock and damage in surrounding streets.

We need to work with the State Government to improve safety along Rosanna Road.

CR TOM MELICANIbbott Ward

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Notice of Motion


8.48.4 DEDICATION AND LAUNCH OF NEW

RESERVE CELEBRATING MARGARETHEATHORN OAM

Author: Cr Craig Langdon

Ward: Olympia


“That a Report be presented to Council which considers:

1. An appropriate event for the launch of the new park proposed to be located atthe former school site at 229 Banksia Street, Ivanhoe, which invites the localsurrounding community, family of Margaret Heathorn OAM and homepurchasers from the new development.

2. The most appropriate location within the development site for the reinternmentof the time capsule.”

Explanation

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

The preferred name of the reserve is Margaret Heathorn Park. As many peopleknow, Margaret was a local Ivanhoe identity and a tireless community volunteer whowas recognised by receiving an OAM. Further, when demolishing the old schoolbuildings on the site a time capsule was discovered. The capsule was buried in 1985and is due to be opened in 2035. It is proposed that the new reserve will contain aunique designed quality colour interpretative piece with storyboard and photographswhich highlights the life of Margaret Heathorn OAM. Consideration of the mostappropriate location within the development site for installation of a gabion wall withan explanatory plaque that has the capacity to reintern the time capsule until 2035should also be considered.

An event to event to launch and showcase the new reserve that includes localsurrounding community, family of Margaret Heathorn OAM and home purchasersfrom the new development should be held.

CR CRAIG LANGDONOlympia Ward

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

ATTACHMENTS

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 9 MAY 2016Page 137

2.2 Draft Child Youth and Family Plan 2016-2020

Attachment 1 DRAFT Child Youth & Family Plan 2016-2020 .............................. 138

2.4 Disability Review - Provision of services within the National Disability InsuranceScheme (NDIS)

Attachment 1 Disability Review - Stage One - SUMMARY - July 2015............... 205

4.1 Residential Parking Permit Policy 2016-2020

Attachment 1 Residential Parking Permit Policy 2016-2020 ................................ 219

Attachment 2 Residential Parking Permit Policy - Consultation FeedbackSummary....................................................................................... 233

4.3 Chandler Highway Widening

Attachment 1 Chandler Highway Duplication Plan............................................... 251

Attachment 2 Yarra City Council Letter ............................................................... 252

Attachment 3 Darebin City Council Letter............................................................ 254

4.4 Metropolitan Over-Dimensional Vehicle Routes

Attachment 1 Existing OD Network ..................................................................... 255

Attachment 2 Proposed OD Network................................................................... 256

4.5 Draft Banyule Safe Travel Plan 2016 - 2026

Attachment 1 Consultation Paper - What you told us- Draft Banyule SafeTravel Plan .................................................................................... 257

Attachment 2 Draft Banyule Safe Travel Plan...................................................... 274

4.7 54-62 Main Street, Greensborough - proposed mixed use development(P1024/2015)

Attachment 1 Advertised Plans ........................................................................... 319

Attachment 2 Revised concept plans .................................................................. 362

Attachment 3 Planning Assessment .................................................................... 369

4.8 Proactive Enforcement of Replacement Tree Planting - Results

Attachment 1 Descriptor Table ............................................................................ 381

4.9 Public Open Space Plan

Attachment 1 Draft Public Open Space Plan ....................................................... 382

5.1 Olympic Park - Sports Field Training Lights Upgrade

Attachment 1 Football Precinct - Existing Infrastructure ...................................... 438

6.1 Items for Noting

Attachment 1 Responses received relating to Victims of Crime .......................... 439

6.2 Quarterly Financial Management Report - 31 March 2016

Attachment 1 Capital Works and Initiatives Report - 31 March 2016 ................... 450

Attachment 2 Profit and Loss Summary and Initiatives - 31 March 2016 ............. 454

Attachment 3 Rate Debtors Outstanding - 31 March 2016 .................................. 456

Item: 2.2 Attachment 1: DRAFT Child Youth & Family Plan 2016-2020


Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2



Att

ach

men

t1

2.2

Item: 2.4 Attachment 1: Disability Review - Stage One - SUMMARY - July 2015


Att

ach

men

t1

2.4

Banyule Disability Review: Summary Report - Stage One

August 2015



Att

ach

men

t1

2.4

Introduction

Approximately 20% of Banyule’s residents identify as experiencing disability, and approximately

4.8% of residents experience disability that results in a need for assistance with core activities.

Council plays an important role in delivering direct and indirect services that support people

with a disability and their families with their needs and create opportunities for people to

participate in community life.

The landscape of disability services in Australia is changing due to the introduction of the

National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) and the associated disability reforms. Through the

implementation of the NDIS, existing funding arrangements and service provision will undergo

significant changes. This includes a direct impact on services currently provided by Council

that are wholly or partially funded through other levels of Government.

These changes require Council to give consideration to how it wishes to be involved in direct

disability service delivery in an evolving landscape. The existing systems, process and funding

arrangements for Council disability services will not continue in their current form. Council will

also need to give consideration to its broader role in creating inclusive and accessible

communities for people with a disability.

To better inform Council’s understanding of its involvement in disability services, as well as the

options and opportunities resulting from the impending introduction of the NDIS, a broad review of

Disability Services has been undertaken.

In March 2015 Council commenced the review. Stage 1 of the review involved exploring the role

of Council in the disability space, both through direct disability focused service delivery and

indirectly through reviewing how service areas such as recreation and leisure, communications

and buildings and civil works impact upon people with a disability.

The review outlines issues and considerations requiring Council direction that need to be made in

the short term, as well as longer term decisions that Council needs to be made aware of, and

explore further in detail. Regardless of which decisions Council makes, considerable preparation

and transition is required.

This report is the first in a series of reports designed to assist Council understand the issues,

implications and opportunities resulting from the disability reforms.

Methodology

The central aspect of the disability review project involved:



Att

ach

men

t1

2.4

• Analysis and review of the current operations of Council disability services, including

funding arrangements, service user analysis and prospective changes and

opportunities resulting from the introduction of the NDIS.

• Analysis and review of the indirect work undertaken by Council that aims to support

the participation of people with a disability and their families.

The review included:

o interviewing key staff involved in the delivery of Council services;

o analysis of service data;

o basic mapping of other local services;

o case studies illustrating the impact of our current services.

National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS)

Following much discussion about the need to reform disability services in Australia, the

National Disability Insurance Scheme was launched in various trial sites across Australia in July

2013. The introduction of the NDIS represents a fundamental shift in the way disability services

are delivered across Australia. Some of the key changes are outlined below.

OVERVIEW OF CHANGES RESULTING FROM NDIS

• Currently disability services are funded by a variety of funding agreements, predominantly

through the States to deliver programs and services to people with a disability. Services are a

mix of non- profit, private, and State government services.

• State Governments have committed to shifting their existing disability funding to the NDIS, and

are currently in negotiations regarding specific service transition and delivery arrangements

within each State.

• The introduction of the NDIS presents a massive shift away from generic disability funded

programs to individualised funding responses. For example group funded respite programs will

move to a personalised service that is tailored to what an individual wants and needs.

• Disability Services will move to an open market, where any organisation can offer services as

long as they are registered as an NDIS service provider.

• Within the NDIS, prices are set for all services. Current figures indicate that the unit prices for

services are below the current actual cost of services for most disability service providers

including councils.

Between now and 2019, the NDIS and associated disability reform will be progressively rolled out

across Australia. While the exact timelines and processes for the roll out are unknown, Council will

need to be aware of the roll out and plan to make key decisions accordingly. A summary of key

dates and stages of the NDIS roll out and disability reforms is provided in Appendix 1 of this report.

Key Issues & Findings



Att

ach

men

t1

2.4

This review has provided Council with a clearer picture of its disability services, and anticipated

changes requiring Council attention, due to the impending introduction of the NDIS. The review

highlighted that Council’s involvement in supporting people with a disability and their families is

broad and complex. Council provides a diverse range of direct and indirect disability services

including: support for particular age cohorts; increasing access to the built environment; and

increasing community accessibility and inclusion. Council also provides mainstream services

such as early childhood services where support for people with a disability is an integrated part

of the service. The complexity and interrelationship between these various roles is illustrated in a

Mind Map included in Appendix 2 of this report.

While Council’s role as a provider of disability services will undergo significant change in line

with the introduction of the NDIS, the review also highlighted the need to better understand

and utilise Council’s broader roles in disability which are not affected by the NDIS introduction.

The review presents a holistic picture of Council’s current disability activities, and provides an

opportunity for Council to understand and analyse where it is best placed to support people

with a disability and their families.

Specific Service Area Key Issues and Findings

The following information provides a brief overview of the various services and roles provided by

Council. Known changes, challenges and opportunities are discussed for each area. A

detailed review of each service area is provided within the full Disability review.

Direct Disability Services

A key change resulting from the introduction of the NDIS is that the funding that currently goes to

services will be redirected to individuals and families who can then purchase the services they

require. Council is currently funded to deliver two key services that provide direct supports to

people with a disability: Home and Community Care (HACC) and the Jets Creative Arts Respite

program. Both of these services will be affected by the introduction of the NDIS. A brief profile of

each service, and the emerging issues resulting from the NDIS are discussed below.

Home and Community Care (HACC) – Disability

Service: HACC DISABILITY Funding

Service Types AgeGroup

Nos. ofClients

Hrs ofService

BCCCont.

Alternateproviders

Funded Until UserCont.

EFT

- Home Support- Respite Support- Personal Support- Delivered Meals- Property Maint.

Under65.

340

12% of allHACCservices

16,431

15.2% ofallHACCservices

$547,000

$65 perHr

Yes June 2016

New DHHSserviceagreementdue.

Yes

$2.95–$11.80per hr

5.34*

15.2%of allHACCstaff

*HACC staff are employed across the whole of HACC services and are not dedicated to the disability component of the

service.



Att

ach

men

t1

2.4

Council’s HACC service is currently provided through a mixture of Federal/State Government

and Council funding. The majority of HACC disability clients are recipients under the age of

65. Currently this is a client group of 340 people which constitutes approximately 12% of total

HACC service users. This client group includes families who have a child with a disability

requiring support, and individuals with various disabilities. Currently Council contributes

approximately $547,000 per annum to provide services to this cohort. This contribution allows

the service to be delivered at a minimum cost to clients. Without Council’s contribution, the

service could not be provided. Maximum user fees, funding (unit costs) and service targets

are all set under the current funding agreements. The services delivered as part of the HACC

disability program include:

• direct respite to carers of people with a disability, and

• home and personal care, which provides people with a disability support with personal

hygiene or duties such as cleaning and property maintenance.

The service works on a prioritisation of needs basis, to ensure that clients received the services

required. As a result the overall service provision for both new and existing clients is managed

within the existing resources. Historically this approach has meant that the service has not

had a waiting list. Council is expecting to receive a State Government Department of Health

and Human Services (DHHS) service agreement in mid – 2016 to continue to provide services

for people with a disability under the age of 65. To continue the service in its current form,

Council will be required to contribute the same percentage of budget as it does now.

It is anticipated that once the NDIS is introduced approximately 30% (102) of those accessing

HACC services will transition to the NDIS. This will result in a reduction in the amount of funding

received from the State Government consistent with the number of individuals who transition to

the NDIS.

JETS Creative Arts Program

Service: Jets Creative Arts Program Funding


No. ofClients

Hrs ofService

BCCCont.

Alternateproviders

FundedUntil

UserCont.

EFT

- Arts Activities- Respite

12 –25yearolds.

Approximately40 peryear.

3,500 hoursAv: 80hours per

Use ofJetsfacility

No FullyDHHSfundeduntil

No 1.41 EFT

9 casuals2 TempPart Time

340 (HACC) DisabilityClients

Current Arrangements

238 Disability Clients (withblock funding from the

State)

Anticipated Arrangements under NDIS

102 Clients transferred toNDIS scheme (these

clients may still wish topurchase services

Council)



Att

ach

men

t1

2.4

client June2018subjecttovariation.

(allreliant onexternalfunding)



Att

ach

men

t1

2.4JETS Creative Arts Program is a respite service funded by the DHHS. Council receives funding

to provide a range of services to young people with a disability who are aged between 12

and 25 years. Council contributes the use of the Jets facility to host these programs. Over the

years, Jets has received DHHS funding to offer School holiday programs on an ad hoc basis. In

2012 Jets was funded under an ongoing service agreement to offer a broader range of

services. This service is unique and fills a gap in services for this age group. The funding that

Jets currently receives from DHHS is confirmed under a funding agreement until June 2018.

During that period, if the NDIS is introduced in this region, funds will likely be redirected out of

Jets. Under these changed conditions within the NDIS, individuals and families accessing Jets

would receive direct funding to purchase services from Jets if it was offered. Jets would need

to undertake preparations to become a service provider within the NDIS to accommodate

clients accordingly.

Other Council Services – mainstream Council services that are used by people with a

disability and are not immediately affected by NDIS.

Council plays an important role in the provision of Maternal and Child Health and Early

Childhood Services. These mainstream services are provided through a mixture of Council

and State and Federal Government funding along with user fees and charges. These services

engage children with a disability as part of their core service. There is strong demand for

these services, but they experience challenges and limitations associated with unstable and

inadequate Government funding. There is a potential that Early Childhood Services may have

opportunities to interact with the NDIS in the future.

Indirect Disability Services

In addition to the funding Council receives to deliver direct services to people with a disability,

Council is also funded to provide services that focus on facilitating inclusive communities.

MetroAccess is a ‘community building program’ funded by DHHS.

MetroAccess – Community Building Program

Service: MetroAccess Funding


No. ofClients

Hrs ofService

BCCCont.

AlternateProviders

Funded Until UserCont.

EFT

- CommunityBuildingprojects- Increasingaccess toinformation- Increasingcommunityawareness

Notspecific.

Not adirectservice.

1 EFT Hosts theprogram.

No Fully DHHSfunded untilJune 2019subject tovariation.

No 1 EFT



Att

ach

men

t1

2.4

Council receives approximately $120,000 a year from DHHS to provide this service. Council hosts

the MetroAccess program within the Youth and Community Partnerships team. MetroAccess

implements projects and activities that aim to increase inclusion and participation in the

community by building the capacity of communities to welcome and support people with a

disability. MetroAccess is a unique program that is delivered in partnership with local

government and it has been instrumental in increasing opportunities for people with a disability

and their families to participate in community life. MetroAccess is currently funded under a

three year agreement with DHHS until June 2018. This agreement includes a clause to enable

change in light of the introduction of the NDIS. It is anticipated that under the NDIS, direct

funding to Council’s for MetroAccess would cease and programs similar to MetroAccess could

be subject to tender as part of the NDIS.

Other Disability Work Funded by Council

Council has a legislated responsibly under the Victorian Disability Act 2006 to reduce barriers for

people with a disability. This responsibility includes the requirement to develop a Disability

Action Plan that outlines how Council improves issues such as building accessibility, accessible

communication, transport planning, and making Council services inclusive. Council meets these

responsibilities through the delivery of existing services across the organisation. As much of this

work is embedded in existing service delivery across the organisation, it is difficult to place a

dollar figure on the contribution Council makes to this area. However, a specific Capital works

program and contribution exists to improve the accessibility of Council buildings and facilities.

Accessible Infrastructure – Capital Works Program

Service: Accessible Infrastructure. Funding


No. ofClients

Hrs ofService

BCCCont.

Alternateproviders

FundedUntil

UserCont.

EFT

Increasingaccessibility toCouncil buildingsandinfrastructure.

Notspecific.

Not adirectservice.

N/A $110,000(Capital)

No Annually

through

the

Capital

works

program.

No N/A

It should be noted that Council’s improvements to the built environment are largely guided by

accessibility requirements contained within relevant building legislation. These indirect services

are key enablers to social and economic participation for people with a disability. While the

specific capital budget to improve Council buildings facilitates some improvements, progress is

extremely slow as the budget allocated is far below what is required for Council buildings to

comply with current mandatory building standards.

Council’s role in indirect services is essential for the municipality and plays a critical role in

increasing opportunities for people with a disability. It is also important to note that many issues



Att

ach

men

t1

2.4

facing people with a disability are outside of Council’s control and Council has an important

role in targeted advocacy.

Community expectation regarding the role of Council

From monitoring the experience of other councils, and through feedback from the MAV and

Council’s Disability and Inclusion Advisory Committee, there is likely to be a strong community

expectation that Council will:

• Continue to provide HACC services for those under 65, particularly respite at the same

low- cost as it has historically provided to the community for many years.

• Register to provide services within the NDIS.

• Continue to provide the Jets creative arts programs for young people with a disability.

• Within an NDIS environment, provide access to supports that are more resource

intensive to complement the funding received by individuals such as support to attend

a day activity and after hour’s supports.

• Information provided from the MAV has also indicated that during the NDIS trials, some

service users have stopped using Council services, as they shop around for alternative

services, but then have returned to Council as a default provider.

Current status of Council Services within the NDIS reform

The introduction of the NDIS presents a massive shift in the way people with disabilities and their

families will receive support and services. Council’s role in disability planning and coordination is

increasingly important for people to have meaningful opportunities for community participation.

The status of Council’s externally funded specific disability services are directly affected and

require further consideration. The introduction of the NDIS will present new challenges and

opportunities for the provision of disability services. If Council wishes to position itself as a disability

service provider under the NDIS, significant work will be required to reorient services to a new

business model to operate within an open market.

Currently, Council is not well positioned to offer competitive and quality services within the NDIS

reform. However, opportunity exists to explore this area further.

Next Steps

Based on the findings of Stage One of the Disability Review, Council will be required to give further

direction to inform the next steps of the project.



Att

ach

men

t1

2.4 Given the complexity of Council’s role in disability, and the variation in issues and options for

each service area, a series of specific Council briefings will be held to provide an opportunity

for a more in-depth review and analysis of the services discussed in this report.

Based on the directions received from Council, further work and preparation will be undertaken

to present Council with recommendations relating to each service area. It is proposed that this

work form Stage Two of the Disability Review project.

Summary of Issues and Options Requiring Direction

A summary of the key issues resulting from the review, along with options requiring further

Council direction, is provided below.



Att

ach

men

t1

2.4

Summary of key issues and considerations to be explore through future briefings and reports.

AREA ISSUES CONSIDERATIONS

DIRECT DISABILITY

SERVICES

The NDIS will shift most funding from services and redirect it toindividuals with a disability who will then “purchase” theservices they need.

New opportunities for Council to provide services will becomeavailable under the NDIS.

Council faces a number of challenges to position itself to be aservice provider under the NDIS.

Significant planning is required to reconfigure current Councilservices to operate within the NDIS.

Council currently contributes approximately 40% of the totalbudget to provide HACC services for those under 65.

It is anticipated that approximately 70% of people with adisability under 65 currently supported through HACC may notbe eligible for services under the NDIS.

Council’s HACC services are not currently set up to attractcustomers in an NDIS service environment.

There are industrial workforce issues to navigate with anychanges to current HACC services.

Jets Arts programs currently fill a gap in the market that is notavailable elsewhere, however current funding arrangementsare limited and expire in June 2018.

1. Council continues to provide HACCservices to people with a disability underthe age of 65.

2. Council explores options to provideservices under the NDIS.



Att

ach

men

t1

2.4

INDIRECT DISABILITY

SERVICES

MetroAccess is currently funded until June 2018. Considerableuncertainty exists as to the future of the MetroAccessCommunity Building Program under the NDIS.

Under the NDIS, broader indirect supports such as communitydevelopment, disability awareness or strategic advocacy maybe services that will be provided through tendered contracts.Community organisations and possibly local governmentwould likely be able to tender to provide these services.

Council needs to monitor the NDIS roll out to identify changesand developments in policy.

3. Council commits to continue advocatingfor the MetroAccess Community BuildingProgram to be retained in partnership withlocal government.

4. Council continues to provide services suchas MetroAccess if they are available to beprovided by Council under the NDIS.

5. Council explores opportunities for regionallocal government partnerships to betterposition for tender if relevant. It is currentlynot known if local or regional preferenceswill be sought in NDIS.

OTHER DISABILITY WORK

FUNDED BY COUNCIL

Council has a legislated role to remove barriers that restrict theparticipation of people with a disability in community life,including making physical spaces and services accessible topeople and advocacy.

Council’s legislative role extends to making its own buildingsaccessible. The current program to improve physicalaccessibility of Council owned buildings does not allowCouncil to meet this requirement. The current program is verylimited and requires immediate review.

Council’s role in indirect services is essential for themunicipality. However, given many issues facing people with adisability are outside of Council’s control, this needs to bestrengthened and complimented by targeted advocacy.

6. Council continues to use its DisabilityAction Plans as the key mechanism tocoordinate and strengthen Council’s rolein indirect services.

7. Council strengthens its role in planning forand providing accessible buildings andpublic spaces to the municipality throughincreasing the annual access worksbudget.

8. Council strengthens its advocacy rolethrough developing an agreed advocacyframework and plan to respond tobroader issues facing people with adisability.



Att

ach

men

t1

2.4Appendix 1: Key Milestones for NDIS implementation as at August 2015.

July-August2015

•In late 2015, announcements expected as to the NDIS be rolled out across Australia.

•Current DHHS review of the future of Building inclusive communities program (Metro, Ruraland Deaf access) presentation of findings due September 4.

September2015

•NDIS rolls out in Hunter Valley, NSW for children under 17. First non-trial site.

•Banyule NDIS Forum September 16.

2016

•In March, we receive a copy of agreement from State and Federal Government for HACCservices.

•In July the NDIS trial ends and roll out commences across Victoria for the next 3 years.

•In July we will receive a new service contract for HACC aged over 65 (aged services) andpeople under 65. Decision required whether Council commit and sign.

2017

•Roll out of the new State Disability Plan 2017-2020.

•NDIS Intergovernmental agreement between Commonwealth and Victoria ends.

•By December 2017 an independent review of the NDIS will be released.

•Commonwealth Home Care Program for aged services begins.

•NDIS housing strategy released.

•Kindergarten 15 hours Federal Funding decision will be announced.

2018

•All Assessment services in Victoria will transiton to My Aged Care on the same day. (Thiscould be brought forward) (This is the likely transition date but is not fixed)

•Regional assessment services (RAS)commences with councils working from My Aged Care.Council staff will now be assessing for CHSP, Residential and packaged care.

•July - Metro Access funding agreement may end or continue with new funding agreement.

2019-2020

•NDIS Bilateral launch agrement ends 30 June 2019.

•NDIS prices may become unregulated once it is determined by the NDIA that the markethas stabilised.

Unknowns

• When the Banyule region will be asked to roll out the NDIS?

• How services in Banyule are going to respond to the NDIS?

• The level of demand for our disability services for those aged 65 and under once the NDIS isrolled out in Banyule?

Tomonitor

•Monitor updates to to policy and roll out announments.



Att

ach

men

t1

2.4

Appendix 2: Mind Map of Disability Services

Item: 4.1 Attachment 1: Residential Parking Permit Policy 2016-2020


Att

ach

men

t1

4.1



Att

ach

men

t1

4.1



Att

ach

men

t1

4.1



Att

ach

men

t1

4.1



Att

ach

men

t1

4.1



Att

ach

men

t1

4.1



Att

ach

men

t1

4.1



Att

ach

men

t1

4.1



Att

ach

men

t1

4.1



Att

ach

men

t1

4.1



Att

ach

men

t1

4.1



Att

ach

men

t1

4.1



Att

ach

men

t1

4.1

Item: 4.1 Attachment 2: Residential Parking Permit Policy - Consultation FeedbackSummary


Att

ach

men

t2

4.1



Att

ach

men

t2

4.1



Att

ach

men

t2

4.1



Att

ach

men

t2

4.1



Att

ach

men

t2

4.1



Att

ach

men

t2

4.1



Att

ach

men

t2

4.1



Att

ach

men

t2

4.1



Att

ach

men

t2

4.1



Att

ach

men

t2

4.1



Att

ach

men

t2

4.1



Att

ach

men

t2

4.1



Att

ach

men

t2

4.1



Att

ach

men

t2

4.1



Att

ach

men

t2

4.1



Att

ach

men

t2

4.1



Att

ach

men

t2

4.1



Att

ach

men

t2

4.1

Item: 4.3 Attachment 1: Chandler Highway Duplication Plan


Att

ach

men

t1

4.3

Item: 4.3 Attachment 2: Yarra City Council Letter


Att

ach

men

t2

4.3

Item: 4.3 Attachment 2: Yarra City Council Letter


Att

ach

men

t2

4.3

Item: 4.3 Attachment 3: Darebin City Council Letter


Att

ach

men

t3

4.3

Item: 4.4 Attachment 1: Existing OD Network


Att

ach

men

t1

4.4

Item: 4.4 Attachment 2: Proposed OD Network


Att

ach

men

t2

4.4

Item: 4.5 Attachment 1: Consultation Paper - What you told us- Draft Banyule Safe TravelPlan


Att

ach

men

t1

4.5



Att

ach

men

t1

4.5



Att

ach

men

t1

4.5



Att

ach

men

t1

4.5



Att

ach

men

t1

4.5



Att

ach

men

t1

4.5



Att

ach

men

t1

4.5



Att

ach

men

t1

4.5



Att

ach

men

t1

4.5



Att

ach

men

t1

4.5



Att

ach

men

t1

4.5



Att

ach

men

t1

4.5



Att

ach

men

t1

4.5



Att

ach

men

t1

4.5



Att

ach

men

t1

4.5



Att

ach

men

t1

4.5



Att

ach

men

t1

4.5

Item: 4.5 Attachment 2: Draft Banyule Safe Travel Plan


Att

ach

men

t2

4.5



Att

ach

men

t2

4.5



Att

ach

men

t2

4.5



Att

ach

men

t2

4.5



Att

ach

men

t2

4.5



Att

ach

men

t2

4.5



Att

ach

men

t2

4.5



Att

ach

men

t2

4.5



Att

ach

men

t2

4.5



Att

ach

men

t2

4.5



Att

ach

men

t2

4.5



Att

ach

men

t2

4.5



Att

ach

men

t2

4.5



Att

ach

men

t2

4.5



Att

ach

men

t2

4.5



Att

ach

men

t2

4.5



Att

ach

men

t2

4.5



Att

ach

men

t2

4.5



Att

ach

men

t2

4.5



Att

ach

men

t2

4.5



Att

ach

men

t2

4.5



Att

ach

men

t2

4.5



Att

ach

men

t2

4.5



Att

ach

men

t2

4.5



Att

ach

men

t2

4.5



Att

ach

men

t2

4.5



Att

ach

men

t2

4.5



Att

ach

men

t2

4.5



Att

ach

men

t2

4.5



Att

ach

men

t2

4.5



Att

ach

men

t2

4.5



Att

ach

men

t2

4.5



Att

ach

men

t2

4.5



Att

ach

men

t2

4.5



Att

ach

men

t2

4.5



Att

ach

men

t2

4.5



Att

ach

men

t2

4.5



Att

ach

men

t2

4.5



Att

ach

men

t2

4.5



Att

ach

men

t2

4.5



Att

ach

men

t2

4.5



Att

ach

men

t2

4.5



Att

ach

men

t2

4.5



Att

ach

men

t2

4.5

Item: 4.7 Attachment 1: Advertised Plans


Att

ach

men

t1

4.7



Att

ach

men

t1

4.7



Att

ach

men

t1

4.7



Att

ach

men

t1

4.7



Att

ach

men

t1

4.7



Att

ach

men

t1

4.7



Att

ach

men

t1

4.7



Att

ach

men

t1

4.7



Att

ach

men

t1

4.7



Att

ach

men

t1

4.7



Att

ach

men

t1

4.7



Att

ach

men

t1

4.7



Att

ach

men

t1

4.7



Att

ach

men

t1

4.7



Att

ach

men

t1

4.7



Att

ach

men

t1

4.7



Att

ach

men

t1

4.7



Att

ach

men

t1

4.7



Att

ach

men

t1

4.7



Att

ach

men

t1

4.7



Att

ach

men

t1

4.7



Att

ach

men

t1

4.7



Att

ach

men

t1

4.7



Att

ach

men

t1

4.7



Att

ach

men

t1

4.7



Att

ach

men

t1

4.7



Att

ach

men

t1

4.7



Att

ach

men

t1

4.7



Att

ach

men

t1

4.7



Att

ach

men

t1

4.7



Att

ach

men

t1

4.7



Att

ach

men

t1

4.7



Att

ach

men

t1

4.7



Att

ach

men

t1

4.7



Att

ach

men

t1

4.7



Att

ach

men

t1

4.7



Att

ach

men

t1

4.7



Att

ach

men

t1

4.7



Att

ach

men

t1

4.7



Att

ach

men

t1

4.7



Att

ach

men

t1

4.7



Att

ach

men

t1

4.7

Item: 4.7 Attachment 2: Revised concept plans


Att

ach

men

t2

4.7



Att

ach

men

t2

4.7



Att

ach

men

t2

4.7



Att

ach

men

t2

4.7



Att

ach

men

t2

4.7



Att

ach

men

t2

4.7



Att

ach

men

t2

4.7

Item: 4.7 Attachment 3: Planning Assessment


Att

ach

men

t3

4.7P1024/2015: ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION

PLANNING CONTROLS

The following planning controls are relevant to the assessment of this application:

ACTIVITY CENTRE ZONE – SCHEDULE 1 (GREENSBOROUGH ACTIVITY CENTRE)

The purpose of this zone is to:

• To encourage a mixture of uses and the intensive development of the activitycentre:

o As a focus for business, shopping, working, housing, leisure, transportand community facilities.

o To support sustainable urban outcomes that maximise the use ofinfrastructure and public transport.

• To deliver a diversity of housing at higher densities to make optimum use of thefacilities and services.

• To create through good urban design an attractive, pleasant, walkable, safe andstimulating environment.

• To facilitate use and development of land in accordance with the DevelopmentFramework for the activity centre.

Planning approval is required for buildings and works within this zone.

A permit is required for the proposed use of the land for serviced apartments (ResidentialBuilding).

A permit is not required for a Bank to occupy more than 2m2 of frontage at ground level asthis is exempt within this zone.

The subject site is located within Precinct 1 (Core Retail) of the ACZ1.

Precinct Objectives

• To establish Main Street as an alternative type of experience to theGreensborough Plaza Shopping Mall and East Main Street precinct creating adynamic precinct with day and night activities.

• To encourage active frontages along Main Street with activities that requireinteraction with customers, visitors and passers-by.

• To ensure that Main Street retains the character and characteristics of a mainstreet retail strip with a high priority on pedestrian amenity.

• To facilitate commercial investment in the precinct through the development ofshopfronts and tenancies on Grimshaw Street.

• To ensure development provides a well designed podium level edge treatment toThe Circuit.

• To ensure high quality building design on Grimshaw Street reflecting the ‘entry’role of Sub-precinct 1C.

• To ensure development south of Grimshaw Street does not unreasonably impacton the amenity of residential properties to the south.

• To provide for the physical and functional integration of Main Street with theGreensborough Plaza to the northwest and use and development in Precinct 3including the new Town Square.



Att

ach

men

t3

4.7 • To improve and enhance the streetscape character and pedestrian amenity in

Main Street, south of Grimshaw Street and along The Circuit.• To maintain and encourage safe and easy pedestrian movement and improved

linkages between Main Street to and from the West Main Street and East MainStreet Precincts, the Plenty River Valley parkland and from the railway station tothe top of Main Street.

• To ensure that any development south of Grimshaw Street provides for thereplacement of car parking lost through the redevelopment of sites.

Precinct Requirements

Precinct Guidelines

Sub Precinct 1A – Main Street

• Development in the Main Street should include retail, commercial and food anddrink premises that are distinctive from the Greensborough Plaza Shopping Malland East Main Street precinct.

• Development should ensure ongoing opportunities to access sunlight throughoutwinter, with wide footpaths and buildings that relate to the pedestrian scale.

• Development along Main Street and Grimshaw Street should be of a pedestrianscale and vertical articulation should be provided on building forms.

• South of Grimshaw Street, landscape upgrade works, including new street treeplantings, should be provided favouring native and indigenous species.

PARKING OVERLAY (SCHEDULE 1)

The purpose of this overlay is:

• To facilitate an appropriate provision of car parking spaces in an area.• To identify areas and uses where local car parking rates apply.• To identify areas where financial contributions are to be made for the provision of

shared car parking.

Schedule 1 to this overlay outlines the number of parking spaces required for specific uses.Of relevance to this proposal is

Use Rate MeasureDwelling 1 To each one and two bedroom dwellingVisitor 0.2 To each dwellingRestaurant 0.2 To each seatShop 4.6 To each 100m2 of leasable floor area

A planning permit is required to reduce the rates specified above. A permit is thereforerequired for the proposed reduction of spaces for dwelling, visitor, restaurant and shop.

CLAUSE 52.06 – CAR PARKING

Sub-precinct Preferred maximum building height Preferred setback

1A 11.5 metres within 8 metres of the MainStreet frontage boundary, and 18.5 metreselsewhere (excluding Key DevelopmentSites shown on the Precinct Map).

0 metre front and sidesetbacks.



Att

ach

men

t3

4.7The purpose of this clause is to

To ensure the provision of an appropriate number of car parking spaces havingregard to the demand likely to be generated, the activities on the land and the natureof the locality.

To support sustainable transport alternatives to the motor car.

To promote the efficient use of car parking spaces through the consolidation of carparking facilities.

To ensure that car parking does not adversely affect the amenity of the locality.

To ensure that the design and location of car parking is of a high standard, creates asafe environment for users and enables easy and efficient use.

A permit is required to reduce (including reduce to zero) the number of car parking spacesrequired under Clause 52.06-5.

Table 1 of this clause sets out the car parking requirement that applies to a use listed in theTable. A car parking requirement in Table 1 is calculated by multiplying the figure in ColumnA or Column B (whichever applies) by the measure (for example square metres, number ofpatrons or number of bedrooms) in Column C.

The car parking requirements, provision and shortfall are set out in the table below.


Dwelling 45 (1 x 45)* 15 30ServicedApartment

To satisfaction of RA 20 -

Retail 6 (4.6 x 137.7m2) 3 3Office 14 (3.5 x 421.6m2) 4 10Restaurant 8 (0.4 x 20)** 1 7Visitor 9 (0.2 x 45) 0 9Total 82 43 39

* The proposal includes a mix of 1 and 2 bedroom dwellings which generates a requirementfor 1 space per dwelling.** An estimate of 20 seats has been used based on the provision of 1 seat per 2m2 ofavailable floor area to the public.

CLAUSE 52.07 – LOADING AND UNLOADING OF VEHICLES

The purpose of this clause is:To set aside land for loading and unloading commercial vehicles to prevent loss ofamenity and adverse effect on traffic flow and road safety.

This clause specifies that:No building or works may be constructed for the manufacture, servicing, storage orsale of goods or materials unless:

• Space is provided on the land for loading and unloading vehicles as specifiedin the table below.

• The driveway to the loading bay is at least 3.6 metres wide. If a drivewaychanges direction or intersects another driveway, the internal radius at thechange of direction or intersection must be at least 6 metres.

• The road that provides access to the loading bay is at least 3.6 metres wide.A permit may be granted to reduce or waive these requirements if either:



Att

ach

men

t3

4.7 • The land area is insufficient.

• Adequate provision is made for loading and unloading vehicles to thesatisfaction of the responsible authority.

Floor areFloor area of building Minimum loading bay dimensions

2,600 sq m or less in singleoccupation

Area 27.4 sq mLength 7.6 mWidth 3.6 mHeight clearance 4.0 m

For every additional 1,800 sq m orpart

Additional 18 sq m

The proposal has not provided any loading facilities on site. Therefore a permit is required toreduce this requirement.

CLAUSE 52.34 –BICYCLE FACILITIES

Clause 52.34 states that a new use must not commence or the floor area of an existing usemust not be increased until the required bicycle facilities and associated signage has beenprovided on the land.


Servicedapartment

1 1 0

Dwelling 7 7 0Visitor 3 3 0Retail/café(including visitor)

0 0 0

Commercial(including visitor)

0 0 0

Total 11 11

The revised concept plan includes a total of 34 bicycle parking spaces, far in excess of thestatutory requirement.

POLICIES CONSIDERED

STATE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

The following policy is relevant to the assessment of the proposal and is outlined below andexpanded on where considered appropriate:

Settlement

Clause 11.01- Activity Centre policy seeks to build up activity centres as a focus for high-quality development, activity and living for the whole community by developing a network ofactivity centres. Policies on Metropolitan Melbourne also seek to encourage housingaffordability and choice, job creation and liveable communities.

Built Environment and Heritage

Clause 15.01-2 seeks to achieve high quality urban design and architecture. Inassessing the design and built form of residential development of four or more storeysdevelopment must be considered under the Design Guidelines for Higher DensityResidential Development (Department of Sustainability and Environment, 2004).



Att

ach

men

t3

4.7

Clause 15.01-5 seeks to recognise and protect cultural identity, neighbourhood characterand sense of place.

Clause 15.02-1 seeks to encourage energy and resource efficiency.

Housing

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

To promote a housing market that meets community needs.

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

To identify strategic redevelopment sites for large residential development inMetropolitan Melbourne.

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

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

Clauses 16.02-3 and 4 in relation to Residential aged care facilities set out the Objectivesunder is to facilitate the timely development of residential aged care facilities to meet existingand future needs and to encourage well-designed and appropriately located residential agedcare facilities..

Economic Development

The objective under Clause 17.01-1 for commercial activity is to encourage developmentwhich meet the communities’ needs for retail, entertainment, office and other commercialservices and provides net community benefit in relation to accessibility, efficientinfrastructure use and the aggregation and sustainability of commercial facilities.

LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

Municipal Strategic Statement

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

Banyule will be regarded as a city offering a range of quality lifestyles in an urbansetting enhanced by the natural environment, and served by an efficient andcommitted Council.

The relevant objective encompasses Environmental Management.

Housing

Clause 21.04-1 seeks to encourage higher density housing close to activity centres and thePrincipal Public Transport Network and protect residential amenity and provide for thedesired future neighbourhood character of residential areas.

Built environment



Att

ach

men

t3

4.7 The objective in relation to Clause 21.06 is:

To ensure that development respects and contributes to the desired futurecharacter of residential neighbourhoods and the identity of Activity Centres, in amanner that supports varying degrees of housing change.

Strategies include but are not limited to:

• Promoting high quality design in all new residential development that makes apositive contribution to the desired future neighbourhood character.

• Encourage the retention and planting of significant trees, substantial trees andother vegetation to protect and improve the landscape character,streetscapes, habitat links and biodiversity of the area.

• Support residential development in accordance with the Residential AreasFramework which identifies varying degrees of housing change across theCity’s residential neighbourhoods and Activity Centres.

In relation to sustainable design, strategies include:

Support the retention of significant trees and the planting of trees and othervegetation.

In relation to housing, strategies include:

• Encourage a substantial proportion of new housing to be located within or closeto Activity Centres and the Principal Public Transport Network particularlywhere there is high frequency and quality of public transport services inoperation.

• Encourage a range of types and sizes of housing, particularly in areas locatedclose to public transport, services and facilities.

• Encourage development to provide a wider range of household typesparticularly smaller sized dwellings, including those with only one bedroom.

Clause 21.06-2 - Residential Areas Framework identifies that the site is located within aDiversity area in the indicative map forming part of Clause 21.06 of the Housing FrameworkMap. These areas typically have the following characteristics:

• Within the business core of an Activity Centre.

• Some residential properties along streets that immediately surround the businesscore of an Activity Centre.

They will provide for shop-top and apartment living in higher density mixed use andresidential developments. These areas include strategic redevelopment sites that provide forhigher density housing.

Development will make a positive contribution to the identity of the Activity Centre and thedesired future character of surrounding residential neighbourhoods.

In these areas people live close to train stations, transport interchanges, shops, services andnodes of employment. These areas include higher density and some medium housingopportunities.



Att

ach

men

t3

4.7Local Places

Clause 21.08 seeks to provide guidance to the use and development of land within specifiedActivity Centres. Clause 21.08-1 provides specific guidance with respect to theGreensborough Activity Centre, of which the site forms part.

The Clause identifies that:

Greensborough Activity Centre is located in the heart of the suburb of Greensboroughgenerally bound by the railway line to the north-east, Para Road to the north-west and HenryStreet and Warwick Road to the south.

Greensborough is characterised by a mix of retail and commercial space, including a majorenclosed shopping centre, Greensborough Plaza, a shopping strip along Main Street andGrimshaw Street, commercial development at Flintoff Street, combined with some medium -low density residential properties south of Grimshaw Street and the railway station on ParaRoad. It is positioned within the green setting of the Plenty River Valley and has a uniquetopography that allows beautiful views over the valley from many locations within the centre.

As an Activity Centre, Greensborough is well placed to develop as one of Melbourne’s mostdesirable urban centres, able to provide its community with a range of residential, leisure,recreational, retail, health and wellbeing, and commercial opportunities. In addition,opportunity to expand the town appeal to visitors and patrons from well beyond theboundaries of both Greensborough and the City of Banyule is envisaged.

Plan 1 and 2 outline the Greensborough Activity Centre Structure Plan and Movement andConnectivity Plan for the centre.

ASSESSMENT

The proposed use and development has been considered against the applicable State andLocal planning policy including the ACZ and Parking Overlay and is considered to result in aheight that far exceeds the preferred height for the Greensborough Activity Centre.Furthermore, the provision of onsite car parking is considered to be unacceptable.

However, the applicant has provided a concept plan that attempts to address and resolveCouncil’s concerns with regards to the height of the building as well as providing a moreappropriate number of onsite car parking spaces. This concept plan is considered to be anacceptable response due in part, to the way in which the design has responded to the Mainstreet interface, reducing the height of the building, recessing the upper level further from thestreet and incorporating more natural materials and colours which soften the appearance ofthe building.

It is also noted that the Greensborough Structure Plan is currently being reviewed. PlanningScheme Amendment C110 is on public exhibition and seeks to introduce greater buildingheights to precincts 2, 5 and 6 on the southern side of the Greensborough Activity Centre.While no change in heights is proposed for Precinct 1A where the subject site sits, it isconsidered that greater flexibility can be exercised in this precinct given its location within theheart of the Activity Centre where a greater intensity of development is encouraged.Furthermore, the building sits in a context that has few sensitive interfaces, ensuring that itwill not unreasonably overshadow or be overbearing to neighbouring properties.

With regards to car parking, it is thought that the modified layout including the provision of anadditional basement level for car parking is an acceptable response given the location of thesite having good access to public transport and ample short term parking nearby. In addition,the reduced number of spaces provided for the serviced apartments can be managedthrough the use of a valet parking service (to use the tandem parking spaces) which theapplicant would accept as a condition of any approval granted. Furthermore, staff employed



Att

ach

men

t3

4.7 at the new retail and commercial tenancies will be aware of the limited parking available

onsite and find alternative means of transport accordingly.

As no car parking rate is specified for the serviced apartments, this must be provided toCouncil’s satisfaction. In determining an appropriate number of spaces, the most similar uselisted in the planning scheme is Motel which has a rate of 1 space per room. This wouldgenerate a requirement for 63 spaces. However, an existing serviced apartment use inIvanhoe is operating at a rate of 0.5 spaces per room. This would result in a requirement for31 spaces for the serviced apartments. Adding this to the statutory requirement of 82 spaceswould result in a total requirement of 113 parking spaces.

Council’s traffic engineers have assessed the revised concept plan and support thereduction on the basis that a sufficient number of short term spaces are provided on site.This will result in one space being provided for only 65% of the two bedroom dwellings andone space for 50% of the one bedroom dwellings. This is considered to be an acceptableoutcome given the site’s access to public transport including Greensborough railway stationand numerous bus services. This should also assist to reduce car dependency in the locality.

Encouraging investment in large scape redevelopment projects such as this is important tocontinue to see Greensborough revitalise. And while the proposal would result in asubstantial reduction of car parking, it is considered the site is appropriate for suchdevelopment. However, it is considered that to balance this outcome, the applicant shouldmake a contribution towards improving the Main Street streetscape to help achieve some ofthe aims of the Activity Centre Zone including enhancing the pedestrian experience alongMain Street. To this end, it is considered appropriate to include a condition of any approvalgranted that requires a contribution to be made towards streetscape improvement worksalong Main Street.

Ecologically Sustainable Design

It is considered the proposed development would result in an appropriate response toEcologically Sustainable Design principles, noting that With regards to orientation, many ofthe units have good access to northern solar access or to the east and west. No more than10 of the dwellings are oriented to the south.

The Sustainable Design Report (prepared by Sustainable Built Environments dated 18November 2015) submitted in support of the application confirms that the proposal has beenassessed against the BESS tool and it is noted that the proposal would result in a bestpractice outcome, however it has failed to meet the minimum score for the Water category.A condition of any approval granted should ensure that a minimum score is achieved for allof the fundamental components of the BESS scorecard.

Livability Guidelines

In support of the application, a response to Council’s Livability Guidelines has beensubmitted by the applicant prepared by Peddle Thorp Architects dated 16 November 2015.This outlines how the development performs against these guidelines, concluding that anappropriate response to these guidelines is provided.

Higher Density Residential Development Guidelines

An assessment of the advertised proposal has been carried out against the Higher DensityResidential Development Guidelines and found to be unacceptable. However, it is noted thatthe concept plan provided by the applicant would result in an acceptable response asoutlined in the assessment below.



Att

ach

men

t3

4.7

Element 1: Urban contextNeighbourhood characterand strategic context1.1 To ensure buildingsrespond creatively to theirexisting context and to agreedaspirations for the futuredevelopment of the area. Thisshould take the form of anurban context report.

Complies The applicant has provided sufficient informationto understand the neighbourhood context and hasprovided a written submission outlining theproposal’s compliance with the relevant State andLocal planning policy.

Design Response1.2 To provide a creativedesign response that is basedon a clear understanding ofthe urban context andneighbourhood character.

Complies The proposed design response acknowledges thecontext of the site with the design having a highlevel of regard for the existing surrounding builtform and land uses. The response iscontemporary yet would be consistent with theeclectic mix of architectural styles within thelocality. It is noted that the revised concept planwould provide for a more acceptable designresponse with more appropriate colours andmaterials.

Element 2: Building envelopeHeight and massing2.1 To ensure that theheight of new developmentresponds to existing urbancontext and neighbourhoodcharacter objectives of thearea.

Complies See main report.

2.2 To ensure newdevelopment is appropriate tothe scale of nearby streets,other public spaces, andbuildings.

Complies For reasons given in the main report, theproposed concept plan is considered to be anacceptable response with regards to the buildingheight and massing and would be acceptable withregards to the Main Street interface.

2.3 To protect sunlightaccess to public spaces.

Complies The reduced building height as outlined in theconcept plan would result in minimal additionalovershadowing of public spaces such aspedestrian paths at street level. This isconsidered to be an acceptable response.

Street Setbacks2.4 To respond to existingor preferred street character.

Complies The Activity Centre Zone specifies a preferredfront setback of 0. The proposed concept planprovides for a setback of 6 metres at the top levelto minimise its impact when viewed within thestreet. This is an acceptable response.

2.5 To ensure buildingseparation supports privateamenity and reinforcedneighbourhood character.

Complies The proposal is considered acceptable

2.6 To ensure areas candevelop with equitable accessto outlook and sunlight

Complies The building has been designed to provide forequitable access to outlook and light through theuse of setbacks on the north and south sides ofthe building. This is considered to be anacceptable response.

2.7 To ensure visual N/A There are no dwellings to the rear of the proposed



Att

ach

men

t3

4.7 impacts to dwellings at the

rear are appropriate to thecontext.

development.

Views to and fromresidential units2.8 To maximise informal orpassive surveillance of streetsand other public open spaces

Complies The proposed development would retainopportunities for passive surveillance of the streetand Grimshaw Lane as well as GreensboroughWalk to the rear.

2.9 To maximise residentialamenity through the provisionof views and protection ofprivacy within the subject siteand on neighbouringproperties.

Complies An appropriate level of privacy would be affordedto future occupants within the site. There are noother nearby residential properties at this stage.

Wind protection2.10 To ensure new tallbuildings do not createadverse wind effects

Complies It is not expected that wind will be a significantissue for this development.

Roof forms2.11 To treat roof spaces andforms as a considered aspectof the overall building design.

Complies The roof design is considered to be appropriate.

Element 3: Street pattern and street-edge qualityStreet pattern and streetedge integration3.1 To create walkableareas within a safe andinteresting public setting

n/a The entry to the building is appropriate providingdirect connection to Main street and easy accessto the commercial and retail tenancies at groundlevel.

3.2 To closely integrate thelayout and occupationpatterns of new developmentwith the street.

Complies The ground level space would be appropriatelyactivated through the use of glazing to provide anattractive and activated entry.

3.3 To ensure car parkingdoes not dominate the streetfrontage.

n/a Vehicle access is proposed to be gained fromGrimshaw Lane to the rear of the site.

Building entries3.4 To create streetentrances with a strongidentity that provide atransition from the street toresidential interiors.

Complies A distinct and clear entry is proposed for thefrontage of the building.

3.5 To ensure car parkentries do not detract from thestreet.

Complies The car park entry is not expected to detract fromthe Grimshaw Lane.

Front fences3.6 To avoid creatinginactive frontages as a resultof fencing private openspaces.

n/a

3.7 To ensure that frontfences respect and contributeto the neighbourhoodcharacter.

n/a

Element 4: Circulation and services



Att

ach

men

t3

4.7Parking layout

4.1 To provide adequate,safe and efficiently designedparking layouts.

Complies Council’s traffic engineers have reviewed theproposal and are satisfied the proposal isacceptable with regards to parking layout andmovement.

4.2 To provide safe andconvenient access betweencar parking and bicycle areasand the pedestrian entry tobuildings.

Complies The proposal would provide for safe andconvenient movement between basement carparks or bicycle parking spaces and pedestrianentry to buildings via the lifts.

Circulation spaces4.3 To create sharedinternal spaces that contributepositively to the experience ofliving in higher densitydevelopment.

Complies No shared internal spaces are provided for thedwellings however communal spaces areprovided at each level of the serviced apartments.

Site services4.4 To minimise running andmaintenance costs.

Complies An ESD report has been included which outlinesenergy saving measures.

4.5 To minimise water use. Condition An ESD report has been included which outlineswater usage. However, an improved score in theWater category is required. This can be requiredas a condition of any approval granted.

4.6 To incorporate provisionfor site services in the buildingdesign to ensure goodfunction and ease of serviceand maintenance.

Condition Adequate space has been provided at groundlevel. A condition of approval will require theprovision of an appropriate area for hard wastecollection with easy access from the street.

Element 5: Building layout and designDwelling diversity5.1 To provide a range ofdwelling sizes and types inhigher density residentialdevelopments.

Complies The proposal would include a mix of one and twobedroom dwellings. This is consideredappropriate given the context of the site within aActivity Centre within close proximity to transportand services.

Building layout5.2 To optimise the layout ofbuildings in response tooccupants’ needs as well asidentified external influencesand characteristics of a site.

Complies The proposed development would provide goodaccessibility for people with limited mobility.Furthermore, as the site is located within anactivity centre, the composition of one and twobedroom units is considered appropriate.

5.3 To create functional,flexible, efficient andcomfortable residentialapartments.

Complies The apartments are compact but provideflexibility.

5.4 To ensure that a goodstandard of natural lightingand ventilation is provided tointernal building spaces.

Complies The orientation of the building ensures that mostof the dwellings are provided with either a north,east or west orientation.

5.5 To provide adequatestorage space for householditems.

Complies The revised concept plan which introduces a thirdbasement level provides for sufficient storagespace for each apartment.

Design detail5.6 To promote buildings ofhigh architectural quality andvisual interest.

Complies The revised concept provides for an appropriatemix of materials and colours, including use ofvertical timber (or timber like) battens below thepodium level and a mix of light and dark colours



Att

ach

men

t3

4.7 above.

Element 6: Open space and landscape designPrivate and communal openspace6.1 To ensure access toadequate open space for allresidents.

Condition The proposal does not include any communalopen space but provides balconies for eachapartment. However, a condition should beincluded on any permit issued to ensure that eachbalcony has a minimum internal area of 8m2 anda minimum depth of 1.6 metres.

6.2 To ensure common orshared spaces are functionaland attractive for theirintended users.

n/a No communal spaces are proposed.

6.3 To allow solar access tothe private and shared openspaces of new high densityresidential units.

Complies Many of the proposed apartments would havedirect northern orientation of private open space.

6.4 To integrate the designof shared and private openspaces into the overallbuilding design and façadecomposition.

Complies SPOS in the form of balconies are designed tointegrate with the external façade of the building.

6.5 To provide for greenerywithin open spaces.

Condition No landscape concept plan has been providedbut opportunities exist to provide for somegreenery on balconies which can be required as acondition of any approval granted.

Public open space6.6 To create public openspace appropriate to itscontext.

n/a No public open space is proposed as part of thedesign.

Item: 4.8 Attachment 1: Descriptor Table


Att

ach

men

t1

4.8APPENDIX 1: DESCRIPTOR AND EXPLANATION OF TERMS

Condition of specimen / Tree health

Descriptor Explanation

The following terms refer to the trees’ physical condition or vitality.

GoodFull crown with good foliage density. Indicators such as annual shoot growth, leavesize and colour are as expected. Good wound wood development may be observed.No remedial pruning or other related tree works are required.

Fair

Tree may display some deadwood or may have minor canopy dieback. Canopydensity may be slightly below average for the species. Minor discolouration or grazingof the leaf may be observed or the tree may display average wound wooddevelopment.

Poor

Significant dieback may be present. Leaves may be discoloured and often smallerthan average. Excessive epicormic growth may be present. There are pathogens orstresses evident which could lead to tree decline. Significant remedial work or entiretree removal may be required.

DeadTree is dead. Its leaves, stems and roots no longer function. Excluding habitatcontribution, tree should be removed.

Condition of planting

Descriptor Explanation

The following terms refer to the condition of the planting. Factors such as; planting depth,location within the site and if the tree has been staked and mulched are considered.

GoodTree is ideally located in context to surrounding vegetation and built structures thereis sufficient soil volume and space for it to mature. It has settled level to the groundand is staked and mulched.

FairTree may be intermittently shadowed by surrounding vegetation. Its future growthmay impact on built below and above ground structures. Tree may sit slightly aboveor below the soil surface. Tree may not be staked or mulched.

Poor

The tree’s future growth will likely impact on built below and above groundstructures. It is considerably shadowed by surrounding vegetation and is beingoutcompeted for required resources such as soil volume and adequate space. Treeis not staked or mulched.

Item: 4.9 Attachment 1: Draft Public Open Space Plan


Att

ach

men

t1

4.9



Att

ach

men

t1

4.9



Att

ach

men

t1

4.9



Att

ach

men

t1

4.9



Att

ach

men

t1

4.9



Att

ach

men

t1

4.9



Att

ach

men

t1

4.9



Att

ach

men

t1

4.9



Att

ach

men

t1

4.9



Att

ach

men

t1

4.9



Att

ach

men

t1

4.9



Att

ach

men

t1

4.9



Att

ach

men

t1

4.9



Att

ach

men

t1

4.9



Att

ach

men

t1

4.9



Att

ach

men

t1

4.9



Att

ach

men

t1

4.9



Att

ach

men

t1

4.9



Att

ach

men

t1

4.9



Att

ach

men

t1

4.9



Att

ach

men

t1

4.9



Att

ach

men

t1

4.9



Att

ach

men

t1

4.9



Att

ach

men

t1

4.9



Att

ach

men

t1

4.9



Att

ach

men

t1

4.9



Att

ach

men

t1

4.9



Att

ach

men

t1

4.9



Att

ach

men

t1

4.9



Att

ach

men

t1

4.9



Att

ach

men

t1

4.9



Att

ach

men

t1

4.9



Att

ach

men

t1

4.9



Att

ach

men

t1

4.9



Att

ach

men

t1

4.9



Att

ach

men

t1

4.9



Att

ach

men

t1

4.9



Att

ach

men

t1

4.9



Att

ach

men

t1

4.9



Att

ach

men

t1

4.9



Att

ach

men

t1

4.9



Att

ach

men

t1

4.9



Att

ach

men

t1

4.9



Att

ach

men

t1

4.9



Att

ach

men

t1

4.9



Att

ach

men

t1

4.9



Att

ach

men

t1

4.9



Att

ach

men

t1

4.9



Att

ach

men

t1

4.9



Att

ach

men

t1

4.9



Att

ach

men

t1

4.9



Att

ach

men

t1

4.9



Att

ach

men

t1

4.9



Att

ach

men

t1

4.9



Att

ach

men

t1

4.9



Att

ach

men

t1

4.9

Item: 5.1 Attachment 1: Football Precinct - Existing Infrastructure


Att

ach

men

t1

5.1 Attachment One

Item: 6.1 Attachment 1: Responses received relating to Victims of Crime


Att

ach

men

t1

6.1



Att

ach

men

t1

6.1



Att

ach

men

t1

6.1



Att

ach

men

t1

6.1



Att

ach

men

t1

6.1



Att

ach

men

t1

6.1



Att

ach

men

t1

6.1



Att

ach

men

t1

6.1



Att

ach

men

t1

6.1



Att

ach

men

t1

6.1



Att

ach

men

t1

6.1

Item: 6.2 Attachment 1: Capital Works and Initiatives Report - 31 March 2016


Att

ach

men

t1

6.2



Att

ach

men

t1

6.2



Att

ach

men

t1

6.2



Att

ach

men

t1

6.2

Item: 6.2 Attachment 2: Profit and Loss Summary and Initiatives - 31 March 2016


Att

ach

men

t2

6.2

Item: 6.2 Attachment 2: Profit and Loss Summary and Initiatives - 31 March 2016


Att

ach

men

t2

6.2

Item: 6.2 Attachment 3: Rate Debtors Outstanding - 31 March 2016


Att

ach

men

t3

6.2

Item: 6.2 Attachment 3: Rate Debtors Outstanding - 31 March 2016


Att

ach

men

t3

6.2