banyule city council agenda 1 december 2014 - 1 of 4

Ordinary Meeting of Council

Council Chambers, Service Centre

275 Upper Heidelberg Road, Ivanhoe

1 December 2014 commencing at 7.45pm

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

AGENDA

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

Apologies and Leave of Absence Nil Presentaiton Council conducted a Youth Summit in October 2014 seeking young people’s input on a range of issues important to them. A representative group of young people will present a short video overview of the day together with key reccomendations for Council’s consideration.

Confirmation of Minutes Ordinary Meeting of Council held 17 November 2014

Disclosure of Interests

1. Petitions

1.1 1-5 Westley Avenue, Ivanhoe & 2 Ivanhoe Parade, Ivanhoe................................... 5

REPORTS:

2. People – Community Strengthening and Support

Nil

3. Planet – Environmental Sustainability

3.1 The 2013-2014 State of the Environment Report ................................................... 7

3.2 The Environmental Stewardship Plan 2014 -2017 ................................................ 12

3.3 Biodiversity Plan 2014-17 ..................................................................................... 17

AGENDA (Cont’d)

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 1 December 2014

4. Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.1 Banyule Planning Scheme Amendment C93 - Adoption of Amendment .......................................................................................................... 23

4.2 Introducing a new Special Building Overlay schedule into the planning scheme ................................................................................................... 31

4.3 Proposal to amend a Section 173 Agreement at 7 Edward Court, Ivanhoe ................................................................................................................. 35

4.4 Ivanhoe Primary School - Parking and Traffic Issues .................................................................................. 40

4.5 Formal naming of two unnamed right of ways (laneways) in Heidelberg Heights and Ivanhoe ........................................................................... 49

5. Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life

5.1 Disability and Inclusion Advisory Committee Meeting Membership ....................... 55

5.2 Banyule Youth Summit ......................................................................................... 58

5.3 Macleod Recreation and Fitness Master Plan ....................................................... 64

6. Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.1 14 Scotts Parade Ivanhoe - Proposed Sale of Land .............................................. 71

6.2 27A Cherry Street Macleod - Proposed Sale of Land ............................................ 77

6.3 Assembly of Councillors ........................................................................................ 84

6.4 169 Liberty Parade Heidelberg West (north of Bell Street) - Proposed Licence - Use of Helipad ....................................................................... 88

6.5 1 Stradbroke Avenue Heidelberg - Future use of site ............................................ 93

6.6 9-13 Flintoff Street Greensborough - Proposed Sale of Land ................................ 99

6.7 Rear of 1045-1059 Heidelberg Road Ivanhoe - Proposed Road Discontinuance and Sale of Land - Hearing of Submissions ............................... 104

6.8 Contract for Provision of Mobile Garbage Bins.................................................... 109

7. Sealing of Documents

7.1 Sealing of Documents ........................................................................................ 113

8. Notices of Motion

Nil

9. General Business

10. Urgent Business

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

11. Confidential Matters

11.1 contractual matters




Matters Discussed in Camera

AGENDA (Cont’d)


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

Closure of Meeting

1.1

Petitions


1.1 1-5 WESTLEY AVENUE, IVANHOE & 2 IVANHOE PARADE, IVANHOE

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

Ward: Griffin

File: P849/14

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A petition with 20 signatures has been received from residents most of who reside in Ivanhoe and some from further afield including Rosanna, and Templestowe. The petitioners have raised concerns regarding the reduction of car parking sought by for the development of 1-5 Westley Avenue and 2 Ivanhoe Parade, Ivanhoe. The petition prayer is identical to that on a petition received on 30 October 2014 with 68 signatures. The petition prayer is as follows: “We the undersigned respectfully pray that the Mayor and Councillors of the City of Banyule take into account our concerns regarding the reduction in parking spaces sought by the developer, when assessing Planning Application P849/2014 1-5 Westley Avenue and 2 Ivanhoe Parade Ivanhoe. It is already difficult obtaining parking in the vicinity.”

DISCUSSION

A planning permit application for development at 1-5 Westley Avenue and 2 Ivanhoe Parade is currently being considered by Council officers. The proposal includes 160 apartments and a convenience shop. In addition, the applicant has sought a car parking reduction of 38 spaces. The extent of car parking reduction proposed on site and the existing traffic and parking conditions in the locality must be considered as part of the assessment of planning permit application P849/14. Council’s Development Planning department will continue to assess the application in accordance with the Banyule Planning Scheme in consultation with Council’s traffic engineers.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council: 1. Receives and notes the petition. 2. Consider the concerns raised in the petition as part of the assessment of the

planning permit application P849/14.

3.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

3.1

Planet – Environmental Sustainability


3.1 THE 2013-2014 STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT REPORT

Author: Fleur Anderson - Environment Officer, City Development

File: F2014/315

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The 2013-2014 State of the Environment Report has now been completed. This report addresses Council’s City Plan Planet’s Key Strategic Indicators for year 1 of the 2013-2017 four year plan. The report is divided into the five key directions for PLANET:

Protect and enhance our natural environment

Conserve water and improve stormwater quality and impact

Deliver appropriate action on climate change

Avoid waste generation

Act as environmental stewards These areas help define five key directions around which data is collected to track Council’s progress against its key performance indicators (KPI’s). Results are outlined in the Table 1 below. For 2013-14 Council is performing better than in previous year 2012-2013 on the following KPI’s:

Number of Tree Plantings (streets and parks)

Council’s Water Use

Council’s Greenhouse Emissions

KPI Consumer Satisfaction Index (Customer Satisfaction Index - CSI)

Percentage of ‘Consumer’ Waste Diverted from Landfill

Performance against PLANET Action Plan (% of actions completed on time)

For 2013-2014 Council is performing below the previous year 2012-2013 on the following KPI’s:

Attendance at Council’s Rethink Education Programs

Environmental Sustainability (CSI)

The Appearance of Public Areas (CSI)

CITY PLAN

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

BACKGROUND

The State of the Environment (SOE) Report informs both Council and the community on how Council is tracking with our City Plan Planet (Environmental Sustainability) objective, key directions and strategic indicators. The report encompasses biodiversity, water, waste, greenhouse emissions reduction targets, and environmental stewardship initiatives for each financial year. These areas help define five key directions around which data is collected to track Council’s progress against

3.1


THE 2013-2014 STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT REPORT cont’d


its key performance indicators (outlined in the Table 1 below). The Banyule Environment Advisory Committee (BEAC) assists with the review of the SOE as part of its Terms of Reference. This year’s report is in a snapshot format that reports directly on Council’s work in the five key directions.

Table 1: Key Directions, and Key Performance Indicators

Planet Key Direction & Key Performance Indicator

Results 2013-14

Results 2012-13

Data Collected

1. Protect and Enhance Natural Environment KPI: Number of Tree Plantings (streets and parks)

1,400 1,250 Parks and Gardens tree & indigenous plantings

Wildlife Corridor Program funded plantings

2. Conserve Drinking Water and Improve Stormwater Quality and Impact KPI: Council’s Water Use

263,426 (kL)

273,689 (kL)

Council water accounts (sporting reserves, aquatic centres, recreation centres and a range of other facilities)

3. Deliver Appropriate Action on Climate Change KPI: Councils’ Greenhouse Emissions

21,541 (tCO2e) tonnes

21,019 (tCO2e) tonnes

Council energy accounts (streetlights, buildings, water pumping and fleet fuel)

4. Avoid Waste Generation KPI Consumer Satisfaction Index (CSI) Percentage of ‘Consumer’ Waste Diverted from Landfill

(CSI) 79

52.5%

(CSI) 79

53%

Waste Management kerbside collection

Recycle Stations collection

5. Encourage Environmental Stewardship KPI: Attendance at Council’s Rethink Education Programs

3977 visitors

4,400 visitors

Rethink visitor numbers

Environmental Sustainability Grant recipients

Participant numbers for Council run community and school environment events

3.1




6. Other KPI’s Environmental Sustainability (CSI) Performance against PLANET Action Plan (% of actions completed on time) The Appearance of Public Areas (CSI)

(CSI) 66 99% (CSI) 70

(CSI) 72 97 % (CSI) 72

Community Satisfaction Index scores are commonly used in the market research industry to represent the extent of customer satisfaction. The Victorian Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey is currently coordinated by the Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure.

Results – Highlights and Challenges 1. Protect and Enhance the Natural Environment Council continued to enjoy strong community support in this area in 2013-2014. Council’s bushland management unit along with community and friends groups planted over 11,000 plants. Council continues to support wildlife corridor plantings, parks and gardens plantings, protecting its street trees and is working on the development of both an urban tree management plan and an urban forest plan.

2. Conserve Water and Improve Stormwater Quality and Impact Council’s annual water use has levelled off in 2013-2014 but costs have increased to their highest level ever. The $6 million Stormwater harvesting project was built in 2013-2014. The project has won two State and one National Stormwater Industry awards for Excellence in Design and Infrastructure. It aims to reduce mains water use by harvesting about 138 million litres to irrigate over 30 hectares of parks. This is worth about $350,000 in water value. This project will also improve surrounding wildlife habitat and prevent 265 tonnes of pollution per year reaching local waterways. Water conservation is an ongoing challenge for Council. This challenge will be addressed by implementing the Water Sustainability Plan which aims to limit annual tap water use to below 200 million litres. 3. Deliver Appropriate Action on Climate Change The Energy Savings Plan is to take action on climate change by achieving carbon neutrality by 2019/2020. The previous greenhouse emissions goal was to reduce Council emissions by 30% below 1996/1997 levels. Council has not reached this target. Council’s 2013–2014 emissions have increased markedly due to the opening of WaterMarc, Council’s Regional Aquatic Leisure Centre in Greensborough. This has caused an increase in greenhouse gas emissions for the first time since the 1996-1997.

3.1




Council is undertaking numerous energy efficiency initiatives to reduce emissions and make progress on its 2019/20 carbon neutrality target. In 2013-2014, Council is investing $4.7 million to improve the energy efficiency of streetlights. Mercury Vapour streetlights in residential streets will be replaced with T5 fluorescents. Nnatural gas fired cogeneration plant has been installed at WaterMarc (Council’s biggest greenhouse gas emitting building). In addition four Council buildings had solar hot water systems installed. Due to service expansion and the rising price of energy, Council’s energy bill is also growing. The annual energy bill (buildings, streetlights and fleet fuel) has grown by about 80% since 2006-2007 to around $4.5 million. While constraining energy use is an ongoing challenge, Council is responding by implementing its energy saving plan, which will require significant investment in future budgets. 4. Avoid Waste Generation Community satisfaction with Council’s waste services continues to be high. A highlight of 2013-2014 was an overall lowering of total waste per household largely resultant from the amount of green waste collected due to seasonal changes. The amount of ‘consumer’ waste (excludes green waste) diverted from landfill has reduced. Generally this would be considered a bad result. However, it is due to less paper waste being generated by the community which is good for the environment. Visitation to the Council’s Rethink centre was stable with just under 4,000 visitors in 2013-104. The total attendance since 2000 is over 62,000 visitors. The challenge for the future is to increase the percentage of waste diverted from landfill from the current levels of around 53%. The implementation of the recently adopted Waste Plan will help achieve this goal. 5. Encourage Environmental Stewardship Council continues to provide a wide range of environmental awareness programs, workshops and sessions across many Council programs. These include the Sustainable Homes and Communities program, Rethink and Outreach waste education programs among others. A highlight of 2013-2014 was the Community Leaders for Sustainability course with 34 community members graduating. These graduates will be undertaking their own community projects in 2014-2015. This is a demonstration of Council supporting community capacity building and the community displaying a sophisticated level of activism and stewardship in local environmental sustainability. The Wildlife Corridor Program which teaches community and school groups about biodiversity, and distributes “buy one get one free” indigenous plant vouchers delivered this program to 1601 people across numerous events, and provided 6128 plants. The challenge ahead in this area is to engage with a greater diversity of community groups, including culturally and linguistically diverse groups, while continuing to provide the current high level of education to established school and community groups.

3.1




Future Actions for Achieving our Planet Objective Key environmental projects over the next year cover the adoption and implementation of four individual plans that set clearer direction and priorities around Council’s key responsibilities and concerns:

Adoption and implementation of the Biodiversity Plan

Implementation of Water Sustainability Plan

Implementation of the Energy Savings Plan

Implementation of the Waste Plan

Adoption and the implementation of the Environmental Stewardship Plan These Plans will embody the direction set by the Planet Policy and Strategy.

CONCLUSION

Council continues to develop a range of environmental sustainability initiatives including alternative water supplies, energy efficiency measures, projects mitigating and adapting to climate change and biodiversity protection initiatives in response to the directions set by the City Plan. This work is complimented by an extensive range of environmental education work with the community.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council: 1. Endorse the 2013-14 State of the Environment Report; 2. Publishes the 2013-14 State of the Environment Report on Council’s website;

and 3. Publicises the availability of the 2013-14 State of the Environment Report via

the website, The Banner and our quarterly environmental newsletter ‘Greenwrap’.

ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 The 2013-2014 State of the Environment Report 116

3.2



3.2 THE ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP PLAN 2014 -2017

Author: Fleur Anderson - Environment Officer, City Development

File: F2014/315

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Banyule City Council is strongly committed to acting as an environmental steward. The Environmental Stewardship Plan provides an overview of Banyule City Council’s programs and activities related to environmental stewardship. Council aims to demonstrate leadership to ensure that these activities promote, encourage and increase community involvement in positive environmental actions, sustainability engagement and education.

OFFICER DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST

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

CITY PLAN

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

BACKGROUND

City Plan Context

The Environmental Stewardship Plan supports the objectives of Banyule’s City Plan

2013-17, in particular the Planet Environmental Sustainability objective:

“Conduct Council activities in a sustainable manner, and practice sound stewardship

of the natural environment to ensure its protection, diversity and enhancement”.

This Plan also endorses the key directions outlined in the City Plan which aims to ensure the delivery of the ‘Planet’ objective. The Plan outlines the key steps and targets to achieve our key directions. Banyule’s Stewardship Plan sits alongside the other Plan level documents under the Planet Policy and Strategy which address Energy, Water, Waste and Biodiversity (Figure 1).

3.2


THE ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP PLAN 2014 -2017 cont’d


3.2




Council defines our role in Stewardship as:

“Council and the community working together to identify and address opportunities to reduce Banyule’s ecological footprint;

Council continuing to deliver and support environmental education programs that promote biodiversity, water and energy conservation and waste avoidance.

Council promoting community participation in order to leverage change within the community, and continuing to advocate for the use of sustainable transport, practices and products.

Council supporting community and friends groups in their efforts to protect and enhance the environment, reduce waste, and live sustainably. ” Banyule’s City Plan 2013-2017

Council’s Key Environmental Stewardship Activities and Programs Banyule City Council shows commitment to environmental education and community partnerships, and undertakes activities in the areas of the biodiversity, waterways, wetlands, habitat management, greenhouse, energy and water conservation, sustainable food production and waste management. Council’s key environmental stewardship activities and programs include:

Bushland Management Activities

Environmental Sustainability Grants

Environmental Representatives Program (Enviro Reps)

Festivals and Major Events

Home Harvest Festival

Outreach Waste Wise Education Program

Rethink Education Centre

Spring Outdoors Program

Sustainable Homes and Communities Program

Teachers’ Environment Network (TEN)

Water Sustainability Education Program

Wildlife Corridor Program.

All of these activities are covered in detail within the plan. The list of activities and programs is not exhaustive. Activities are not listed in priority order.

HUMAN RIGHTS CHARTER

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

FUNDING IMPLICATIONS

Operational budgets exist in the Environmental Sustainability, Bushland Management and Operations units. Relevant State or Federal grants pertaining to stewardship will also be sought as opportunities present.

3.2




CONSULTATION

The Stewardship Plan has been submitted to the Banyule Environment Advisory Committee (BEAC) for expert feedback and discussion, and to internal departments (Environmental Sustainability, Bushland Management and Operations) involved in delivering the plan’s actions.

CONCLUSION

‘Act as Environmental Stewards’ is a key direction under our Planet Policy and Strategy in the Banyule City Plan. Council will implement the Stewardship Plan in order to reduce the ecological footprint (the measure of the load on nature imposed by the population) in the municipality. To support and encourage environmental stewardship Council will:

Work with the community to identify and address opportunities to reduce Banyule’s footprint.

Deliver and support environmental education programs that promote biodiversity, water and energy conservation and waste avoidance.

Promote community participation to leverage change within the community, and continue to advocate for the use of sustainable transport, products and practices.

Continue to support community and friends groups in their efforts to protect and enhance the environment, reduce waste and live sustainably.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council: 1) Adopt the Environment Stewardship Plan 2014 - 2017 and the following targets

and actions: Allocation of Banyule Environmental Sustainability Grants

Maintenance or increase in Customer Satisfaction Survey rating for environmental performance

Council Certification to ISO14001 Standards

Community engagement in flagship environmental education programs on City Plan Planet themes including o Water sustainability o Climate change mitigation and adaptation o Biodiversity protection o Waste avoidance o Environmental stewardship

2) Promote the Environmental Stewardship Plan via The Banner and Greenwrap,

Council’s quarterly sustainability newsletter.

ATTACHMENTS

3.2




No. Title Page

1 The Environmental Stewardship Plan 2013 - 2017 128

3.3



3.3 BIODIVERSITY PLAN 2014-17 Author: John Milkins - Environmental Sustainability Co-ordinator, City

Development

File: F2014/249

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

To inform Council about the development of the Biodiversity Plan 2014-17 to manage biodiversity within the municipality, ensuring no loss of biodiversity. Council defines Biodiversity as the diversity of living things. It can be measured at:

Genetic levels (diversity of genes within a species)

Species levels (number of different species)

Ecosystem levels (number of functioning habitat types of different successional stages and ecological vegetation classes)

All three levels of biodiversity are intertwined and should be protected. The Biodiversity Plan provides an overview of Banyule’s biodiversity assets and lists actions and indicators to justify, direct and monitor our management of biodiversity within the municipality. These actions and indicators address issues such as pest plants, pest fauna urbanisation, climate change and knowledge and capacity building. The Biodiversity Plan has ten appendices providing technical and background material to assist in its implementation.





3.3


BIODIVERSITY PLAN 2014-17 cont’d


CITY PLAN

This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction to “protect and enhance our natural environment”.

BACKGROUND

City Plan Context

The Biodiversity Plan supports the objectives of Banyule’s City Plan 2013-17, in

particular the Planet Environmental Sustainability objective:

“Conduct Council activities in a sustainable manner, and practice sound stewardship

of the natural environment to ensure its protection, diversity and enhancement”.

This Plan also endorses the key directions outlined in the City Plan which aim to ensure the delivery of the ‘Planet’ objective. The Plan outlines the key steps and targets to achieve our key directions. Banyule’s Biodiversity Plan sits alongside the other Plan level documents under the Planet Policy and Strategy which address Energy, Water, Waste and Environmental Stewardship (Figure 1, over page).

The Biodiversity Plan has two parts – Part One is the core document containing

actions to be implemented, and Part Two contains supplementary technical

documents in ten appendices.

Council defines Biodiversity as the diversity of living things. It can be measured at:

Genetic levels (diversity of genes within a species)

Species levels (number of different species)

Ecosystem levels (number of functioning habitat types of different successional stages and ecological vegetation classes)

All three levels of biodiversity are intertwined and should be protected.

Objectives and Targets

The key objective of the Biodiversity Plan is to reduce the impacts of threats to local

biodiversity to ensure no loss of biodiversity in the municipality. The Plan also

contains the following targets:

Improvement in vegetation quality in key bushland reserves

Increase in the number of flora species planted

Monitoring rare and threatened species population health

Implementation of local laws and planning scheme requirements for biodiversity

protection

Engagement of the community in biodiversity education programs.

3.3




3.3




Biodiversity Assets

The Biodiversity Plan provides an overview of Banyule’s biodiversity assets and lists

actions and indicators to justify, direct and monitor our management of biodiversity

within the municipality.

Banyule City Council covers 63 square kilometres, and owns 4.5% (286.4 hectares)

of open space. However, Banyule retains less than 10% of its original vegetation

cover and has suffered extensive and irreparable biodiversity loss due to this habitat

fragmentation and destruction.

Despite these significant biodiversity losses, Banyule:

Includes over 30 sites designated as bushland reserves, and managed for

biodiversity conservation by Banyule staff

Contains twenty-two ‘Biosites’ (sites of regional, state or national environmental

significance)

Has recorded 401 indigenous vascular plant species, 214 birds, 20 mammals,

23 reptiles, 12 frogs and 9 freshwater fish species.

Contains biodiversity “hot spots” such as St Helena Bushland Reserve with 122

indigenous plant species, and Browns Reserve with 188 indigenous plant

species present.

Banyule’s Bushland reserves contain excellent representations of vegetation

communities that would have once occurred across similar zones in the municipality.

In addition to the bushland reserves, wildlife corridors, local habitat links and

wetlands across the municipality provide important biodiversity hotspots. These are

briefly explained below.

The Yarra River, Plenty River and Darebin Creek corridors are the major

wildlife corridors in the municipality. Wildlife Corridors are important as they

provide movement of fauna species within and through the municipality.

Local habitat links provide connections between isolated bushland reserves

and include habitat in residential areas. They allow for movement of native

wildlife across public and private land and are supported by Council’s “Buy 1

get 1 free” plant offer.

Banyule contains wetlands of at least State significance. Wetlands are

important as they provide habitat for numerous fauna species and are

important breeding grounds. Significant wetlands in the municipality include

Banyule Flats wetlands, Warringal Swamplands and a number of billabongs

within the Yarra Flats Park and around Wilson Reserve.

Environmental Stewardship

Environmental stewardship environmental activities such as those undertaken by

Banyule community “friends” groups are vitally important in biodiversity protection.

Many of these community activities are addressed in Council’s Environmental

Stewardship Plan, but have strong links to the Biodiversity Plan.

3.3




The links between environmental stewardship and biodiversity is evidenced by the

fact that:

Community volunteers have formed 15 community and friends groups in the

municipality that take an active role in protecting biodiversity in local bushland

reserves.

The Banyule Environment Advisory Committee, (BEAC) is actively involved in

the implementation and monitoring of the Banyule Environmental Sustainability

Policy and Strategy and provides advice and comments to council on

environmental matters.

As population density increases, well maintained public open space will become ever

more important to liveability and biodiversity. The Banyule community have repeated

indicated in Council surveys that natural environmental values including tree cover

and biodiversity should be protected for present and future generations.

Threats to Biodiversity

There are many threats to biodiversity in Banyule. There threats are often

intertwined, and a prioritised and integrated approach is required to adequately

manage them. The Biodiversity Plan therefore contains actions and targets to

address these biodiversity threats across Council departments.

Key threats to biodiversity include:

Competition from weeds

Predation by and competition from animal pests

Habitat fragmentation due to urbanisation and development

Climate change

CONSULTATION

The Biodiversity Plan was presented to the Banyule Environment Advisory

Committee (BEAC) in 2013 for expert and community feedback and discussion.

Following this, the Plan was circulated for feedback to relevant Council departments

that will be implementing actions in the Plan.


The Environmental Sustainability unit and the Parks and Gardens department

operating budgets fund various activities under the Biodiversity Plan. Relevant grants

pertaining to biodiversity protection will also be sought form Federal and State

government agencies.

3.3




CONCLUSION

The Biodiversity Plan 2014-17 has been developed to reduce the impacts of threats

to local biodiversity to ensure no loss of biodiversity in the municipality, in accord with

the objectives of Banyule’s City Plan and Planet Policy and Strategy. It will be

implemented by a range of Council departments and monitored through targets set

out in the Plan.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1) Adopt the Biodiversity Plan 2014-17 for implementation with the following actions and targets:

Improve vegetation quality in key bushland reserves

Increase the number of flora species planted

Monitor rare and threatened species population health

Implement local laws and planning scheme requirements for biodiversity

protection

Engage community in biodiversity education programs

2) Promote the Biodiversity Plan via The Banner and Greenwrap, Council’s

quarterly sustainability newsletter.

ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 Biodiversity Plan 2014-17 148

4.1

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment


4.1 BANYULE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C93 - ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT

Author: Anne North - Senior Strategic Planner, City Development

Ward: Griffin and Olympia

File: F2013/1385

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council is completing a process to introduce the Ivanhoe Structure Plan into the Banyule Planning Scheme with Amendment C93. This proposal includes two schedules to the Design and Development Overlay (DDO). Schedule 11 to the DDO is for the core areas and Schedule 12 is for the accessible residential area that is in the structure plan’s area. Following a Planning Panel hearing and supply of subsequent Panel Report recommendations, on 18 August 2014 Council resolved to Accept, Partially Accept or Not Accept the various Panel recommendations for Amendment C93. Council also resolved to prepare a final amendment for consideration at a future Council meeting. After considering all the Panel’s recommendations, this report summarises the work done to prepare the final amendment documents, with a matching structure plan. This included consulting with various landowners affected by the Panel recommendations. The outcome of this consultation is also summarised in the report. The report gives the final Amendment C93 proposal and recommends that Council can adopt it, so it can be sent to the Minister for Planning for approval to go into the Banyule Planning Scheme. To ensure consistency the report also recommends some refinements to the Ivanhoe Structure Plan, so it can also be part of the adoption by Council.



CITY PLAN

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

BACKGROUND

The Ivanhoe Structure Plan and the associated planning scheme changes have been developed through an extensive consultation process with the local community. More than 1600 people have participated over the last four years. This happened after community feedback on the initial 2011 structure plan, when people said that it did not have enough detail, was too open ended and did not involve enough

4.1


BANYULE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C93 - ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT cont’d


consultation. There were more than 700 written submissions to this initial plan, many expressing these concerns. Council then started work for a new structure plan with a renewed commitment to design evaluation, expertise and consultation. Although wary, the Ivanhoe community worked with Council to develop a new plan with details to guide change and respect the desired character of the area. 80 written submissions were received to the draft new plan. Further refinements were then made so Council could adopt a revised Ivanhoe Structure Plan in June 2013. This plan included much detail to guide the design of development. These details were translated into planning scheme language, to shape the content of two schedules to Design and Development Overlay (DDO). These two schedules are part of Amendment C93. The Centre’s core precincts (Precincts 1 – 6) are in Schedule 11 and the surrounding, accessible residential precinct (Precinct 7) is in Schedule 12. The framework of precincts is shown below.

Figure 1: Framework Plan for the Ivanhoe Activity Centre

4.1




Progress on the structure plan prompted Council to pursue temporary planning scheme controls, to help manage development, until such time as an outcome was achieved through public exhibition and a Planning Panel process for permanent planning scheme changes. The Minister for Planning supported two temporary DDO schedules that will expire on 31 May 2015. DISCUSSION Planning Scheme Amendment C93, for the permanent planning scheme changes, was exhibited from 5 December 2013 to 13 February 2014. A total of 13 written submissions were received. This result reflects general community support for the structure plan and amendment proposal for the planning scheme. The remaining concerns raised in submissions, were heard by a Planning Panel on 13 and 14 May 2014. The Panel’s recommendations were given in the Panel Report of 1 July 2014. At its meeting on 18 August 2014, Council resolved to Accept, Partially Accept or Not Accept the various Panel recommendations. This resolution is reflected in Attachment 1, which gives a response to each Panel recommendation. This outcome enabled further consultation and the preparation of final documents for Council’s approval.

CONSULTATION

Some of the Panel recommendations, called for Council to do further consultation with those landowners who were affected by submissions. Information about this consultation and associated outcomes for the C93 proposal are summarised below. Table 1: Summary of Consultation and Outcomes for C93

North western boundary of Accessible Residential Precinct 7

The Panel recommended that before adopting the Amendment, Council should reassess delineation of the north‐western boundary of the Accessible Residential Precinct 7 (DDO12) and consider whether to exclude the properties 34 and 36 Ivanhoe Parade, 144, 146, 149 and 151 Waterdale Road from the Major Activity Centre after consultation with the owners. Council wrote to the affected property owners requesting their advice on whether they wanted to be inside or outside the activity centre boundary. All of the property owners that responded to Council wish to remain in the activity centre boundary.

Outcome of consultation

Given the feedback from affected landowners, the original north-western boundary of the activity centre is proposed to remain unaltered.

South western boundary changes

During the Panel Hearing it became apparent that the exhibited DDO11-5B plan was incorrectly drawn and did not match with the structure plan. The western boundary of Precinct 5 had been incorrectly extended out, to include residential land that was in the Accessible Residential Precinct. This error affected properties in a north-south oriented strip, generally running between Rocke Street in the south and Kenilworth Parade at the north. The Panel recommended that Council consult with these affected landowners and explain that there was a mapping error.

4.1




Council wrote to the landowners to explain the discrepancy and advise that the correct boundary would be shown in the final version of C93.

Outcome of consultation

No objections to fixing the boundary of the DDO were received. The mapping discrepancy has been fixed for the final version of C93.

Church of Mary Immaculate

The Panel recommended that before adopting the Amendment, Council in consultation with the Church of Mary Immaculate should consider modifying Setback

Standard 2 (now Setback Standard B) in Built Form Plan DDO11‐5B for the frontage of the property. The change involves replacing Setback Standard B (which allows buildings to be constructed to the property boundary) with Setback Standard E. The reason for changing the setback is to conserve the existing copse of trees/vegetation on the Church site, which contributes to the landscape character of the precinct. Council wrote to the Roman Catholic Trust Corporation, advising of its intention to apply Setback Standard E to the church’s property. The Church advised that they agreed to this Panel Recommendation. During consultation with the Church it came to light that the plans exhibited through Amendment C93 showed the site at 2-6 Waverly Avenue split in two by a north-south oriented laneway. Although there is a laneway running parallel to Upper Heidelberg Road to the north, it does not extend through the Church’s property to Waverley Road. Figure 2 shows the Church site split in two by a laneway with lower building heights and residential land use west of the laneway, as a transition to residential properties.

Figure 2: Extract from the 2013 Ivanhoe Structure Plan showing guidelines around Upper Heidelberg Road and highlighting the Church site.

4.1




Figure 3: Aerial photograph of the Church of Mary Immaculate

The ‘Land Use and Built Form’ and ‘Height and Setback’ plans in both the structure Plan and DDO11 have been corrected to show the Church site as a consolidated landholding. The setbacks to Waverly Avenue have also been revised. Given the prominent residential character of Waverly Avenue, Setback Standard E (Urban Street, Urban Laneway and Side Interface) is preferred for the western portion of the site along this street. This setback is reasonable because it achieves consistent frontages along Waverly Avenue, with the Airlie property at 19-33 Upper Heidelberg Road – on the other side of the street. A less restrictive Setback Standard is preferred for the eastern portion of the site at the shopping street. Doing this will retain the ‘main street’ frontage along Upper Heidelberg Road that is shown in Figure 3 below.

4.1




Figure 4: Revised Height and Setbacks Plan to reflect a consolidated land holding at the Church of Mary Immaculate It should be noted that the discussions with the Church were prompted by the Panel’s recommendations. The Church did not lodge any submission to Amendment C93, nor were they a party to the Panel Hearing.

Outcome

1. Given the feedback received after consultation with the Church, Setback Standard B, for part of the site’s Heidelberg Road frontage, should be replaced with Setback Standard E.

2. The Heights and Setbacks Standards Plan in both the Structure Plan and the DDO11-5B have been amended to show the site as a consolidated landholding.

3. The Heights and Setbacks Standards Plan in both the Structure Plan and the

DDO11-5B have been amended to apply Setback Standards B and E to the site’s Waverly Avenue frontage.

4.1




OTHER MATTERS

Mapping anomaly During the public exhibition process, mapping anomalies were found for several properties fronting Ivanhoe Parade. The following table lists these properties with their current use and planning scheme zone, as well as the exhibited provisions. Table 2: Mapping Anomalies at Ivanhoe Parade

Property and Current Use

Current Zone

Exhibited provisions

Comment about anomaly

16 Ivanhoe Parade Church shopfront

Commercial 1 Zone, with DDO7

No change to zone DDO12 proposed

The Structure Plan recognises these properties with the ‘Accessible Residential’ DDO12, however they are not zoned for residential use

18 Ivanhoe Parade Mixed use

Commercial 1 Zone, with DDO7

No change to zone DDO12 proposed

20 Ivanhoe Parade Dwellings

Commercial 1 Zone No change to zone DDO12 proposed

22 Ivanhoe Parade Townhouses


24 Ivanhoe Parade Townhouses


It is likely that these anomalies may be inconsequential in the coming years, because most of these properties have buildings that have been recently developed or are well maintained. However, the longer-term consequence will be a mismatch between the purposes of the Commercial Zone and the Design Guidelines of DDO12, as the latter is intended to apply to residential developments only. Properties at 16 to 24 Ivanhoe Parade should have the boundary of the DDOs aligned with zone boundaries. This matter may need to be pursued through a separate planning scheme amendment.

CONCLUSION

The Planning Panel made various recommendations on Planning Scheme Amendment C93. Since the Council meeting on 18 August 2014, further work has been done to refine the Ivanhoe Structure Plan and Planning Scheme Amendment documents in response to the Panel’s recommendations. This work has included consultation with affected landowners, editorial changes to the Plan and Amendment documents. The Ivanhoe Structure Plan and Planning Scheme Amendment C93 are now ready for final adoption. Doing this will position Council to send the adopted Plan and Amendment to the Minister for Planning for final approval and gazettal. Approval by the Minister would lead to gazettal of these changes and an improved Banyule Planning Scheme.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council: 1. Adopts the revised Ivanhoe Activity Centre Structure Plan (1 December 2014)

as shown in Attachment 3.

4.1




2. Adopt Planning Scheme Amendment C93 as shown in Attachment 2. 3. Request the Minister for Planning’s approval to Amendment C93 to introduce

permanent planning scheme controls for the Ivanhoe Activity Centre into the Banyule Planning Scheme.

4. Request the Minister for Planning complete the process of gazetting

Amendment C93 before the temporary schedule 11 and 12 to the Design and Development Overlay expires on 31 May 2015.

5.

ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 Proposed changes to Structure Plan and Amendment documents 164

2 Planning Scheme Amendment Documents 186

3 Revised Ivanhoe Structure Plan 256

4.2



4.2 INTRODUCING A NEW SPECIAL BUILDING OVERLAY SCHEDULE INTO THE PLANNING SCHEME

Author: Emma Shorter - Senior Strategic Planner, City Development

File: F2014/3970

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A stormwater catchment analysis has been done to identify significant stormwater inundation areas where a new Special Building Overlay (SBO) in the planning scheme may be appropriate. This SBO would apply to local drainage catchments where Council is the local drainage authority. There is already an SBO in the planning scheme for Melbourne Water’s regional drainage catchments. The SBO will assist in improving the safety of people and property by making future developments better designed to avoid the detrimental impacts of overland flow paths created during an extreme severe storm. Community information workshops are currently being progressed to help inform property owners and occupiers included within the SBO, on the stormwater catchment analysis and work done to prepare the SBO. Individual information sessions for Councillors have also been held. Planning scheme maps and a new schedule to the SBO are being prepared. The Schedule has local content for planning permits, application requirements and referrals. Council can now write to the Minister for Planning and seek authorisation to prepare planning scheme amendment C101 and publically exhibit the proposed maps and new SBO schedule.


Section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 requires Council staff, and persons engaged under contract to provide advice to Council, to disclose any direct or indirect interest in a matter to which the advice relates. Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter. Stormwater maps referred to and attached to this report have been prepared by independent experts, to show inundation areas where a future Special Building Overlay in the Banyule Planning Scheme would apply.

CITY PLAN

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

BACKGROUND

The 2012 Banyule Flood Management Plan included various improvement actions to reduce stormwater inundation risk in the City. One of these was to review existing planning scheme overlays. The Municipal Wide Flood Mitigation Study has done this, and other actions of the Flood Management Plan.

4.2


INTRODUCING A NEW SPECIAL BUILDING OVERLAY SCHEDULE INTO THE PLANNING SCHEME cont’d


Progress on the Municipal Wide Flood Mitigation Study was reported to Council on 17 February 2014. Council resolved to investigate the preparation of a Special Building Overlay (SBO) to guide development in higher risk stormwater inundation areas, where Council is the local drainage authority. Council also resolved to support an ongoing residents’ education program and pre-consultation for the SBO. A stormwater catchment analysis of local catchment areas has been done, to identify overland stormwater flow paths associated with extreme rainfall events in these local catchments. One of the outcomes of this analysis was the mapping of these flow paths, for future inclusion in the SBO in the planning scheme. Catchment analysis for regional catchments in Banyule has previously been done by Melbourne Water. Stormwater flow paths for these regional catchments have already been included in the Banyule Planning Scheme and are shown by the existing regional SBO, with Schedule 1. Expert consultants have done the local stormwater analysis and recognised engineering parameters have been used to understand the stormwater flow. The affected areas are where the 1 in 100 year storm has potential for flow:

Depths greater than 200mm, and/or

Velocities that are more significant, where the combination of flow velocity x depth is at least 0.35m2/sec.

In addition, the mapped boundaries of the proposed SBO are where the flow depth is about 100mm. About 2,600 properties will be included in the proposed SBO. The stormwater catchment analysis also identified some stormwater flow paths where depths and velocities are less significant than those mentioned above. These areas will be assessed against Building Regulations. A map showing the existing Melbourne Water regional SBO, the proposed local SBO, and flow paths for the Building Regulations are in Attachment 1 and are also available from Council’s website. More information about this mapping and the catchment analysis is in Attachment 2.


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

CURRENT SITUATION

The proposed SBO will be converted into planning scheme maps. Local content for planning permits, application requirements and referrals are currently being developed and will form Schedule 2 to the SBO. A draft is attached in Attachment 3 of this report. This Schedule may need further refinement in the lead up to public exhibition.

4.2




The SBO maps and Schedule 2 will form a planning scheme amendment (C101), to pursue changes to the Banyule Planning Scheme. Future public exhibition of C101 will happen before March 2015 for about 5 weeks. To achieve exhibition in early 2015 Council should seek authorisation to prepare an amendment from the Minister for Planning before the end of the year. Pre-exhibition consultation In line with Council’s resolution to do consultation prior to exhibiting the planning scheme amendment, three community information workshops have been scheduled for 27 November, 2 and 3 December 2014. These sessions will inform residents how the stormwater catchment analysis has informed the proposed SBO. Residents who are included in the proposed SBO have received a letter inviting them to attend one of these sessions. Consultation information for the SBO is in Attachments 4 and 5. This information includes a Frequently Asked Questions fact sheet and details of the community information workshops. Proposed consultation during public exhibition of amendment It is proposed that the following measures will appropriately advertise the amendment in 2015, to meet statutory requirements under the Planning and Environment Act:

Letters to all landowners and occupiers included in the proposed SBO.

Letters to prescribed Ministers, as per the Planning and Environment Act.

Letters to neighbouring municipalities.

Advertising in local Leader Newspapers and the Government Gazette.

Information on Council website.

Opportunities for meetings with interested parties.

Updates in the Banyule Banner.

CONCLUSION

Planning scheme maps showing the SBO area and its Schedule 2 have been drafted. Council can now seek an amendment, known as C101, to pursue the SBO’s future introduction into the planning scheme. This process will include further public consultation in 2015 and continued refinement for a final SBO. To initiate this amendment process Council needs to obtain the Minister for Planning’s authorisation to prepare the Amendment C101.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council: 1. Note the completed stormwater catchment analysis and the proposed Special

Building Overlay (SBO) map. 2. Note that pre-exhibition consultation for the SBO is currently underway. 3. Write to the Minister for Planning requesting authorisation to prepare a planning

scheme amendment to introduce Schedule 2 of the Special Building Overlay and its associated maps into the Banyule Planning Scheme.

4.2




ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 SBO Map 397

2 SBO Development - Technical Report 399

3 Draft Schedule 2 to the SBO 413

4 FAQ's SBO 414

5 SBO information brochure 416

4.3



4.3 PROPOSAL TO AMEND A SECTION 173 AGREEMENT AT 7 EDWARD COURT, IVANHOE

Author: Jackie Bernoth - Acting Co-ordinator Development Planner , City

Development

Ward: Griffin

File: P709/98

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report requests that Council consider whether or not it agrees ‘in principle’ to the amending of a Section 173 agreement (X261842C) which is an agreement between Council and the owners of 7 Edward Court, Ivanhoe. It is not proposed to amend the Agreement from the titles of Units 1-6, 7A Edward Court. The agreement relates to Planning Permit P709/1998 (5 dwellings in addition to the existing) which has been acted upon, with the dwellings approved having been constructed a number of years ago. The purpose of the agreement was to enable an approved subdivision of the land on the basis that the land created was only developed in accordance with Planning Permit P709/98, and to limit development on the front allotment, which contains the original dwelling. The amendment of the agreement on their property is requested by the landowner of the front allotment to facilitate sale of the property, in that it would provide greater diversity of options for future purchasers of the land. The amendment sought would allow the construction of second storey additions to the existing dwelling, or replacement of the dwelling with a double storey dwelling subject to a planning permit if desired by any future owner of the land. While request for Council’s in-principle support for the removal of Agreements have been referred to Council in the past where there have been neighbourhood character considerations, or modified requirements as a result of changes in zoning provisions, this request is being referred to Council as at present no delegation is in place to allow officers to consider the request.



4.3


PROPOSAL TO AMEND A SECTION 173 AGREEMENT AT 7 EDWARD COURT, IVANHOE cont’d


LOCALITY PLAN

BACKGROUND/HISTORY

Planning Permit P709/98 was issued under delegation on 4 May 1999 as no appeals had been lodged against Council’s Notice of Decision to grant a permit. The permit allowed the construction of five double storey dwellings on the land, although it is apparent from the proposal that there was a sixth (existing, single storey) dwelling on the land. The permit was amended on 16 March 2000 to, amongst other things, insert a new Condition 15. This condition required that:

Prior to the commencement of the development, the owner shall enter into a Section 173 Agreement under the Planning and Environment Act with the Responsible Authority to ensure that the front dwelling on the property remains as a single storey residence and that the total site of No 7 Edward Court Ivanhoe have a maximum of 6 dwelling, constructed in accordance with the plans endorsed pursuant to Planning permit P709/98, or any subsequent approval granted by Council. And further that this agreement would continue to apply to the land after the land is subdivided.

A request has been received to amend the Section 173 agreement (X261842C). The amendment of the agreement is requested by the landowner of 7 Edward Court to facilitate the sale of their property, and would allow for the land to be developed with a dwelling that has more than one storey.

4.3




PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

Section 178C of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 provides that, if Council grants in principle consent to the amendment of the Agreement, public notification must be conducted before any final decision is made on whether or not the agreement is amended.

PLANNING CONTROLS

Planning controls are summarised in the table below:

Control Clause Permit Triggers

Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ3)

32.09 A planning permit would be required to construct a new dwelling (or dwellings), or additions to the existing dwelling on lots under 500 m2 (including 7 Edward Court). No more than two dwellings may be constructed on a lot, and any dwelling must have a maximum height of 9m on sloping sites.

Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO1)

42.01 A planning permit would be required to carry out buildings and works, including the construction of a fence, but excluding a single dwelling with a wall height less than 4.5m and an overall height of less than 6.0m.

TECHNICAL CONSIDERATION

Changes to the Planning and Environment Act 1987 have established a process for amending a Section 173 agreement (amending by a Section 178A proposal). The process sets out that the first decision that Council is required to make is whether it agrees ‘in principle’ to the amendment of the agreement. While there is no criteria which guides whether ‘in principle’ support should be given, it is suggested that Council should consider Section 178B(1):

(a) the purpose of the agreement; and

(b) the purpose of the amendment; and

(c) whether any change in circumstances necessitates the amendment; and

(d) whether the amendment would disadvantage any person, whether or not a party to the agreement; and

(e) the reasons why the responsible authority entered into the agreement; and

(f) if the amendment is to remove land from the application of the agreement, whether the land is subject to any further liability under the agreement; and

(g) any relevant permit or other requirements the land is subject to under the Subdivision Act 1988; and

(h) any other prescribed matter.

4.3




Purpose of this Section 173 Agreement The agreement was imposed by Planning Permit P709/1998, which allowed the construction of five dwellings to the rear of the existing (single storey) house at 7 Edward Court. The plans accompanying the permit do not include any detailed information on the existing dwelling, and the purpose of the agreement would appear to be to retain the single storey streetscape presentation of the proposal. The requirement for no more than six dwellings on the land would also appear to seek to ensure that the land at 7 Edward Court was not further developed with two dwellings in the future. The applicant does not seek to alter this aspect of the Agreement. Purpose of the Amendment and whether necessary It is noted that a planning permit would be required to construct a dwelling on the site, which has an area of approximately 450 m2, and that it is proposed that the Agreement would effectively continue to require it to be developed with no more than one dwelling. As Council would be able to consider the streetscape and amenity impacts of any application, it is considered that the Agreement is no longer required. By contrast, when the 1998 permit was granted a planning permit was not required for the construction of a new dwelling on the land (controls at that time restricting construction on lots with an area of 300 m2 or less). Will the amending of the agreement disadvantage any person? It is not anticipated that amendment the agreement would result any disadvantage to surrounding properties, although if in-principle agreement is granted, public notification of the request would need to be conducted, and any objections considered. Other Considerations There has been a change in both zoning and planning policy since the agreement was entered into, with the Neighbourhood Residential Zone being more restrictive in terms of dwelling density and height than the previous Residential 1 Zone. Council’s Residential Neighbourhood Character Policy at Clause 22.02 was also revised by Amendment C68, Residential Neighbourhood Character Policy, gazetted on 20 June 2013. This subsequently placed the site in the Garden Suburban 3 Precinct of Council’s Residential Neighbourhood Character Policy (formerly Garden Suburban Precinct 6). Any future application for development on the site would need to respond appropriately to the planning controls that apply at the time.

CONCLUSION

On balance, it is considered that it is fair and reasonable for Council to agree ‘in principle’ to the amendment of the agreement on the basis that:

The request is for amendment of the agreement as it relates to the allotment containing the original dwelling on the land;

The plans endorsed pursuant to Planning Permit P709/1998 do not contain any detailed information or requirements with respect to the dwelling;

No more than one dwelling would be able to be developed on the allotment;

Any future development of the site would require a planning permit; and

4.3




Public notification of the request would subsequently be conducted, with a more detailed consideration of the matter to be conducted after feedback from affected parties is received.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council: 1. Pursuant to Section 178A(3) of the Planning and Environment 1987, agree, ‘in

principle’ to the amendment of Section 173 Agreement X261842C dated 15 January 2001 that is registered on the Certificate of Title (Volume 08666, Folio 884) for 7 Edward Court, Ivanhoe to delete reference to the requirement for the front dwelling on the property to be single storey; and

2. Notify the applicant in writing.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

4.4



4.4 IVANHOE PRIMARY SCHOOL - PARKING AND TRAFFIC ISSUES

Author: Sanjev Sivananthanayagam - Transport Engineer, City Development

Ward: Olympia

File: F2014/141

Previous Items Council on 17 March 2014 (Item 8.6 - Ivanhoe Primary School - Traffic Concerns in

Ailsa Grove)

Council on 23 June 2014 (Item 4.1 - Ivanhoe Primary School - Parking and Traffic Investigation)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

At the Council meeting on 23 June 2014, the report concerning traffic and parking issues in the vicinity of Ivanhoe Primary School, Ivanhoe was deferred to allow a meeting with School Council representatives and residents in Ailsa Grove, Lowe Street and Tate Street. A public meeting was conducted on 8 October 2014, participants at this meeting included:

Ivanhoe Primary School representatives;

Residents of Ailsa Grove, Lowe Street and Tate Street;

The Ward Councillor; and

Engineering Services staff.

A number of issues and potential solutions were identified relating to access, congestion, parking restrictions, signage and enforcement. Some of the initiatives coming out of the meeting have already been implemented. This report considers in more detail potential solutions that required further investigation.



CITY PLAN

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

BACKGROUND

Council at its Meeting on 23 June 2014 considered a Notice of Motion in relation to traffic concerns in the vicinity of Ivanhoe Primary School, particularly in Ailsa Grove. At the meeting, Council resolved:

“That the item be deferred with the intention to call a meeting with school council representatives and residents in Ailsa Grove, Lowe Street and Tate Street.”

4.4


IVANHOE PRIMARY SCHOOL - PARKING AND TRAFFIC ISSUES cont’d


A public meeting was held with Ivanhoe Primary School representatives, the ward Councillor, residents of Ailsa Grove, Lowe Street and Tate Street and Engineering Services staff on the Wednesday 8 October 2014 at the Ivanhoe Town Hall. A locality plan for the subject locations is provided in Figure 1.

Figure 1 – Ivanhoe Primary School Locality Plan

DISCUSSION

A number of traffic and parking issues were raised at the public meeting and potential solutions were identified. These are summarised in Attachment 1 and have been categorised as:

Items immediately actioned.

Items investigated – discussed in this report.

Items investigated and discussed with Ivanhoe Primary School – discussed in this report.

Items Immediately Actioned Items identified at the public meeting which have been actioned by Council include:

Extension of the ‘No Stopping’ restriction around the bend on North side of Lowe Street to improve sight visibility.

Installation of signage to identify Tate Street as a no through road.

Installation of ‘No Stopping’ parking restrictions near the intersection of Tate Street and Livingstone Street.

Installation four ‘2 minute’ parking spaces at the northern end of Tate Street on the school side.

Line marking parking spaces in Tate Street on the school side.

Increased enforcement of existing parking restrictions. Items Investigated A number of items raised at the public meeting required further investigation to assess their suitability. These items are discussed below. Installation of 2-hour parking restrictions in Ailsa Grove

Subject

Locations

4.4




A key concern of residents in Ailsa Grove was the level of all day parking occurring in the street. Given the proximity to the Ivanhoe Activity Centre, Ailsa Grove experiences substantial overspill parking from traders and their customers. Teachers from Ivanhoe Primary School also utilise this on-street parking. Residents expressed a desire to have restrictions implemented in Ailsa Grove to limit all day parking. Community consultation has been initiated to establish the level of support for timed restrictions. Status: A community consultation survey is being undertaken in Ailsa Grove for the installation of 2-hour parking on the north side of the street. Installation of 1/2-hour parking in Lowe Street with Residential Parking Permits Residents in Lowe Street requested Council consider installing 1/2-hour parking restrictions on both sides of Lowe Street to increase parking opportunities and allow residents to purchase residential parking permits. Student drop off / pick up in Lowe Street is discouraged by Ivanhoe Primary School due to limited parking availability and congestion. Installing 1/2-hour parking restrictions in Lowe Street would have a negative effect of creating a greater turnover of parking in the street and increasing congestion, particularly during school start and finish times, and is not supported. There are currently 2-hour parking restrictions on the residential side of Lowe Street and unrestricted parking on the school side (apart from a short No Stopping restriction on the bend). It is considered reasonable to change the 2-hour restrictions on the residential side of Lowe Street to 1-hour to further limit the impact of Ivanhoe Activity Centre trader and customer parking in Lowe Street; however the proposed 1/2-hour restrictions are not supported due to the high turnover of vehicles entering Lowe Street as discussed above. It is proposed that Lowe Street residents be consulted to establish the level of support for the proposal to install 1-hour parking on the residential side of the street. Residents at the meeting also requested that Council consider amending the Residential Parking Permit Policy to allow residents to purchase Residential Parking Permits where there are 1/2-hour parking restrictions. The policy allows vehicles displaying a permit to be parked for unlimited periods except where there are parking restrictions of less than one hour. This is designed to provide an appropriate level of parking turnover within Activity Centres and areas of high parking demand. A change to the Residential Parking Permit Policy is not warranted or supported. Status: Recommendation that a community consultation survey be undertaken in Lowe Street for the installation of 1-hour parking on weekdays on the south side of the street, replacing the 1/2-hour parking restrictions. Weekend ‘Resident Only Permit Zone’ in Lowe Street Residents raised concerns about parking in Lowe Street being utilised by residents from other streets at weekends, in particular Waterdale Road residents opposite Lowe Street. Residents in Lowe Street requested ‘Resident Only Parking Restrictions’ in Lowe Street at weekends.

4.4




This could be addressed through the installation of a weekend ‘Permit Zone’ restriction on south side of Lowe Street which would allow resident only parking. It is proposed that Lowe Street residents be consulted to establish the level of support for a one year trial of this proposal. Status: Recommendation that a community consultation survey be undertaken in Lowe Street for the installation of a weekend ‘Permit Zone’ parking restriction on the south side of the street for a one year trial period. Teacher Parking in the Closed Section of Tate Street – North of Ailsa Grove Residents raised concerns about the lack of school teacher parking. It was suggested that Council consider the potential of providing a parking area for teachers in the section of Tate Street, north of Ailsa Grove. The request was raised by Lowe Street residents; however it was not supported by residents of Ailsa Grove. Providing vehicle parking in this area would compromise its use as a turn-around area for buses and therefore using this area for parking of vehicles is not supported. Status: ‘Teacher Parking’ in Tate Street, north of Ailsa Grove is not supported. Court Bowl Type Turnaround Treatment in Ailsa Grove A primary safety concern of residents and the school is the number of vehicles that perform 3-point turns to exit Ailsa Grove after dropping off and picking up students. An alternative to promote the safer turning of vehicles is the installation of a rounded court bowl treatment where vehicles can turn around in one forward movement, Refer to Figure 2. This treatment could be installed in Ailsa Grove near the Tate Street closure point and is considered a viable option to improve road safety in Ailsa Grove. Status: The installation of a rounded cul-de-sac in Ailsa Grove, at the Tate Street closure point, where vehicles can turn around in one forward movement be considered for funding, as part of future Capital Works budget.

4.4




Figure 2 – Potential Court Bowl Treatment in Ailsa Grove Items Investigated and Discussed with Ivanhoe Primary School In response to the public meeting, a further meeting was held with the Ivanhoe Primary School Principal to discuss some of the residents’ issues and proposed solutions raised at the meeting. These items are discussed below. School Buses Accessing Ailsa Grove

Residents raised safety concerns in relation to school buses dropping off and picking up students in Ailsa Grove and reversing onto Waterdale Road to exit. The School Principal confirmed that the bus stop adjacent to No. 3 Livingstone Street is used for students to alight and exit buses for school excursions and sports events. This bus stop is easily accessed through the right of way off Lowe Street. The Principal indicated that buses only enter Ailsa Grove to collect and drop off students for school camps which occur three (3) times throughout the year. On those occasions, buses leave prior to 8am in the morning and generally return around 4pm to 4.30pm in the evening. To avoid the difficulty of buses reversing onto Waterdale Road, Council officers have recommended that buses use the section of Tate Street, north of Ailsa Grove to perform a turning manoeuvrer. This area is wide and long enough to accommodate buses turning around without reversing along Ailsa Grove. The practice of reversing buses onto Waterdale Road is strongly discouraged by officers. Council will arrange for the turnaround area to continue to be appropriately maintained for these turning manoeuvres. Status: School to encourage the bus operators to use the section of Tate Street, north of Ailsa Grove to perform turning manoeuvres.

4.4




Loop Road through the School

A potential solution to address the issues with school drop off and pick up in Ailsa Grove was the installation of an internal drop off and pick up zone within the school grounds. The proposal involved the construction of a one way access from Ailsa Grove to the Right of Way, which connects into Tate Street, to eliminate the need for vehicles to turn around in Ailsa Grove. This proposal was not supported by the school. Concerns were raised that fencing would be required to control school children crossing the road, which would effectively split the school into two sections. This would severely restrict the movement of school children accessing their already small play area. This proposal is not supported. Status: The installation of an access road through the school is not supported. One-way Road via Donaldson Reserve into Green Street

As an alternative to the potential route through the school, a one-way road from the end of Ailsa Grove to Green Street via Donaldson Reserve was proposed. This could eliminate the need for vehicles turning around in Ailsa Grove. Donaldson Reserve contains the Donaldson Creek Shared Trail, an important off-road trail for recreational and commuter users. The trail is also well used by children accessing Ivanhoe Primary School. Introducing vehicles to this Reserve would result in a loss of open space, compromise the safety of off-road path users, create potential conflict for vehicles and path users and limit the potential for future expansion of the shared trail. This proposal is not supported. Status: Provision of an access road through Donaldson Reserve is not supported. School Waste Collection A commercial school waste collection bin is located in Lowe Street. The bin is emptied on Thursday mornings by a front-loading truck. Residents are concerned that waste collection vehicles have to reverse up Lowe Street to Waterdale Road with cars parked on both sides. The bend in Lowe Street further exacerbates these issues and some damage to vehicles has been reported. The school has investigated alternative pick up locations and ways to manage waste collection, however the volume of weekly waste means that smaller waste bins cannot be considered without more regular pick-ups. As the garbage collection is via a front-loading truck there are limited suitable alternative locations given the current constrictions that exist on the school site and in the surrounding road network. The school has indicated that the current arrangement has been in place in Lowe Street for over 20 years and they would prefer to keep it at the same location. The school requested Council introduce parking restrictions to assist the waste collection truck navigate Lowe Street. The installation of ‘No Stopping, 6am – 8am, Thursday’ parking restrictions on the school side of Lowe Street would allow additional space for garbage trucks to reverse

4.4




in a safe manner and reduce the likelihood of damage to parked vehicles. The restrictions were discussed at the public meeting and were generally supported. Status: ‘No Stopping, 6am – 8am, Thursday’ parking restrictions to be installed between the two existing sections of ‘No Stopping’ parking restrictions on the north side of the street, on the western end. Alterations to Disabled Access Residents raised concerns in relation to parking and pedestrian access to the school for the disabled. It was suggested that a disabled parking bay be installed in Lowe Street and possibly consider a pedestrian disabled access via Waterdale Road. The school Principal indicated that the current access for disabled students is adequate. The existing disabled parking bay in Ailsa grove is appropriately signed and is in a convenient location. Status: No further action is proposed. Additional Proposal 2-minute Parking As proposals to increase the 2-minute drop-off and pick-up spaces in Ailsa Grove were not supported by residents, concerns about queuing (to access the current drop-off and pick-up zone) extending into Waterdale Road remains unresolved. To address safety concerns regarding queuing vehicles extending into Waterdale Road, it is proposed to relocate the existing 2-minute zone further west to the third section of 1/4 P indented parking. The existing 1/4P parking zone would be relocated to the existing 2-minute zone. This would provide more queuing length in Ailsa Grove, minimising the likelihood of queuing extending into Waterdale Road. The proposed changes are shown in Figure 3 below.

Figure 3 – Ailsa Grove Drop-Off and Pick-Up Spaces Relocation

4.4




CONCLUSION

Consistent with the Resolution at the Council meeting on 23 June 2014, a public meeting was held with Ivanhoe Primary School representatives, the Ward Councillor, residents of Ailsa Grove, Lowe Street and Tate Street and Engineering Services staff on 8 October 2014 at the Ivanhoe Town Hall. Council provided options for consideration and invited guests to identify issues and offer solutions. Some solutions identified at the meeting were supported and the following have been implemented:

Extended the ‘No Stopping’ restriction around the bend on North side of Lowe Street to improve sight visibility.

Installed signage to identify Tate Street as a no through road.

Installed ‘No Stopping’ parking restrictions near the intersection of Tate Street and Livingstone Street.

Installed four ‘2 minute’ parking spaces at the northern end of Tate Street on the school side.

Line marked parking spaces in Tate Street on the school side.

Increased enforcement of existing parking restrictions.

Initiated a community consultation survey for the installation of 2-hour parking restrictions to restrict all day parking in Ailsa Grove.

The following changes to parking are recommended to be implemented to address concerns raised at the public meeting:

The relocation of the 2-minute zone in Ailsa Grove to the third section of indented parking. Existing 1/4P zone to be relocated to old 2-minute zone.

The installation ‘No Stopping, 6am – 8am, Thursday’ parking restrictions on the north side of Lowe Street, from the western end of Lowe Street to the existing ‘No Stopping’ parking restrictions at the bend to assist school garbage bin collection.

It is also considered appropriate to undertake a community consultation survey to determine if the following changes to parking are supported by the residents of the respective streets, prior to the implementation.

The replacement of 2-hour parking ‘9am - 6pm, Mon – Fri’ on the south side of Lowe Street to 1-hour parking ‘9am - 6pm, Mon – Fri’.

Installation of ‘Permit Zone’ parking restrictions on Saturday and Sunday on south side of Lowe Street, as a trial for one year period.

To address the concern of vehicles having to reverse to turn around in Ailsa Grove, it is recommended Council consider funding in future Capital Works budgets the installation of a court bowl type treatment in Ailsa Grove at the Tate Street closure point to assist motorists to turn around in one forward movement.

4.4




RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Note that the following solutions identified at the public meeting have been implemented:

Extended the ‘No Stopping’ restriction around the bend on North side of Lowe Street to improve sight visibility.

Installed signage to identify Tate Street as a no through road.

Installed ‘No Stopping’ parking restrictions near the intersection of Tate Street and Livingstone Street.

Installed four ‘2-minute’ parking spaces at the northern end of Tate Street on the school side.

Line marked parking spaces in Tate Street on the school side.

Increased enforcement of existing parking restrictions. 2. Install ‘No Stopping, 6am – 8am, Thursday’ parking restrictions on the north

side of Lowe Street, between the school waste bin collection area and the existing ‘No Stopping’ parking restrictions at the bend.

3. Relocate the existing 2-minute parking zone in Ailsa Grove further west to the

third section of indented parking which is currently 1/4 P parking zone and relocate the 1/4P parking zone to the existing 2-minute zone.

4. Undertake community consultation to determine the level of support by

residents in respective streets, to the following changes to parking:

The replacement of 2-hour parking ‘9am - 6pm, Mon – Fri’ on the south side of Lowe Street with 1-hour parking ‘9am - 6pm, Mon – Fri’.

Installation of ‘Permit Zone’ parking restrictions on Saturday and Sunday on south side of Lowe Street, as a trial for one year period.

Installation of 2-hour parking restrictions to restrict all day parking, in Ailsa Grove.

5. Consider funding as part of future Capital Works budget, the installation of a

rounded cul-de-sac in Ailsa Grove, at the Tate Street closure point, where vehicles can turn around in one forward movement.

ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 Attachment 1 – Issues and Solutions Identified at the Public Meeting 418

4.5



4.5 FORMAL NAMING OF TWO UNNAMED RIGHT OF WAYS (LANEWAYS) IN HEIDELBERG HEIGHTS AND IVANHOE

Author: Michael Hutchison - Projects Coordinator, City Development

Ward: Olympia

File: F2014/112

Previous Items Council on 17 December 2012 (Item 9.2 - Consideration of Naming the Elliott Street

Right of Way, Heidelberg Heights)

Council on 4 March 2013 (Item 4.2 - Consideration to formally name Right of Way bounded by Elliot, Haig, Monash and Altona Streets in Heidelberg Heights)

Council on 7 July 2014 (Item 4.13 - Formal naming of the Right of Way running off Elliot Street, Heidelberg Heights)

Council on 31 March 2014 (Item 5.3 - Proposal to formally name the Right of Way bounded by Waterdale Road, Jellicoe and Beatty Streets, Ivanhoe)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report proposes the naming of two Right of Ways (laneways). The first is in Heidelberg Heights and the second in Ivanhoe. In both instances Council has previously resolved to name these Right of Ways only to have the recommended name rejected by the Office of Geographic Names, which is the authority that approves naming proposals for entry in VICNAMES. Council’s earlier naming proposals were rejected because they were either similar in name or phonetic sound to other roads within 5kms of the laneways. Following the completion of consultation with residents and property owners, which elicited no objections to the proposed names, and with the “in principle” support of the Office of Geographic Names, this report proposes the formal naming of:

1. the Right of Way (laneway) running off Elliott Street, Heidelberg Heights as “Pimelea Lane”; and

2. the Right of Way (laneway) running between Jellicoe and Beatty Streets, Ivanhoe as “Cassinia Lane”.



CITY PLAN

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

4.5


FORMAL NAMING OF TWO UNNAMED RIGHT OF WAYS (LANEWAYS) IN HEIDELBERG HEIGHTS AND IVANHOE cont’d


CURRENT SITUATION

Right of Way off Elliot Street Heidelberg Heights: Following completion of community consultation, Council resolved at its meeting of 7 July 2014 to name the unnamed right of way running off Elliot Street, Heidelberg Heights, “Burgan Lane”. Figure 1 (below) indicates the location of this laneway. Unfortunately the Office of Geographic Names (OGN) rejected this proposal due to similarities in the sound of the name with Burgundy Street, Heidelberg. OGN advises that the name “Pimelea” (which was the alternative name provided to the community when Council undertook naming consultation in May 2014) is suitable for use as a formal name, subject to confirmation of acceptance by the local community. Further community consultation has therefore been undertaken.

Locality Plan

Figure 1: Heidelberg Heights Right of Way

Consultation: Table 1 (over page) outlines the consultation undertaken to secure community comment on the alternative proposal of “Pimelea Lane” for the Heidelberg Heights laneway. This name references Pimelea humilis, a flowering plant known as the Common Rice-flower which is found in Banyule and the local area.

4.5




Table 1: Summary of consultation key dates - Heidelberg Heights Laneway

Date Action Outcomes

13 October 2014

Letter to 45 residents and property owners in the surrounding streets requesting comment on the proposed use of the name “Pimelea Lane”. Survey closed 13 November 2014.

No Comments or feedback received at 18 November 2014.

Consultation advised that no response indicated tacit approval for assigning the name “Pimelea Lane”.

Right of Way off running between Jellicoe and Beatty Streets, Ivanhoe: Following completion of community consultation, Council resolved at its meeting of 31 March 2014 to name the unnamed right of way running between Jellicoe and Beatty Streets, Ivanhoe, “Bennett Lane”. Figure 2 (below) shows the location of this laneway. Unfortunately the OGN rejected this proposal due to the proximity of other similarly named roads outside the municipality in Kew East and Alphington. Comprehensive consultation with the OGN has therefore been undertaken in order to determine appropriate naming options for this laneway, and a new round of consultation was undertaken in with two options proposed for community feedback. Locality Plan

Figure 2: Ivanhoe Right of Way

Consultation: Table 2 below outlines the consultation undertaken to secure community comment

on two naming options for the Ivanhoe laneway, both of which reference indigenous

plants found in the Banyule municipality, including Ivanhoe area. This table also

indicates the approach taken to communicate the findings of initial consultation.

4.5




Table 2: Summary of consultation key dates - Ivanhoe Laneway

Date Action Outcomes

August 2014

Letter to 52 households/property owners in the surrounding streets requesting comment on two naming options. Survey closed 5 September 2014.

13 survey responses received.

11 respondents support use of the name Cassinia (from Cassinia longifolia, a flowering shrub commonly known as shiny Cassinia, which is found in the local area).

13 October 2014

Council writes to 52 households/property owners in the surrounding streets advising that the most supported option of “Cassinia” will be proposed to Council for adoption. Comments period closed 13 November 2014.

No Comments or feedback received at 18 November 2014.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The naming of a Right of Way occurs in line with Council’s Banyule Rights of Way Strategy 2014-2024 and Rights of Way Policy April 2014, and to support the development of commercial and residential properties abutting the Right of Way.

LEGAL CONSIDERATION

Under the Geographic Place Names Act 1998, Council is a naming authority responsible for the development of proposals to name or rename any feature, road or locality within Council jurisdiction. The Registrar of the Office of Geographic Names has the authority to approve, defer or reject naming proposals for entry in VICNAMES, the online Register of Geographic Names. The Registrar oversees the Office of Geographic Names (OGN). Council must ensure that all naming proposals conform to the principles outlined in the Guidelines for Geographic Names. These Guidelines were updated in 2013. They specify that roads include alleyways, roads, streets, highways, fire tracks, bike paths and walking tracks and that any land course navigable by vehicle or foot and of interest to municipal councils, public groups, emergency response and public service providers should be officially named. The Guidelines preclude the use of duplicate or similar sounding names within a 5km radius of the road or feature being named.

CONCLUSION

Community consultation has not elicited any objections to the proposed naming of these two laneways and OGN has indicated in principle support for the proposed names. Council is therefore in a position to resolve on the naming of these two laneways.

4.5




RECOMMENDATION

That Council 1. Assign the name “Pimelea Lane” to the Right of Way (laneway) running off

Elliott Street in Heidelberg Heights.

2. Assign the name “Cassinia Lane” to the Right of Way (laneway) running between Jellicoe and Beatty Streets in Ivanhoe.

3. Lodge the necessary submissions to the Office of Geographic Names (OGN).

4. Upon the outcome of the submissions to the OGN, thank all persons and

community groups involved in the consultation, notify them of Council’s decision and the result of the OGN submission.

5. Where required, advise relevant authorities of any address changes on behalf

of residents and property owners in the affected area; and

6. Erect appropriate signage.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

5.1

Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life


5.1 DISABILITY AND INCLUSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MEMBERSHIP

Author: Helen Parker - Inclusion Access & Equity Social Planner, Community

Programs

File: F2014/313

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The aim of the Banyule Disability and Inclusion Advisory Committee is to provide Council with advice on disability and inclusion issues, to assist with the implementation of the Disability Action Plan 2014-15 and with the development of Council’s Disability Action Plan 2015-2017 and the Inclusion, Access and Equity (IAE) Framework. Council resolved to establish a Banyule Disability and Inclusion Advisory Committee with membership consisting of Councillors, residents and community groups. An expression of interests has been sought and 11 expressions have been received. The terms of reference allow for fifteen (15) positions on the Committee from residents and community groups. The membership is initially for one year.

The expressions of interest received for the Disability and Inclusion Advisory Committee is presented for Council consideration.



CITY PLAN

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

5.1


DISABILITY AND INCLUSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MEMBERSHIP cont’d


BACKGROUND

Banyule Council’s previous Disability Policy and Action Plan (DAP) 2009-2013 expired and a twelve (12) month DAP has been developed 2014-15. Council previously had a Disability Advisory Group which then ceased. During 2014 Council resolved to re-establish an Advisory Committee to assist Council to work more effectively with Council’s disability communities.

The DAP responds to Council’s obligations to support the inclusion of people with a disability as required by the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, the Victorian Disability Act 2006 and the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities 2006.

The Disability Action Plan works towards;

1. Reducing barriers to persons with a disability accessing goods, services and facilities

2. Reducing barriers to persons with a disability obtaining and maintaining employment

3. Promoting inclusion and participation in the community of persons with a disability

4. Achieving tangible changes in attitudes and practices which discriminate against persons with a disability

A Banyule Council Inclusion, Access and Equity Framework is currently being finalised. The framework will guide Council’s work in supporting our diverse communities, including people with a disability, their families and carers. The Disability and Inclusion Advisory Committee will play a key role in guiding the development of the Disability Action Plan 2015-2017. Council’s advisory committees have an advisory role and do not hold any authority to make decisions or commitments on behalf of Council. The minutes of committee meetings are presented to Council for information after each meeting. Recommendations and requests arising from committee meetings are presented to Council for consideration as required. Responses to recommendations are determined based on Council’s legislative role, stated commitments in Council’s policies and plans, and budgetary processes. It should be acknowledged that while the Disability and Inclusion Advisory Committee forms an important part of Council’s engagement with disability communities, they are not the only avenue for consultation and engagement. It should be noted that other networks, groups and individuals who are not involved as formal Advisory Committee members will also be involved in Council’s work on inclusion, access and equity.

For example, Banyule City Council actively supports International Day of People with Disability (IDPwD). It is a United Nations sanctioned day on 3 December each year that aims to promote an understanding of people with disability and encourage support for their dignity, rights and well-being. The theme for the 2014 is, ‘Sustainable Development: The Promise of Technology’. It is acknowledged that

5.1


DISABILITY AND INCLUSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MEMBERSHIP cont’d


rapidly developing technology has changed the way people with disability can access entertainment, work, communication and basic information seeking.


In developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered to determine if it raises any human rights issues. In particular, whether the scope of any human right established by the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities is in any way limited, restricted or interfered with by the recommendations contained in this report. It is considered that the subject matter does not raise any negative human rights issues. The nature of the Disability and Inclusion Advisory Committee enhances Council’s advocacy function in affirming the individuals’ rights to freedom of expression especially in underrepresented groups in our community. The Advisory Committee also enhances the individual’s rights to Freedom of Expression as contained in section 15 of the Charter.

CURRENT SITUATION

The Terms of Reference for the Disability and Inclusion Advisory Committee provides for up to 15 community members to be represented on the committee. Council has received 11 formal expressions of interest. See Attachment 1 for the Terms of Reference for the Disability and Inclusion Advisory Committee.

CONCLUSION

Council’s Disability and Inclusion Advisory Committee will play an important role in assisting Council to closely engage with members of its disability communities and better understand their needs.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council: 1. Endorse the Disability and Inclusion Advisory Committee Terms of Reference 2. Appoint the following to (Names will be provided at the Council Meeting) the

Disability and Inclusion Advisory Committee.

ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 Terms of Reference for Disability and Inclusion Advisory Committee 420

5.2



5.2 BANYULE YOUTH SUMMIT Author: Frances Gianinotti - Youth & Community Services Co-Ordinator,

Community Programs

File: F2014/492

Previous Items Council on 17 March 2014 (Item 6.2 - Councillor Motions - Status Update)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

At its ordinary meeting of the 17 March 2014 Council resolved to trial a Youth Council proposal which would involve participation from local schools. Council held a Youth Summit on the 14 October 2014. One hundred (100) young people from across Banyule schools participated to discuss issues identified by both themselves and their peers during pre-summit workshops. On the day, young people contributed to a ‘Questions and Answer’ session with a panel of experts, as well as topical round table discussions throughout the day. The young participants showed great insight in the development of key recommendations. The recommendations will be considered as part of the Youth Services Annual Planning processes. The Youth Summit is a powerful engagement tool and offers Council direct links to young people and their opinions. The model is consistent with the Banyule Youth Charter which Council endorsed in 2009. It is anticipated that the Youth Summit format will be embedded into Youth Services’ broader Youth Engagement and Consultation Strategy and that young people will report to Council annually on the work undertaken in the previous twelve months.



CITY PLAN

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


In developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered to determine if it raises any human rights issues. In particular, whether the scope of any human right established by the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities is in any way limited, restricted or interfered with by the recommendations contained in this report. It is considered that the Youth Summit and its outcomes and recommendations enhances and protects the following Human Rights:

Right to recognition and equality before the law (section 8)

5.2


BANYULE YOUTH SUMMIT cont’d


Freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief (section 14)

Freedom of Expression (section 15)

Protection of Families & Children (section 17)

Taking part in a Public Life (section 18)

Cultural Rights (section 19)

Right to liberty and security per person (section 21)

BACKGROUND

At its Ordinary Meeting of the 17 March 2014 Council resolved:

1. “Council trials a Youth Council similar to the Victorian Youth Parliament which operates annually from Parliament House in Melbourne.

2. Council invites all secondary schools to nominate 4 students to the Youth

Council. The Youth Council to meet during the third term at a mutually agreeable date and the year level participating be subject to further discussion and availability. *Numbers may increase if Schools do not participate.

3. The following Schools be invited:

Bundoora Secondary College Charles La Trobe College Concord School Greensborough Secondary College Ivanhoe Grammar Ivanhoe Girls Grammar Loyola Secondary College Macleod College Montmorency Secondary College Parade College Our Lady of Mercy College St Helena Secondary College Viewbank College.

4. Minutes of the meeting are recorded.

5. The resolutions of the Youth Council be reported back to Council via a Council Report each year.”

DISCUSSION

The Banyule Youth Summit was developed in response to the Council resolution on the 17 March 2014 in order to provide young people a forum to raise issues of concern and report back to Council annually. The Youth Services team invited all secondary schools within Banyule to a full day Youth Summit to encourage them to discuss local issues, develop solutions through recommendations and report them to Council. As a lead up to the event, young people participated in in-school discussions to identify the top issues to be discussed at the Youth Summit. One hundred (100) young people participated in the Youth Summit to address issues nominated by both themselves and their peers during the pre-summit workshops. Sixteen (16) out of eighteen (18) invited schools and alternate education institutions were represented as were a number of diverse special interest groups.

5.2




The Youth Summit comprised a Question and Answer with a panel of experts from the Drug and Alcohol, Training and Employment, Generalist Youth, Mental Health, Indigenous and Gender Equity sectors. The panel discussed feminism and the portrayal of young women in the media, drug and alcohol use in teenagers and CALD communities, employment and the potential impact of proposed federal government changes to legislation, indigenous issues and mental health before the floor was opened up to the attendees for a Q&A session. Young people were then grouped into their nominated issues for round table discussions where challenges and potential solutions were discussed and debated for two hours and finally recommendations were established. Representatives from each group delivered their key recommendations on the day to invited stakeholders, including Councillors, Council officers across the organisation, State Government departments and local stakeholder groups. Several themes resonated strongly, including safety, social and gender equality, health and self-esteem, as well as the need to improve local amenities and transport.

As part of the preparatory work, Youth Services facilitated a number of in school workshops with young people who were nominated to attend the Youth Summit. This process involved raising awareness and understanding of Council decision making processes. Further, young people were asked to nominate issues that were of importance to both themselves and their peers. A special effort was made to ensure that the event was inclusive with a number of special interest groups being invited (e.g. young Australian Somali’s, members of the GLBTIQ community, Indigenous young people) Students from both the Waratah Special Development School and the Concord Specialist School were also represented.

A number of recommendations have been identified as priority actions for the Youth Services team in 2015. Other recommendations will be advocated to relevant internal and external stakeholders as well. It is proposed that the actions and outcomes of the 2014 Youth Summit will be presented back to Council in late 2015. The recommendations will also be published on the Banyule Youth website and provided either electronically or via hard-copy to those who attended the day (both young people and decision makers).


The Youth Summit is a significant tool of engagement with young people and provides direct links between Council and young people on a range of issues. It is consistent with Council’s commitment to young people formalised by the Banyule Youth Charter in 2009. Council fosters ongoing opportunities for young people to engage meaningfully in their communities through such initiatives. As part of its annual planning, Youth Services will redirect staff resources to embed the Youth Summit into core business. This is consistent with the broader role of youth engagement and development already in place. However, the service does not currently have the capacity to redirect any program budget to cover program/activity costs. The most significant cost of the Youth Summit is that of catering and hire charges for the Centre Ivanhoe. An additional $15,000 per annum is required to cover all associated material costs and implementation of subsequent actions over the following 12 months to respond to recommendations. It is also proposed that young people report back to Council annually as part of this commitment.

5.2




YOUTH SUMMIT RECOMMENDATIONS

The Youth Summit made a number of recommendations on the following issues (the recommendations are attached): 1. The Mall, Heidelberg West The Mall appears outdated and unattractive. The area feels unsafe and the toilets are dirty and lack privacy. 2. Supported Recreation for Young People with a Disability Young people with a disability have expressed that they would like more options for activities out of school hours. 3. Education Young people are concerned that the school curriculum does not adequately prepare them for independent living. 4. Performing Arts Young people who participate in the performing arts need a place they can go to access classes, activities, opportunities and meet other like-minded young people. There are a lot of stereotypes about young people who enjoy the performing arts and we need this aspect of youth culture to be celebrated, more visible and normalised. 5. Culturally appropriate activities for Young Women There are barriers that prevent young women from a CALD background becoming active in their communities. For participation to occur, the opportunities need to be for women only. There is a need to foster leadership amongst young women from a CALD background to address community perceptions as well as focussing on education, training and employment opportunities. 6. Loyola Reserve Loyola Reserve is located behind the Concord School in Bundoora and is used regularly by their students who are aged up to 18 years of age. 7. Transport It is difficult to get home from recreational spaces and activities because buses and trains don’t run late enough. This reduces young people’s opportunity to engage in community activities and puts young people at risk. 8. Gender Inequality Young women don’t always have the same opportunities as young men. They also experience discrimination and are subjected to harassment. 9. Employment Young people need to be better informed about their employment options post school. 10. Mental Health and Drugs 1 in 4 young Australians will experience mental health issues in their lives. Young people are also exposed to drugs in a number of settings. Young people feel that not enough is being done in schools to discuss this openly.

5.2




11. Safety A number of places in Banyule feel unsafe, particularly at night. Young people expressed the need for strategies to appropriately respond to potentially volatile situations. 12. Social Inequality The segregation of Private Schools and Public schools leads to division and stigma between students from different schools. Stereotypes of racial and sexual discrimination portrayed through the media can lead to stigma and in many circumstances, mental illness. Schools have a role in positive education programs to address these issues. 13. Health Young people have a desire to pursue and promote positive lifestyle choices. Social media can play a role in facilitating this but it also has a negative impact on young people’s self-esteem. 14. Future Youth Summits Young participants didn’t want the Youth Summit to end here – they want all students to have their voices heard. FEEDBACK FROM YOUNG PEOPLE The Youth Summit was very popular with participating young people. Consistent feedback included a sense of young people’s opinions having value and influencing Council’s decision making process, ie ‘making a difference.’ There were many positive statements made on the day about the event. Below are a few examples of quotes by young participants: “The Summit was amazing! It opened my eyes to how I can make a difference.” “It feels incredible to have a voice!” “The Summit has given me so much insight and I want to encourage everyone to get their ideas out there to improve our society and the well-being of everyone around us.” “Thank you to the Banyule Council for letting us speak our mind and speak from the heart about things we are concerned about.”

CONCLUSION

The Summit is consistent with the Banyule Youth Charter to meaningfully engage and consult with young people. It is a valuable process that ensures young people have the opportunity to directly express their concerns to Council and are educated about Council governance as well.

5.2




RECOMMENDATION

That Council: 1. Receive and acknowledge the recommendations of the 2014 Youth Summit as

presented by young people. 2. Consider an ongoing financial commitment to the Youth Summit of $15,000 per

annum as part of the 2015/16 budget considerations.

ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 Youth Summit Recommendations 424

5.3



5.3 MACLEOD RECREATION AND FITNESS MASTER PLAN

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

Programs

Ward: Ibbott

File: F2013/1130

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Macleod Recreation and Fitness Centre (MRFC) is located in Wungan Street Macleod. The land at Wungan Street Macleod is Crown land and is leased to Banyule City Council. The buildings located on the site are owned by Banyule City Council and leased to Victoria. The current lease expires in June 2015. The original facility was constructed in the 1980s, is currently at programming capacity and there are a number of universal access and design issues limiting its functionality and ability to serve its community. In November 2013 Council engaged HM Leisure Planning to complete a master plan for the Macleod Recreation and Fitness Club. The analysis of the facility catchment and catchment demographics indicates that the facility draws from a highly concentrated catchment and that it draws a very small proportion of the population living in that catchment. It further indicates that more specialised programs (such as gymnastics) are likely to draw clients from a wider market. This analysis suggests that new and upgraded facility, programming and service initiatives are needed at MRFC both now and over the coming years if the venue’s reach is to be extended and if its role and viability are to be secured. Three core principles within the draft Master Plan have emerged:

Avoid competing with Council’s regional WaterMarc venue at Greensborough however, where appropriate, complements that venue or provide program opportunities not available at WaterMarc

Building on the Centre’s local and sub-regional strengths, and

Pursuing a “community hub” approach to the Centre’s redevelopment so as to bring in a range of other opportunities and through this, broaden its attractiveness to the wider community and to those suburbs and demographic groups it does not presently serve well.

The master plan process recommends an increase in facility size by 760 square meters (sqm) taking the proposed new building to 3875 sqm. The concept plans are set in the confines of the current building foot print and address current accessibility issues. The estimated project cost of the proposed master plan is $9.8 million. This report outlines community consultation undertaken as part of the master plan process to date, key findings and recommends Council adopt the draft Master Plan to allow further community consultation to occur.

5.3


MACLEOD RECREATION AND FITNESS MASTER PLAN cont’d




CITY PLAN

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

BACKGROUND

Macleod Recreation and Fitness Centre (MRFC) is located in Wungan Street Macleod. The land at Wungan Street Macleod is Crown land and is leased to Banyule City Council. The buildings located on the site are owned by Banyule City Council and leased to YMCA Victoria. The current lease expires in June 2015. The original facility was constructed in the 1980s and is generally of a “heavy” concrete construction, similar to many community infrastructure projects of the time. The gymnastics hall was added in the south-west corner of the site in the mid-1990s. Minor reconfiguration works have since been undertaken to improve flexibility and amenity, including removal of a spa and sauna to improve access to and the amenity of the child care facility. Macleod Recreation and Fitness Centre is well connected to the surrounding precinct via the suburban road network, and is connected to the broader municipality by local bus routes and the metropolitan rail network. Pedestrian and dedicated cycle paths also pass by the site and cross the rail line. The site is currently at programming capacity and has a number of universal access and design issues limiting its functionality and ability to serve its community. LOCALITY PLAN

5.3






CURRENT SITUATION

The buildings located on the site are owned by Banyule City Council and leased to YMCA Victoria which expires in June 2015. The facility attracts approximately 130,000 visits annually and consists of the following components.

A fully equipped gymnasium including cardio, pin loaded machines and free weights

A group fitness studio that provides for a capacity of 30 participants

A small personal training room and stretching area

A crèche; (restricted service) catering for 21 places

A multi -purpose stadium, (catering for basketball, netball, volleyball, badminton, schools programs and afterschool programs)

A gymnastics training facility complete with parallel bars, rings, vaults, trampoline areas, foam pit and sprung floor

Four outdoor, floodlit tennis courts on the north side of the car park, away from the Centre

A cycle studio with 19 bikes

Two multi-purpose program rooms

Male and female change rooms and amenities

Program room primary used as dance studio

Single court multi-purpose stadium

A community meeting space

A reception area

A social hall, (senior citizens centre)

Meeting space and kitchen

Small kiosk / canteen

Car parking for 92 cars

Staff offices, and

Outdoor training area, equipped with pull up bars, small range of weights. All indoor spaces are reported to be near or at use capacity, with additional floor space required to meet current demand for programs.

In response to these issues, the Banyule City Council, in conjunction with the YMCA Victoria set out to develop a master plan for the MRFC to develop a plan and to position the facility to serve the local community, in a sustainable cost effective way, in the decades to come.

In November 2013 Council engaged HM Leisure Planning as principal consultants to complete a master plan for the MRFC. The purpose of the master plan guide future facility development and operational direction to ensure the Centre remains a valued and effective leisure facility for the Banyule Community. A working group with Council officers, YMCA representatives, HM Leisure Planning and other consultants was formed to assist with the preparation of the master plan.

5.3




To set the expectations and outcomes of the project, the working group developed the below vision for the project: ‘A revitalised venue which focuses on becoming a health, wellbeing, fitness and community activity hub for the Macleod and surrounding communities, within a broader array of complementary facilities, programs and services offered by Council and others’ The working group developed six stages of work to be undertaken in the preparation of the master plan. These were: 1. An assessment of the current assets of the venue and the surrounding precinct

to ascertain both constraints and opportunities for redevelopment. 2. Reviewing the present operation of the MRFC in terms of what uses the assets

permitted and determining whether asset shortcomings constrained the capacity of management to offer as full and as diverse a set of programs as the community expects.

3. Reviewing and assessing the market reach and the clientele served by the Centre, including the size and characteristics of the catchment population, market penetration and competitors.

4. Assessing the aspirations of the Banyule community and more specifically, of Centre users, the extent to which the venue is able to cater for community aspirations and what needs to be done to optimise access and use.

5. In the light of 1. to 4., preparing a design brief to guide the scope and scale of any redevelopment together with the preparation of costed concept plans for the recommended works, and

6. Preparation of a costed plan of action for the upgrading of the venue including concept designs.

An Executive Summary of the master plan is included in Attachment 1. A detailed Research report has also been prepared which supports the Executive Summary. The analysis of the Macleod Recreation and Fitness Centre catchment and catchment demographics indicates that the Centre draws from a highly concentrated catchment and that it draws a very small proportion of the population living in that catchment. It further indicates that more specialised programs (such as gymnastics) are likely to draw clients from a wider market.

The consultants also reviewed the financial performance of the centre, considered competitors, reviewed industry trends and undertaken community consultation The analysis suggests that new and upgraded facility, programming and service initiatives are needed at Macleod Recreation and Fitness Centre both now and over the coming years if the venue’s reach is to be extended and if its role and viability are to be secured. The following three core principles for MRFC have emerged: 1. Avoid competing with Council’s regional WaterMarc venue at Greensborough

however, where appropriate, complements that venue or provide program opportunities not available at WaterMarc

2. Building on the Centre’s local and sub-regional strengths, and 3. Pursuing a “community hub” approach to the Centre’s redevelopment so as to

bring in a range of other opportunities and through this, broaden its attractiveness to the wider community and to those suburbs and demographic groups it does not presently serve well.

5.3




A number of design and development recommendations were developed and a series of draft concept plans prepared.


A preliminary capital cost estimate of the Master Plan has been prepared by Turner and Townsend, quantity surveyors. The estimated project cost of the proposed master plan is $9.8 million.

The indicative cost report based on present building costs is summarised below:

Ground & 1st floor building works: $5.47 m.

External works & services: $1.43 m.

Tennis redevelopment: $144,000

Construction cost $7.23 m.

Design, construction contingency: $1.12 m.

Loose furnishings, fit out $0.50 m.

Professional & authority fees: $0.96 m.

Total $ at today’s costs: $9.81 m.

Once adopted, the master plan will assist officers to negotiate a long term capital improvement lease.

CONSULTATION

A significant amount of community consultation was undertaken to ensure that the recommendations for action at MRFC reflected the needs and aspirations of the community.

The community consultation included meetings with user groups, a street stall and discussions with shoppers and visitors to the playground in central Macleod, letterboxing a resident survey and an associated community meeting and a survey of former Centre members. In total, over 100 residents were involved. A summary of the community consultations key findings is outlined in the executive summary.

DISCUSSION

The draft Site Plan is included in Attachment 2. The plan demonstrates an increase in facility size by 760 square meters (sqm) taking the proposed new building to 3875 sqm. The draft concept plans (included in Attachment 3 and 4) are set in the confines of the current building foot print and address current accessibility issues. Highlights of the design include:

New lift and stair access to all levels

Upgrade of finishes, fittings and fixtures generally

Upgrade of plant and equipment generally, and

Upgrade of external facades generally. The core ground level facilities are:

New entry statement and large, transparent internal street and social space providing clear views to services on offer and improved way-finding (i.e. Sound

5.3




universal design) and providing for longer term linkage to IDV Inc. to the south if desired

Refurbished amenities

Refurbished gymnastics venue including expanded seating and viewing space

New dedicated gymnastics change rooms

Expanded crèche with upgraded amenities

Expanded gymnasium with dedicated PT studio and gathering space

Retention of space for future specialist program pool, and

Consolidated administration space and meeting room adjacent to reception. The core first level facilities are:

New group exercise rooms above the former sports hall, now the new gymnasium, within existing building envelope.

Refurbished / reconfigured program rooms, including viewing space to gymnastics hall below (from Program Room 4)

Four professional consulting suites, waiting room, reception and refurbished toilets

Social gathering/breakout space, and

Reconfiguration to allow visual connection to social space / internal street below.

External:

Reconfigured and refurbished car park including use of two courts to extend car

parking capacity

Upgrading and servicing of remaining courts for multi-use programming

Provision of outdoor forecourt, cafe, creche playground, meeting, programming and social spaces

Enhanced linkage to Macleod Railway Station and to Rosanna Parklands, and

Enhanced linkage to parklands to the north of Wungan Road. Further business analysis has been undertaken as part of the master plan process. A summary of the average projected performance of all forecast models over a 10 year period shows that:

The upgraded and expanded facility will return an average annual operational surplus of $267,824 per annum over the 10 year period

An average annual provision of $97,619 will be required for refurbishment / life cycle costs

There will be average annual operational savings from the existing service model of $100,000, and

There will be an average annual net return to Council of $270,206. Once adopted, the master plan will assist officers to negotiate a long term capital improvement lease which will enable Council to share the cost of facility upgrade into the future. Given the Christmas break, the consultation period should remain open until the 6 February 2015.

5.3




CONCLUSION

The Macleod Recreation and Fitness Centre is a key recreational facility for the residents of Macleod. Whilst it has continuously served as a community facility since the early 1980s, the facility is currently at programming capacity and there are a number of universal access and design issues limiting its functionality and ability to serve its community. In addition there has been an identified need to revitalise the facility so that the optimum mix of programs, activities and services can be delivered to the Banyule community. It is important the maintain the existing “flavour” and “atmosphere” of the venue by pursuing a “community hub” approach to the Centre’s redevelopment so as to bring in a range of other opportunities and through this, broaden its attractiveness to the wider community and to those suburbs and demographic groups it does not presently serve well. The draft Macleod Recreation and Fitness Centre master plan provides a way forward to position the facility to serve the local community, in a sustainable cost effective way, in the decades to come.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council: 1. Release the draft Macleod Recreation and Fitness Centre Master Plan for the

purpose of community consultation until the 6 February 2015. 2. Place an advertisement in the Heidelberg Leader and on Council’s website

inviting community members to submit written proposals in relation to the draft master plan.

4. Distribute the one page summary to all existing members of the Macleod

Recreation and Fitness Centre, local traders and service providers within the Macleod area.

5. Receive a further report following the community consultation period.

ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 Draft Macleod Recreation and Fitness Centre Master Plan Executive Summary

428

2 Draft Site Plan 447

3 Draft Concept Plan - Ground Floor 448

4 Draft Concept Plan - First Floor 449

6.1

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely


6.1 14 SCOTTS PARADE IVANHOE - PROPOSED SALE OF LAND

Author: Lorraine James - Property Officer, City Development

Ward: Griffin

File: F2014/2013

Previous Items Council on 18 August 2014 (Item 6.2 - 14 Scotts Parade, Ivanhoe - Proposed vesting

and removal of reserve status from drainage reserve)

Council on 10 November 2014 (Item 4.3 - 14 Scotts Parade Ivanhoe - Sale of Land - Hearing of Submissions)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Further to direction from Council at its Ordinary Meeting of 18 August 2014 (CO2014/263), and having carried out the statutory procedures pursuant to Part 4 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and Section 24A of the Subdivision Act 1988, Permit No. P1001/2014 has been issued to vest the former drainage reserve land, known as 14 Scotts Parade, Ivanhoe (the subject land), in Council’s name and remove the reserve status. The subject land has an area of 48m2 and is located adjacent to the north-eastern boundary of the property at 12 Scotts Parade, Ivanhoe. The subject land is currently enclosed within the fence line of that property. A request to purchase the subject land has been received, from the owners of 12 Scotts Parade, for Council to consider. Pursuant to Sections 189 and 223 of the Local Government Act 1989 (Act), public notice of Council’s intention to sell the subject land was given in the “Heidelberg Leader” on 9 September 2014, with submissions on the proposal invited in accordance with section 223 of the Act. No submissions were received. This was recorded at Council’s Ordinary Meeting of 10 November 2014 (CO2014/375). This report seeks to determine whether or not to sell the subject land to the owners of 12 Scotts Parade by private treaty and to consider a further report in relation to confirming the final negotiated price and sale of the subject land.


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

CITY PLAN

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

6.1


14 SCOTTS PARADE IVANHOE - PROPOSED SALE OF LAND cont’d



In developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered to determine if it raises any human rights issues. In particular, whether the scope of any human right established by the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities is in any way, limited, restricted or interfered with by the recommendations contained in this report. Section 20 of the Charter provides that “A person must not be deprived of his or her property other than in accordance with law”. It is considered that the subject matter does not raise any human rights issues because the power to sell land is conferred on Council pursuant to section 189 of the Act. A person may make a submission under section 223 of the Act with respect to such a proposal.

BACKGROUND

The former drainage reserve known as 14 Scotts Parade, Ivanhoe (the subject land) is located adjacent the north eastern boundary of 12 Scotts Parade and has an area of 48m2. The subject land is shown as Lot 1 on the plan in Figure 1 below. The subject land is currently included within the fence line and appears to form part of 12 Scotts Parade, Ivanhoe (adjacent property). A request to purchase the subject land has been received, from the owners of 12 Scotts Parade (the applicants), for Council to consider.

Figure 1: Land Proposed to be Sold

6.1




At its Ordinary Meeting of 18 August 2014 (CO2014/263), Council directed the carrying out of the statutory procedures pursuant to Part 4 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and Section 24A of the Subdivision Act 1988. Permit No. 1001/2014 has now issued to vest the subject land in Council’s name and remove the reserve status. Pursuant to Sections 189 and 223 of the Act, public notice of Council’s intention to sell the subject land was given in the “Heidelberg Leader” on 9 September 2014, with submissions on the proposal invited in accordance with section 223 of the Act. No submissions were received. This was recorded at Council’s Ordinary Meeting of 10 November 2014 (CO2014/375).

CURRENT SITUATION

The purpose of this report is for Council to decide whether or not to sell, to the applicants, the subject land which is currently enclosed within the fence line of the adjacent property.


ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS

Council engineers have advised that the subject land does not currently contain Council drainage assets. However, it is required for the provision of future drainage services to Russell Street properties.

SERVICE AUTHORITY CONSIDERATIONS

Consultation with the relevant service authorities reveals that there are assets contained within or in the vicinity of the Land, namely:

Telstra Corporation Limited – cabling;

Yarra Valley Water Limited – 100mm diameter sewer.

EASEMENT RIGHTS

Telstra Corporation Limited Telstra Corporation Limited (Telstra) advises that existing assets do not require relocation. However, these assets comprise an essential component of the Telstra network and Telstra’s rights and requirements are as follows: (1) Telstra’s existing facilities are grandfathered under the Telecommunications

Act 1997 (Cwlth). This enables such facilities to legally occupy land in perpetuity for the duration of that facilities use.

(2) Part 1 of Schedule 3 of the Telecommunications Act 1997 authorises a carrier

to enter land and exercise any of the following powers:

Inspect the land;

Install a facility;

Maintain a facility In addition to the underlying drainage easement in favour of Council and the sewerage easement in favour of Yarra Valley Water Limited, easement rights will be created on the plan PS718685L under Section 24A of the Subdivision Act 1988 in the location shown as E1 on the plan in Figure 1 above.

6.1




Such easements would permit either authority access to the subject land at all times for purposes relating to the maintenance or construction of assets. It would also prohibit the construction on any part of the subject land, which is encumbered by the easements set out above, of any building, structure or obstruction of a permanent nature without the prior written consent of the relevant authority.

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

The Banyule Planning Scheme governs the use and development of land within the municipality and the Banyule City Council is the responsible authority administering the scheme. Land is included in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 3 (NRZ3), which limits the height of any new buildings and number of dwellings. Vegetation Protection (VPO3) and Significant Landscape (SLO) overlay controls also affect the Land. Banyule’s Residential Neighbourhood Character Policy at Clause 22.02 of the Banyule Planning Scheme includes the area within its Garden Suburban (GS3) precinct. Strategic Planning advises there are no strategic planning concerns.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS

Council’s Environmental Officer has no environmental concerns regarding the proposal.

LEGAL CONSIDERATION

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1989

Prior to selling land, the Act provides that Council must give public notice of its intention to do so and invite submissions from the public. Council must also obtain a valuation not more than six (6) months prior to the date of sale.

PUBLIC NOTICE

Public notice of Council’s intention to sell the subject land was given in the “Heidelberg Leader” on 9 September 2014. No submissions were received.

VALUATION

The City Valuer advises that the encumbered value of the subject land is $290.00/m2.


The applicants have been advised that, in addition to meeting Council’s out of pocket expenses associated with the sale, Council would expect payment for the subject land equivalent to the market value. Written confirmation has been received from the applicants regarding willingness to purchase the subject land, subject to a formal valuation being obtained prior to the date of sale.

6.1




The applicants have also been made aware that no formal offer to sell the subject land can be made until the necessary statutory procedures have been successfully completed and Council formally resolves to proceed with the proposal.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

GUIDELINES FOR THE SALE AND EXCHANGE OF COUNCIL LAND

The Guidelines for the Sale and Exchange of Council Land, adopted by Council in April 2009, provide that the sale of Council-owned land should be conducted through a public process, unless circumstances justify an alternative method of sale. In this instance, there are limited potential buyers, namely two abutting owners. Both were notified of the proposal. Only the applicants have expressed interest in the subject land. Nevertheless, any sale of Council-owned land should be in the best interest of the community and provide the best result, both financial and non-financial for Council and the community.

DISCUSSION

Even if the applicants do not proceed with the purchase of the subject land at this time, the vesting of the reserve in Council’s name will prevent any future claim for adverse possession.

CONCLUSION

The proposal to sell the subject land has been considered having regard to the current and potential future uses. The subject land is enclosed within the fence line of the applicant’s property, and has been for some time. In isolation, the 48m2 of former drainage reserve has no value other than to an immediately abutting owner. It currently forms part of one of the adjacent properties. There is no strategic or long term purpose for Council retaining ownership of the subject land. It does not fulfil any useful Council or community function nor does it support “best practice” service delivery. The proposal to offer the subject land for sale to the applicants should be supported on the basis that it is enclosed within their property fence line. It is surplus to Council’s and the community’s needs.

6.1




RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Having complied with sections 189 and 223 of the Local Government Act 1989:

a. by giving public notice;

b. providing an opportunity to those who have requested to be heard at Council’s Ordinary Meeting of 10 November 2014 to be heard at that meeting;

c. and no submissions having been received;

approves the sale of the former drainage reserve known as 14 Scotts Parade, Ivanhoe (the subject land) to the owners of 12 Scotts Parade.

2. Consider a further report in relation to confirming the final negotiated price and sale of the land.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

6.2



6.2 27A CHERRY STREET MACLEOD - PROPOSED SALE OF LAND


Ward: Ibbott

File: F2014/410

Previous Items Council on 1 September 2014 (Item 6.2 - 27A Cherry Street, Macleod - Proposed

Sale of Land)

Council on 10 November 2014 (Item 6.2 - 27A Cherry Street Macleod - Proposed Sale of Land - Hearing of Submissions)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council is the owner of 62m2 of land, known as 27A Cherry Street, Macleod (subject land). The subject land was ‘road’ and formed part of the right of way at the rear of both 27 Cherry and 29 Joynt Streets, Macleod, which was discontinued in 1972 by the former Heidelberg Council, and remains unsold. The subject land comprises two (2) separate titles of 31m2 each. A request to purchase the subject land has been received from the owner of 29 Joynt Street, Macleod. Council, at its Ordinary Meeting of 1 September 2014 (CO2014/283), considered a report in relation to the proposal to sell the subject land to an abutting owner by private treaty. Council resolved to commence the statutory procedures in accordance with section 189 of the Local Government Act 1989, by giving public notice of this proposal. Public notice of Council’s intention to sell the subject land was given in the “Heidelberg Leader” on 9 September 2014. One written submission was received, which included a request to be heard before a meeting of Council. At Council’s Ordinary Meeting of 10 November 2014 (CO2014/382) it was recorded that the submission was considered and the submitter heard. The purpose of this report is for Council to determine whether or not to proceed with the sale of the subject land to an abutting owner or both abutting owners and to then consider a further report in relation to confirming the final negotiated price and sale of the subject land.



6.2


27A CHERRY STREET MACLEOD - PROPOSED SALE OF LAND cont’d


CITY PLAN



In developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered to determine if it raises any human rights issues. In particular, whether the scope of any human right established by the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities is in any way, limited, restricted or interfered with by the recommendations contained in this report. Section 20 provides that “A person must not be deprived of his or her property other than in accordance with law”. It is considered that the subject matter does not raise any human rights issues because the power to sell the subject land is conferred on Council pursuant to section 189 of the Act. A person may make a submission under section 223 of the Act with respect to such a proposal. In this instance one submission was received.

BACKGROUND

Council is the owner of 62m2 of land, known as 27A Cherry Street, Macleod (subject land) shown delineated in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Land Proposed to be Sold

The subject land is part of a former ‘road’, discontinued by the former Heidelberg Council in 1972. A title search at the Land Registry confirms that the title particulars are Lot 1 on Title Plan 943008L, comprised in Certificate of Title Volume 11110 Folio 491 and Lot 1 on Title Plan 943283M, comprised in Certificate of Title Volume 11123 Folio 921. Both titles are registered in the name of Banyule City Council.

In October of 2012, the owner of 29 Joynt Street registered interest in purchasing the subject land, citing reasons of security.

Access to the subject land is via an unconstructed right of way, 60 metres west of Dunstan Street, as shown in the photograph in Figure 2 below. The right of way is numbered in Council’s Road Register as RW252. An on-site inspection revealed no

6.2




evidence of the right of way being used as a ‘road’ for vehicular access to the subject land or other abutting properties namely the rear of 31-37 Joynt Street and 21-25 and Unit 2, 29 Cherry Street Macleod.

Figure 2: Unconstructed right of way entrance from Dunstan Street The western end of the right of way is currently considered un-trafficable due to overhanging vegetation and dumped rubbish, as shown in the photographs in Figure 3 below.

Figure 3: Dumped rubbish and overhanging vegetation in the ‘road’

6.2




The subject land is a grassed area which appears to be an extension to the western most end of the unconstructed right of way. Although the subject land appears to form part of the right of way, there is no evidence that the subject land is being used as a ‘road’ by any abutting property, including the rear of 29 Joynt Street, as can be seen in the photos in Figure 4 below.

Figure 4: Rear fence line of 29 Joynt Street has a pedestrian gate The fence at the rear of 29 Joynt Street is in a state of disrepair. The owner of this property is anxious for this matter to be resolved in order to determine the new fence line. Currently a pedestrian access gate exists into the subject land from the rear of that property. It is apparent that the subject land is of no value other than to the owners of 29 Joynt and 27 Cherry Streets. Council, at its Ordinary Meeting of 1 September 2014 (CO2014/283), considered a report in relation to the proposal to sell the subject land to an abutting owner by private treaty. Council resolved to commence the statutory procedures in accordance with section 189 of the Act, by giving public notice of this proposal. Public notice of Council’s intention to sell the subject land was given in the “Heidelberg Leader” on 9 September 2014. One written submission was received, which included a request to be heard before a meeting of Council. At Council’s Ordinary Meeting of 10 November 2014 (CO2014/382) it was recorded that the submission was considered and the submitter heard. The written submission included a request to purchase the subject land.

6.2




CURRENT SITUATION

The purpose of this report is for Council to decide whether or not to sell the subject land to an abutting owner or both abutting owners and to consider a further report in relation to confirming the final negotiated price and sale of the subject land. In isolation, the subject land has no value other than to the immediately abutting owners, being the owners of 29 Joynt Street and 27 Cherry Street, Macleod. Both abutting owners have been requested to confirm in writing, their interest in the subject land and to offer a monetary figure that they would be prepared to pay to purchase either the whole of the land or that part of the land immediately abutting each respective property.


ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS

Council engineers advise that the subject land contains drainage assets, namely a 225mm reinforced concrete pipe. There is currently no registered easement on title protecting Council’s asset.

SERVICE AUTHORITY CONSIDERATIONS

Consultation with the relevant service authorities reveals that there are assets contained within or in the vicinity of the subject land, namely:

Yarra Valley Water – 150mm sewer pipe, offset 1.22m from the south boundary of 27 Cherry Street at an approximate depth of 1.80m

EASEMENT RIGHTS

Yarra Valley Water Limited Easement rights will be retained in favour of Yarra Valley Water Limited for the purposes of drainage or sewerage over the whole of the subject land. Banyule City Council It will be necessary to create an easement in favour of Banyule City Council for the purpose of drainage over the whole of the subject land. Such easements would permit either authority access to the subject land at all times for purposes relating to the maintenance or construction of assets. It would also prohibit the construction on any part of the subject land, which is encumbered by the easements set out above, of any building, structure or obstruction of a permanent nature without the prior written consent of the relevant authority.


The Banyule Planning Scheme governs the use and development of the subject land and the Banyule City Council is the responsible authority administering the scheme. Under the scheme, the subject land is included in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 3 (NRZ3), which limits the height of any new buildings and number of dwellings. The subject land is also affected by the Environmental Significance (ESO2) overlay control.

6.2




Banyule’s Residential Neighbourhood Character Policy at Clause 22.02 of the Banyule Planning Scheme includes the subject land within its Bush Garden West (BG(West)) precinct.

LEGAL CONSIDERATION

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1989 Prior to selling land, the Act provides that Council must give public notice of its intention to do so and invite submissions from the public. Council must also obtain a valuation not more than six (6) months prior to the date of sale.

VALUATION

The City Valuer advises that the subject land has an unencumbered value in the vicinity of $650/m2, i.e. approximately $40,300.00 as at 10 June 2014.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS


The Guidelines for the Sale and Exchange of Council Land, adopted by Council in April 2009, provide that the sale of Council-owned land should be conducted through a public process, unless circumstances justify an alternative method of sale. Nevertheless, any sale of Council-owned land should be in the best interest of the community and provide the best result, both financial and non-financial for Council and the community. In this instance, there are limited potential buyers, namely two abutting owners. Both of whom have expressed interest in purchasing the subject land.

DISCUSSION

Despite the subject land being in two parcels, under current conditions imposed by Yarra Valley Water Ltd and Council, it is unlikely that consent would be given for the longitudinal division of the subject land, given the existence and location of assets as indicated above. In particular, Yarra Valley Water imposes a condition that, if and when the land is divided between adjoining owners, the dividing boundary must be located at least 0.60m from the line of the sewer or other fittings such as access chamber and inspection shaft covers. Therefore the sale of the subject land to one party in its entirety is advocated because construction of a dividing fence would not be permitted.


Both abutting property owners have been made aware that no formal offer to sell the subject land can be made until the necessary statutory procedures have been successfully completed and Council formally resolves to proceed with the proposal.

CONCLUSION

The proposal to sell the subject land has been considered having regard to the current and potential future uses. In isolation, the subject land has no value other than to the immediately abutting owners, being the owners of 29 Joynt and 27 Cherry Streets, Macleod.

6.2




There is no strategic or long term purpose for Council retaining ownership of the subject land. It does not fulfil any useful Council or community function nor does it support “best practice” service delivery. The proposal to offer the subject land for sale should be supported on the basis that it is surplus to Council’s and the community’s needs. The sale of the subject land to one owner is advocated to enable the construction of a dividing fence; otherwise if the subject land was sold as individual parcels to each party, the conditions imposed by Yarra Valley Water Ltd would prohibit the construction of a dividing fence.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council: 1. Having complied with sections 189 and 223 of the Local Government Act 1989:

a. by giving public notice; b. providing an opportunity to those who have requested to be heard at

Council’s Ordinary Meeting of 10 November 2014 to be heard at that meeting; and

c. having considered and heard the submission; approves the sale of the land known as 27A Cherry Street, Macleod (the subject land).

2. Consider a further report in relation to confirming the final negotiated price and

the party to whom the subject land should be offered for sale.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

6.3



6.3 ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS Author: Cindy Ho - Governance Officer, Corporate Services

File: F2014/337

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Under the Local Government Act 1989 an Assembly of Councillors is defined as:

A meeting of an advisory committee of the Council, if at least one Councillor is present or; A planned or scheduled meeting of at least half of the Councillors and one member of Council staff which considers matters that are intended or likely to be:

a) the subject of a decision of the Council or; b) subject to the exercise of a function, duty or power of the Council that has been

delegated to a person or committee. In accordance with Section 80A of the Local Government Act 1989 Council is required to report as soon as possible to an Ordinary Meeting of Council a record of any assemblies of Councillors held. Below is the latest listing of notified assemblies of Councillors held at Banyule City Council. RECORD OF ASSEMBLIES

1 Date of Assembly: 17 November 2014

Type of Meeting: Councillor Briefing

Matters Considered: Items on the Council Agenda for the Ordinary Meeting of 17 November 2014 (excluding confidential items) as listed below: 1.1 1-5 Westley Avenue, Ivanhoe and 2 Ivanhoe

Parade Ivanhoe in Relation to Deficient Parking Spaces

2.1 Festive Celebrations 2.2 Banyule Bullying Forum 2.3 Heidelberg Stars Soccer Club 4.1 Asset Management Policy 4.2 School Crossing Supervisor Program Update 6.1 Proposed General Local Law No. 1 (2015) 6.2 Assembly of Councillors 7.1 Sealing of Documents 9. General Business

Malahang Festival Acknowledgements 10. Urgent Business 10.2 Appointment of Acting Mayor

Councillors Present: Mark Di Pasquale Rick Garotti Tom Melican Jenny Mulholland

6.3


ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS cont’d


Staff Present: Simon McMillan – Chief Executive Officer Allison Beckwith – Director Community Programs Geoff Glynn – Director Assets & City Services Gina Burden – Manager Governance & Communication Daniel Kollmorgen – Manager Transport, Sustainability & Municipal Laws Emily Outlaw – Council Governance Liaison Officer Peter Utri – Manager Organisational Systems Brad McMahon – Team Leader Local Laws Jan Richardson – Cemeteries Coordinator

Others Present: Nil

Conflict of Interest: Nil


Type of Meeting: Confidential Councillor Briefing

Matters Considered: 1. Contractual Matters 2. Contractual Matters

Councillors Present: Mark Di Pasquale Tom Melican Jenny Mulholland Wayne Phillips

Staff Present: Simon McMillan – Chief Executive Officer Allison Beckwith – Director Community Programs Darren Bennett – Manager Leisure, Recreation & Culture Services Peter Utri – Manager Organisational Systems Tom Zappulla – Coordinator Leisure Facilities, Place & Partnership Nic Hall – Manager Banyule Leisure Facility Management

Others Present: 1. Drew Hillderbrant – Belgravia Leisure Gary Cole – Belgravia Leisure Nic Cox – Belgravia Leisure Anthony Macintosh – Belgravia Leisure

2. Pam Wheately (arrived 5.30pm)

Tim Angel (arrived 5.30pm)



Type of Meeting: Councillor Briefing

Matters Considered: Macleod Recreation & Fitness Centre

Appointment of Jackie Bernoth as the Development Planning Coordinator

Watsonia Vision – “Picture Watsonia”

6.3




Biodiversity Plan

Car Parking Meetings

Councillors Present: Mark Di Pasquale Tom Melican Jenny Mulholland Wayne Phillips

Staff Present: Simon McMillan – Chief Executive Officer Allison Beckwith – Director Community Programs Geoff Glynn – Director Assets & City Services Scott Walker – Director City Development Tom Zappulla – Coordinator Leisure Facilities, Place & Partnership Joel Elbourne – Manager Urban Planning Nic Hall – Manager Banyule Leisure Facility Management Peter Utri – Manager Organisational Systems

Others Present: Nil



Type of Meeting: Assembly of Councillors

Matters Considered: Multicultural Plan – Achievements, Activities, Events and Future Plans

Councillors Present: Mark Di Pasquale Rick Garotti Tom Melican Jenny Mulholland Wayne Phillips

Staff Present: Simon McMillan – Chief Executive Officer Allison Beckwith – Director Community Programs Geoff Glynn – Director Assets & City Services Scott Walker – Director City Development Gina Burden – Manager Governance & Communication Daniel Kollmorgen – Manager Transport, Sustainability & Municipal Laws Emily Outlaw – Council Governance Liaison Officer Peter Utri – Manager Organisational Systems Jan Richardson – Cemeteries Coordinator Joel Elbourne – Manager Urban Planning Theonie Tacticos – Team Leader Community and Social Planning India Mortlock – Community and Social Planner Darren Bennett – Manager Leisure, Recreation & Culture Services Ben McManus – Coordinator Leisure & Cultural Services Sherryn Prinzi – Youth & Family Services Strategic Development Officer

6.3




Giovanna Failla – Manager Youth & Family Services

Others Present: Hussein Haraco Abdirizak Mohamed Sahra Abdinasir Zahra Ahmed Ahmed Tohow Abdi Siad Mohamed Serar Abdi Salad Abdulkadir Khalif Mahad Mohamed Darren Harris – Acting Superintendent Victoria Police Justin Goldsmith – Senior Sergeant Victoria Police Kelly Lawson – Senior Sergeant Victoria Police Peter Koger – Senoir Sergeant Victoria Police Lindsay Cook – Acting Inspector Victoria Police Cindy Suhan – Acting Sergeant Victoria Police


RECOMMENDATION

That the Assembly of Councillors report be received.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

6.4



6.4 169 LIBERTY PARADE HEIDELBERG WEST (NORTH OF BELL STREET) - PROPOSED LICENCE - USE OF HELIPAD

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

Ward: Olympia

File: F2014/35

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A Planning Permit exists for the use of the helicopter landing site, constructed in Liberty Parade, Heidelberg West, just north of Bell Street, located on the southern section of the Council-owned land known as 233 Southern Road, Heidelberg West. The permit allows the helipad to be used for medical emergencies only. The Austin Hospital, through their consultant, has notified Council of its intention to use the helipad landing site “for the transport of organs for the organ transplant unit for life saving organ transplant operations”. The consultant has indicated that the Austin Hospital would like to make an official announcement of its intended future use of the helipad landing site for transportation of organs. This official announcement may include an on-site ribbon cutting ceremony. The purpose of this report is for Council to consider the proposal and any terms and conditions which might be imposed.



CITY PLAN



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

In 1986 the Rotary Club of Heidelberg applied for and obtained a planning permit to construct a concrete helipad with adjoining lights and windsock in the location shown

6.4


169 LIBERTY PARADE HEIDELBERG WEST (NORTH OF BELL STREET) - PROPOSED LICENCE - USE OF HELIPAD cont’d


in Figure 1. The permit issued was limited to medical emergencies only and for a period of 12 months from the date of the first emergency helicopter landing. It would appear that the helipad was constructed at that time. There is no evidence that the former Heidelberg Council contributed to the cost of the construction. The Planning permit lapsed and, in response to an application by the former Heidelberg Council to the Ministry for Planning and Environment, in 1990 the then Minister for Planning and Urban Growth re-issued the permit for the helipad for medical emergencies only. This permit did not have an end date. Enquiries reveal that the Victoria Police, Australian Helicopters Air Ambulance Service and Canadian Helicopter Company Air Ambulance Service use the helipad from time to time. The current volume is split between these three providers. Following discussions with Victoria Police and Air Ambulance Services, advice received is that the number of landings is approximately 12 per annum. It is understood that it is the intention of these entities to continue to use the landing site. A search of Council records has been unable to identify any agreement between the former Heidelberg Council or this Council giving any party a right to use the helipad; nor do there appear to be any records indicating who has been maintaining the helipad.

Figure 1: Helipad location CURRENT SITUATION

The Austin Hospital currently uses the landing site for medical emergencies. Air Melbourne, a consultant acting on behalf of The Austin Hospital, has recently contacted officers in relation to the use of the helipad landing site for transport of organs for the organ transplant unit for life saving organ transplant operations.

6.4




Future traffic volumes to and from the landing site is anticipated to include an additional 6-12 landings per year. Although this is an increase on current volumes, it is not considered to be a substantial increase. Nor, according to the consultant, is it expected to create a negative impact on surrounding areas, considering each landing and take-off takes approximately 30-60 seconds. The consultant has indicated that the flight paths are and will continue to be above the industrial areas to the West of the existing landing site, ensuring no impact on the residential areas to the East. According to the consultant no upgrades or changes are required to the helipad landing site.


Council’s Development Planning Coordinator has no concerns with the proposal. It is considered that the proposed use for transport of organs for the organ transplant unit for life saving organ transplant operations is consistent with the conditions contained in Planning Permit TP108765.

FUNDING CONSIDERATIONS

The Rotary Club of Heidelberg paid for the initial construction costs and have undertaken a number of working bees on the site since 1986. The helipad was initially a concrete pad, but over the years the surface has been asphalted. The on-ground painted signage is weathered, but there is no record as to when it was last painted or by whom.

There is minimum maintenance undertaken on or around the landing site by Council. The surrounding grassed area is mowed as part of Council cyclical mowing rounds. Similarly, the helipad is kept free from weeds by the Parks & Gardens crews.

It is understood that the emergency lighting surrounding the helipad is activated by the Austin for medical emergencies. However the electricity accounts are paid by Council as part of the public lighting for the municipality. The electricity consumption and services charges currently amount to approximately $400.00 per annum.

Before granting any additional usage of the helipad landing site consideration should be given to the current cost to Council and any future/on-going maintenance or upgrading costs associated with maintaining the landing site to the DHS EMS standards. Enquiries made with Air Ambulance Victoria in relation to fees paid for other helicopter landing sites in Victoria revealed that the service pays for helicopters to be based at Essendon Airport, Bendigo, Latrobe Valley and Warrnambool. Fees are based on the weight of the equipment and the type of housing required. The helipad landing site in Liberty Parade is not a comparable site. It is used for touch down purposes only and there are no facilities for equipment to be housed on the site.

6.4




DISCUSSION

The permit provides the helipad to be used for medical emergencies only. As indicated earlier, Development Planning considers the proposed use to be consistent with the purpose. The permit also provides that the use and development, after commencement, be continued to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority (Council). That said it would appear that Council can veto the use of the helipad landing site. The website of the Victorian Government Department of Human Services (DHS) provides guidance to assist public healthcare organisations in the planning, development and operation of Emergency Medical Service (EMS) helipads. Helipads not complying with these guidelines may not be funded by DHS or used by Air Ambulance Victoria (AAV). They also provide guidance as to the issues to be considered in consultation with the relevant landowner and Council. According to DHS, the location of the helipad, relative to the hospital emergency department, is a key factor in ensuring the helipad provides safe, efficient and effective transfer of patients, including easy movement of the patient via trolley and in all weather conditions. The helipad landing site is located on Council land, the permit for the emergency helipad was issued to Council. However, the party responsible for maintaining the helipad to DHS standards is not defined. The Austin Hospital, through their consultant, is anxious to obtain Council’s approval to use the helipad landing site for the transport of organs for the organ transplant unit for life saving organ transplant operations. The consultant has indicated that the Austin Hospital would like to make an official announcement of its intended future use of the helipad landing site for transportation of organs. This official announcement may include an on-site ribbon cutting ceremony.

CONCLUSION

Approval of the use of the helipad by the Austin Hospital for the transport of organs should be supported subject to a licence agreement being entered into which would require the Austin Hospital to pay to use the helipad and to be responsible for the on-going costs of maintaining the helipad to DHS standards.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council: 1. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer and the Director City Development to

negotiate with the Austin Hospital appropriate terms and conditions for a licence for the Austin Hospital to use the helipad at 169 Liberty Parade, Heidelberg West, just north of Bell Street, located on the southern section of the Council-owned land known as 233 Southern Road, Heidelberg West for medical emergencies only, which includes the transportation of organs for the organ transplant unit for life saving organ transplant operations.

6.4




ATTACHMENTS

Nil

6.5



6.5 1 STRADBROKE AVENUE HEIDELBERG - FUTURE USE OF SITE


Ward: Griffin

File: F2013/1250

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The City of Heidelberg Bowling Club (Club) leases Council-owned land on the north-western corner of Barclay Place and Stradbroke Avenue Heidelberg, known as 1 Stradbroke Avenue (Council land). The Club is currently holding over under an expired lease. A narrow strip of land along the northern boundary of the Council land is occupied by shelters and seating (occupied land). The balance of the Council land is not being used by the Club for bowling purposes. The Club is seeking to retain the structures on the occupied part of the Council land and seeks to enter into a new long term lease, or purchase the occupied land or exchange other land owned the Club for occupied land. This report considers the leasing, sale and exchange of the occupied land.



CITY PLAN




BACKGROUND

The City of Heidelberg Bowling Club (Club) gifted (1145m2 of) land on the north western corner of Barclay Place and Stradbroke Avenue Heidelberg to the former Heidelberg Council in the 1930’s, being the land shown in Figure 1 below. The land known as 1 Stradbroke Avenue Heidelberg (Council land) has been leased back to the Club for many years. The Club is currently holding over under an expired lease.

6.5


1 STRADBROKE AVENUE HEIDELBERG - FUTURE USE OF SITE cont’d


Figure1: Council-owned leased land There has been recent damage to the Club’s competition bowling green, which is located on land, to the north of the Council land, owned by the Club. The competition bowling green needs to be replaced. An area along the northern boundary of the Council land is occupied with shelters and seating (occupied land); otherwise the Council land is not being used by the Club for bowling purposes. The balance of the Council land is grassed but is too small to be used as a competition green. The Club has indicated an intention to construct new shelters and seating to replace the aged infrastructure located on the occupied land. The occupied land has an area of approximately 64m2 as shown in the plan in Figure 2 below. The Club has expressed some concern about replacing the infrastructure on land not owned by them. Also it would make the bowling green unplayable in the event that Council terminates the lease. Consideration has been given to relocating the bowling green by 3 metres to the north but this is not considered practical according to advice received by the Club from their bowling green consultant. CURRENT SITUATION Officers recently met with representatives from the Club to discuss the future use of the Council land. During discussions the Club sought to secure tenure of the occupied land. The following options were discussed: 1. Long term lease; 2. Purchase; 3. Exchange of the occupied land for a similar sized parcel adjacent land owned

by the Club.

6.5




Figure 2: Proposed boundary realignment

DISCUSSION Following recent discussions the Club proffered the following statements in support of the exchange of land option:

6.5




1. The Club made a gift of this land to the Council in the 1930’s and has maintained it at no cost to Council. We now look to exchange a portion on the western boundary for a portion of almost similar size to the north.

2. Proposal gives Council a greater frontage to Burgundy Street (Barclay Place).

3. This gives the Club the opportunity to replace and improve the bowling green with new shelters, fencing and garden beds. Approval will be sought for the construction of a disabled and unisex toilet block in due course.

4. Resolves a long outstanding issue for both Council and Club to the mutual benefit of each party.

5. Improved ramp entrance ( this is already in place) to the bowling green to the north of the existing steps will provide better access for older members, do away with the existing steps and free up an additional metered parking space for Council.

The options for Council to consider are as follows: Option 1 – Long Term Lease This option involves leasing to the Club the occupied land only; the existing lease over the whole of the Council land would be surrendered. The Club as requested that the term of the new lease be for as long as the Club continues to use the land on the western side of Stradbroke Ave as a bowling green. This option could restrict the future use of the Council land because part of it would be encumbered by a lease. Option 2 – Purchase by Club This option involves the Club purchasing the occupied land. This option would provide an income to Council but would reduce the area of the Council land by 64m2. Option 3 – Land Exchange This option involves exchanging a similar area of land owned by the Club to the west of the Council land for the occupied land. This option allows Council to retain a similar sized parcel of land and protects Council’s long term interest for future realisation.


The costs associated with the exchange of land will include engaging a licensed Land Surveyor, legal representatives and fees to the Land Registry estimated to be in the vicinity of $10,000. The Club has been advised that, in the event that Council supports the proposal, Council would expect the Club to meet these costs.

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1989 - STATUTORY PROCEDURES

Prior to selling or exchanging land section 189 of the Local Government Act 1989 (Act) provides that Council must give public notice of its intention to do so and obtain a valuation.

6.5




Section 223(1)(b) of the Act provides that a person may, within 28 days of the date of publication of the public notice, lodge a written submission regarding the proposal to sell land. Where a person has made a written submission to Council requesting that he or she be heard in support of the written submission, Council must permit that person to be heard before a meeting of Council, giving reasonable notice of the day, time and place of the meeting.

PUBLIC NOTICE

Council’s Official Newspaper Policy provides as follows:

“The Heidelberg Leader and/or Diamond Valley Leader and/or the Heidelberg and Valley Weekly, where appropriate be appointed as Council’s official newspapers for the purpose of providing public notice except where circumstances may be deemed appropriate to use The Age and/or the Herald Sun for particular public notices.”

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

VALUATION

No formal valuation has been obtained to date. However the City Valuer has indicated that land in the area has a market value in the vicinity of $2,000/m2.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The Guidelines for the Sale and Exchange of Council Land, adopted by Council in April 2009, provide that the exchange of Council-owned land should be conducted through a public process. The Guidelines acknowledge that in some circumstances it may be more advantageous for the sale of the property to be negotiated with one party. The Act does not restrict Council from selling or exchanging Council-owned land by private treaty. Generally it will be:

the nature of the Council-owned land that is proposed to be sold or exchanged; and or

how the proposed sale or exchange of Council-owned land is initiated, e.g. often it is an external person who has initiated discussions with Council with regard to the exchange of the Council-owned land;

when the price offered is substantially more than the valuation; or

it is evident that there is likely to be only one purchaser for the Council-owned land;

that will determine whether the sale or exchange of Council-owned land by private treaty is appropriate.

In any event, the Guidelines provide that any sale or exchange of Council-owned land should be in the best interest of the community and provide the best result, both financial and non-financial for Council and the community.

6.5




CONCLUSION

Council’s Guidelines for the Sale and Exchange of Council Land allow the exchange of land by private treaty if it achieves the best financial and non-financial outcomes. In this instance, the exchange of the occupied land with land owned by the Club is in the best interest of the community by providing an outcome for the Club. It would permit the Club to replace its aging infrastructure on land it owns rather than on land leased from Council. It would also provide Council with an unencumbered parcel of land that could be realised at a future date. Consequently, the proposal should be supported by Council resolving to commence the statutory procedures to give public notice of its intention to exchange the occupied land with a similar area of land owned by the Club located along the western boundary of the Council land, subject to the Club agreeing to meet Council’s costs.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. In accordance with sections 189 and 223 of the Local Government Act 1989 (Act), authorise the commencement of the statutory procedures relating to Council’s intention to exchange approximately 64m2 of land located along the northern boundary of the Council land known as 1 Stradbroke Avenue Heidelberg (Council land) for a similar area of land owned by the City of Heidelberg Bowling Club (Club) located adjacent to the western boundary of the Council land by giving public notice and inviting written submissions on the proposal in the “Heidelberg Leader” on 20 January 2015.

2. Receive written submissions and hear submissions on the proposal to sell the Council-owned land and building at 9-13 Flintoff Street Greensborough, from persons who have made a written request to be heard in person or by a party representing them as specified in their submission and in accordance with the Act, at its ordinary meeting of Council on 2 March 2015 beginning at 7.45pm to be held in the Council Chambers, 275 Upper Heidelberg Road Ivanhoe.

3. Authorises the Chief Executive Officer and the Director City Development to

seek and obtain agreement from the Club to meet Council’s costs in relation to the proposal prior to the commencement of the statutory procedures referred to in Item 1 above.

4. Will receive a further report on 2 February 2015 if no agreement is reached by

12 January 2015. In that event, the statutory procedures referred to in Item 1 will not be commenced.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

6.6



6.6 9-13 FLINTOFF STREET GREENSBOROUGH - PROPOSED SALE OF LAND


Ward: Bakewell

File: F2014/2006

Previous Items Council on 6 October 2014 (Item 11.4 - 9-13 Flintoff Street Greensborough - Notice

of Intention to Sell)

Council on 7 July 2014 (Item 11.2 - GREENSBOROUGH PROJECT - COMMERCIAL LAND OPPORTUNITIES AND SALES)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In October 2014 Council authorised the commencement of the statutory procedures to give public notice of its intention to sell the subject land in accordance with section 189 of the Local Government Act 1989 (Act). Public notice was given in the “Diamond Valley Leader’ on 15 October 2014, with submissions on the proposal invited in accordance with section 223 of the Act. The submission period closed at 5:00 pm on 12 November 2014. The purpose of this report is for Council to determine whether or not to proceed with the sale of the subject land and to then consider a further report in relation to offering the subject land for sale by private treaty.



CITY PLAN

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


In developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered to determine if it raises any human rights issues. In particular, whether the scope of any human right established by the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities is in any way limited, restricted or interfered with by the recommendations contained in this report. Section 20 of the Charter provides that “A person must not be deprived of his or her property other than in accordance with law.” It is considered that the subject matter does not raise any human rights issues because the power to sell land is conferred on Council pursuant to section 189 of the

6.6


9-13 FLINTOFF STREET GREENSBOROUGH - PROPOSED SALE OF LAND cont’d


Local Government Act 1989 (Act). A person may make a submission under section 223 of the Act with respect to such a proposal. In this instance no submissions werer received.

CURRENT SITUATION

Council owns a number of important land parcels in the Activity Centre Zone for Greensborough, which will be developed either in the short, medium or long term. One of those parcels is a commercial office building known as 9-13 Flintoff Street Greensborough (subject land). The subject land has a land area of approximately 2460m2 upon which is constructed a two storey office building with a total net lettable area of approximately 3,000m2. The subject land is shown highlighted on the plan in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Location of subject land

The building was constructed by the former Diamond Valley Council in 1994 following the negotiation of a pre-committal leasing arrangement with the Federal Government. The building was initially occupied by the Department of Human Services (DHS), Department of Employment, Education and Training (DEET) and Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service (CRS). Several changes in tenants have occurred since 1994. The majority of the building has been vacant since the departure of Centrelink in 2008. The building is currently occupied by a financial services provider (200m2) and Greensborough Customer Service Centre and Banyule BPi (670m2). In November 2010 Council considered various land parcels and subsequently pursued an Expression of Interest (EOI) process to explore the potential for commercial development for the Council-owned land in Greensborough. This EOI process did not result in the sale of the subject land. Miles Real Estate was engaged in early 2013 for the purposes of procuring tenants. To date the campaign has resulting in the leasing of only 200m2.

6.6




At its Ordinary Meeting of 6 October 2014 (CO2014/344) Council authorised the commencement of the statutory procedures to give public notice of its intention to sell subject land in accordance with section 189 of the Act. The open plan layout is suited to a large government department or private industry seeking a large space. The floor plan of the larger tenancy does not lend itself to subletting. The creation of smaller tenancies will result in significant loss of lettable area to provide common walkways due utility configuration and access. At its Ordinary Meeting of 6 October 2014 (CO2014/344) Council authorised the commencement of the statutory procedures to give public notice of its intention to sell subject land in accordance with section 189 of the Local Government Act 1989 (Act).

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1989 - STATUTORY PROCEDURES

Prior to selling land section 189 of the Local Government Act 1989 (Act) provides that Council must give public notice of its intention to do so and obtain a valuation. Public notice was given in the “Diamond Valley Leader’ on 15 October 2014, with submissions on the proposal invited in accordance with section 223 of the Act. The submission period closed at 5:00 pm on 12 November 2014. Section 223(1)(b) of the Act provides that a person may, within 28 days of the date of publication of the public notice, lodge a written submission regarding the proposal to sell land. Where a person has made a written submission to Council requesting that he or she be heard in support of the written submission, Council must permit that person to be heard before a meeting of Council, giving reasonable notice of the day, time and place of the meeting. No submissions were received. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS


The Guidelines for the Sale and Exchange of Council Land, adopted by Council in April 2009, provide that the sale of Council-owned land should be conducted through a public process, unless circumstances justify an alternative method of sale. The Guidelines acknowledge that in some circumstances it may be more advantageous for the sale of the property to be negotiated with one party. The Local Government Act 1989 does not restrict Council from selling or exchanging Council-owned land by private treaty. Generally it will be:

the nature of the Council-owned land that is proposed to be sold or exchanged; and or

how the proposed sale of exchange of council-owned land is initiated, e.g. often it is an external person who has initiated discussions with Council with regard to the sale or exchange of the Council-owned land;

when the price offered is substantially more than the valuation; or

it is evident that there is likely to be only one purchaser for the Council-owned land;

6.6




that will determine whether the sale or exchange of Council-owned land by private treaty is appropriate.

In any event, the Guidelines provide that any sale of Council-owned land should be in the best interest of the community and provide the best result, both financial and non-financial for Council and the community. Legal advice has previously been obtained from Maddocks lawyers regarding the most appropriate process for Council to undertake to sell its landholdings. The options contemplated include:

1. Sale by public auction.

2. Sale by private treaty.

3. Expression of Interest (EOI).

4. Request for Quotations (RFQ) and Request for Proposals (RFP). In providing advice, Maddocks recommend that Council should consider which of the above methods of sale is likely to achieve the best outcome, having regard to Council’s financial and non-financial objectives. It is considered that an EOI process is a preferable method for the sale of the Council-owned land in many situations, as it would satisfy the Council’s responsibility to undertake a public process, enable Council to specify objectives, yet remain flexible enough for Council to negotiate an acceptable outcome with a preferred purchaser.

DISCUSSION

The Guidelines provide that any sale of Council-owned land should be in the best interest of the community and provide the best result, both financial and non-financial for Council and the community. Since 2010 there have been a number of opportunities afforded to the public to express interest in acquiring or leasing the subject land. None of these opportunities have produced a result to day. Council intends to build a new civic office building above WaterMarc. On completion of the construction of the new civic office building the subject land would be surplus to Council’s and the community needs as municipal offices. If the subject land is sold now, a leaseback arrangement could be negotiated with a prospective purchaser. If this cannot be negotiated then, alternate accommodation would need to be found in Greensborough for Customer Service and BPi during the construction period of the new civic office building. Public notice of its intention to sell has been given. No submissions were received in response to the public notice. It should be noted that the giving of public notice does not compel Council to sell the subject land. Council is merely complying with its statutory obligations under the Act to give public notice on the proposal.

6.6




The opportunity to pursue the possible sale of the subject land by private treaty to the interested parties at this time would appear to be beneficial to Council for a number of financial and non-financial reasons, namely: 1. The majority of the subject land has been vacant since 2008; 2. Operating expenses currently exceed the rental income; 3. There have been offers to purchase on commercially favourable terms; 4. The sale of the subject land now will provide certainty of available funds for

reinvestment into the new civic offices or other projects; 5. There is some cost saving in limited advertising program; 6. One of the offers to purchase includes a leaseback provision.

CONCLUSION

When the construction of the new civic office building is completed the subject land will be surplus to Council’s and the community needs as municipal offices. Because the majority of the tenancies within the subject land have been vacant since 2008, operating expenses currently exceed rental income. Consequently this investment should now be realised in order to release funds for reinvestment into the municipality. The Guidelines for the Sale and Exchange of Council land acknowledge that in some circumstances it may be more advantageous for the sale of the property to be negotiated with one party. In this instance the sale of the subject land by private treaty at this point in time appears to be the most appropriate method of sale to achieve the best financial and non-financial outcomes. Consequently, the proposal to sell the subject land by private treaty should be supported.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council: 1. Records that no submissions were received in relation to Council’s intention to

sell the Council-owned land and buildings known as 9-13 Flintoff Street Greensborough (subject land), in accordance with sections 189 and 223 of the Local Government Act 1989.

2. Directs that a valuation be obtained prior to the sale of the subject land.

3. Consider a further report in relation to the offering of the subject land for sale by

private treaty.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

6.7



6.7 REAR OF 1045-1059 HEIDELBERG ROAD IVANHOE - PROPOSED ROAD DISCONTINUANCE AND SALE OF LAND - HEARING OF SUBMISSIONS


Ward: Griffin

File: F2013/421

Previous Items Council on 23 June 2014 (Item 4.5 - Rear of 1045-1059 Heidelberg Road, Ivanhoe -

Proposed discontinuance and sale of unused 'road' and drainage reserve)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A section of unused ‘road’ known as RW437 on Council’s Road Register, at the rear and enclosed within the fence line of 1045-1059 Heidelberg Road, Ivanhoe (unused ‘road’), has never been constructed as a ‘road’. Immediately adjacent to the unused ‘road’ and also enclosed within the fence line of the 1045-1059 Heidelberg Road (adjacent property), is land set aside as a reserve on LP6670 (reserve land). Council at its Ordinary Meeting of 23 June 2014 (Item CO2014/161) considered a report in relation to the proposal to discontinue and sell the unused ‘road’ and the vesting, removal of reserve status and sale of the reserve land. Council resolved to commence the statutory procedures in accordance with sections 189, 207A(a) and 223 of the Local Government Act 1989 (the Act) by giving public notice of this proposal. The purpose of this report is for Council to consider the written submission received from Public Transport Victoria, in response to the public notice given in the “Heidelberg Leader” on 30 September 2014. The submission period closed on 28 October 2014.



CITY PLAN



In developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered to determine if it raises any human rights issues. In particular, whether the scope of

6.7


REAR OF 1045-1059 HEIDELBERG ROAD IVANHOE - PROPOSED ROAD DISCONTINUANCE AND SALE OF LAND - HEARING OF SUBMISSIONS cont’d


any human right established by the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities is in any way, limited, restricted or interfered with by the recommendations contained in this report. Section 20 provides that “A person must not be deprived or his or her property other than in accordance with law”. It is considered that the subject matter does not raise any human rights issues. Council has the legislative power to discontinue or remove ‘road’ status and sell land. Sections 207A (a) and 223 of the Local Government Act 1989 (Act) provides that a person may make a submission in respect of a proposal to discontinue a ‘road’ and section 189 of the Act provides that a person may make a submission under section 223 of the Act in respect the sale of Council land.

BACKGROUND

The land proposed to be sold comprises 145m2 of unused ‘road’, shown cross-hatched and 54m2 of reserve land, shown hatched in Figure 1 below. The unused ‘road’ and reserve land are included within the fence line of 1045-1059 Heidelberg Road, Ivanhoe (adjacent property).

Figure 1: Land proposed to be sold The unused ‘road’ is currently listed as RW437 in Council’s Road Register and is recorded as unformed. A request was received from the owner of 1045-1059 Heidelberg Road, Ivanhoe (the applicant), for Council to consider a proposal to sell that part of the unused ‘road’ currently enclosed within the fence line of the adjacent property. There have been a number of complaints in relation to the unsightly nature of the land from the general public, in particular, railway commuters. The unused ‘road’ does not portray the physical characteristics of a ‘road’ as shown in the photographs in Figure 2 below.

6.7




Figure 2: Physical Characteristics of the Unused ‘Road’ and Reserve land

At its Ordinary Meeting of 23 June 2014 (Item CO2014/161), Council directed the carrying out of the statutory procedures pursuant to Part 4 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and Section 24A of the Subdivision Act 1988. Permit No 1236/2014 has now issued to vest the reserve land in Council’s name and to remove the reserve status. Pursuant to Clause 3 of Schedule 10, and Sections 189 and 223 of the Act, public notice of Council’s intention to sell the unused ‘road’ and the reserve land was given in the “Heidelberg Leader” on 30 September 2014, inviting submissions from the public. The submission period closed on 28 October 2014. One submission was received. An application for a Planning Permit (P220/2014), seeking to use and develop the adjacent property to accommodate a four storey building and two levels of basement car parking was lodged. The application was refused by Council on the grounds that, among other things, apartment balconies or decks encroached into the airspace of the unused ‘road’. The development proposal also failed to provide an effective landscape buffer to soften and screen the rail corridor and visibility of the development.

CURRENT SITUATION

As a result of Council’s refusal to issue a planning permit for the proposed development, VCAT subsequently directed Council to issue a planning permit on 5 September 2014. The Planning Permit (P220/2014) allows for a five storey building and two levels of basement car parking, comprising 39 dwellings, food and drink premises (café) and convenience shop. To date, no plans have been submitted to Council for endorsement. Consequently, it is not known whether the applicant will continue to encroach into the airspace over the unused ‘road’ or will remain reliant on the ownership of the unused ‘road’ and the

6.7




reserve land for their proposed development. Nor has the applicant pursued its initial request to purchase the said land. Regardless, it is necessary that consideration should be given to the carrying out of the necessary statutory procedures to obtain title to the land in question; thereby protecting the land from any potential claims for adverse possession.

LEGAL CONSIDERATION

STATUTORY PROCEDURES

Public notice of Council’s intention to discontinue and sell the unused ‘road’ and reserve land was given in the “Heidelberg Leader’ on 30 September 2014, with submissions on the proposal invited.

SUBMISSION RECEIVED

One submission was received from Public Transport Victoria (PTV), the responsible authority for the Darebin Railway Station known as 1043 Heidelberg Road, Ivanhoe. A copy of the written submission has been provided to the Councillors previously. The issues raised in the submission are paraphrased and a response outlined in the summary below. Table 1: Summary of written submission

Issue Submission Response

1.

Public Transport Victoria (PTV), being the responsible authority for the Darebin Railway Station, 1043 Heidelberg Road, Ivanhoe Objection to the proposed sale of land - Concerns regarding adjacent infrastructure and operational access to the rail corridor at Darebin railway station.

The unused ‘road’ and reserve land are currently enclosed within the fence line of 1045-1059 Heidelberg Road. Access to infrastructure and the rail corridor is available via PTV land.

DISCUSSION

The current proposal is to discontinue and sell the land from the unused ‘road and sell the reserve land to an abutting owner. PTV initially raised concerns regarding adjacent infrastructure and operational access to the rail corridor at Darebin railway station which adjoins the land from the unused ‘road’ and the reserve land. There has been no evidence provided by the submitter to indicate that the unused ‘road’ and the reserve land beyond the post and chain wire fence has been accessed or maintained by PTV in the recent past. The feature survey does suggest, however, that the existing fencing on the railway land is not on the correct title boundary. PTV

6.7




has subsequently been advised that access to infrastructure and the rail corridor is available via the Darebin Railway Station platform and from the adjacent railway car park. The discontinuance and sale of the unused ‘road’ and the reserve land will not compromise this access. Subsequently, PTV advised verbally that they would withdraw the submission but, to date, written confirmation has not been received. Council must now consider the submission received in its original email form as no detailed letter has been received from PTV since 6 November 2014. If the land from the unused ‘road’ and reserve land are not sold to an abutting owner at this time it must be retained by Council for future sale. Conversely, if Council considers the land should be retained for municipal purposes then public notice would be required to be given of its intention to do so.

CONCLUSION

The unused ‘road’ does not portray the physical characteristics of a ‘road’ nor is there any evidence to indicate that it ever has been used as a ‘road’. The reserve land does not contain any service authority assets. The discontinuance and sale of the unused ‘road’ and the reserve land will not compromise PTV’s access to their infrastructure and the rail corridor. The giving of public notice does not compel Council to sell land. Council is merely complying with its statutory obligations under the Act to give public notice on the proposal. However, Council must consider the written submission received. It is appropriate for Council to consider the sale of the unused ‘road’ and reserve land at a future meeting.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council: 1. Record that one submission was received in response to the public notice

given in accordance with sections 207A(a) and 223 of the Local Government Act 1989, having given notice of Council’s intention to discontinue and sell 145m2 of unused ‘road’ and 54m2 of reserve land at the rear of 1045-1059 Heidelberg Road, Ivanhoe, and that this submission was considered by Council at its Ordinary Meeting of 1 December 2014.

2. Determine whether or not to proceed with the discontinuance and sale of the

unused ‘road’ and reserve land referred to in item 1 above at a future meeting of Council.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

6.8



6.8 CONTRACT FOR PROVISION OF MOBILE GARBAGE BINS

Author: David McCutcheon - Senior Contracts Officer, Corporate Services

File: 1801/0503

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A public tender for the provision of Mobile Garbage Bins was undertaken by Procurement Australia due to one of the current suppliers appointed under a previous panel of Suppliers going into receivership. This report is to consider the awarding of Contract 1801/0503 to appoint a panel of Suppliers for the provision of Mobile Garbage Bins to Council for a period of three (3) years with the option to extend the contracts for a further two (2) years. The procurement of mobile bins and associated parts is for the routine maintenance and replacement of bins damaged through wear and tear.



CITY PLAN

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

BACKGROUND

In order for Council to deliver effective waste management services to its ratepayers, Council must maintain an inventory of mobile garbage bins and spare parts. Council appointed a panel of two Suppliers following a Procurement Australia (PA) collaborative tender conducted in 2009. The contract which commenced 1 October 2010 has expired and expenditure across the panel was in excess of $570,000 (including GST). Council is a member of Procurement Australia, a member organisation which undertakes public tenders for local government authorities in a cooperative arrangement. This organisation enables Council to gain from economies of scale through group tenders that follow a stringent quality assured process and meet the requirements of Section186 of the Local Government Act 1989 which stipulates the purchasing and contractual requirements for Local Government authorities.

6.8


CONTRACT FOR PROVISION OF MOBILE GARBAGE BINS cont’d


CURRENT SITUATION

One of the Suppliers appointed under the previous panel of Suppliers has gone into receivership and Procurement Australia made the decision to initiate a new public tender for the supply of these goods. The tender was advertised (on behalf of 26 Victorian Councils and 1 TAFE college) in the Melbourne Herald Sun on Wednesday 6 August 2014. When tenders closed on Wednesday 27 August 2014, 4 tenders were submitted. Tenders were evaluated solely by Procurement Australia using a weighted scoring matrix for both financial and non-financial criteria. Following evaluation the tenders from Sulo MGB Australia (Sulo) and Trident Plastics (SA) Pty Ltd (Trident) were ranked as the highest scoring. Sulo was a Supplier under the previous contract. Its tender prices were typically around 7% higher than those under the previous contract. However it must be remembered that there have been no price increases since 2010 when the previous contract commenced. The tender from Trident was recommended on the proviso that it will attain AS4123 accreditation by 30 April 2015. Accordingly, this Supplier will not be engaged until certification is attained. The new contracts, whilst technically commencing 1 November 2014 with Procurement Australia, will only be accessible to Banyule City Council, if Council approval is obtained at its meeting on 1 December 2014.


The procurement of mobile bins and associated parts is for the routine maintenance and replacement of bins damaged through wear and tear. The purchase of these bins is therefore funded through the annual Waste Management bin maintenance operating budget.

CONCLUSION

The availability of Mobile Garbage Bins (and associated spare parts) through the panel will enable Council to continue to provide Waste Management Services to the municipality.

RECOMMENDATION

That the following contracts be awarded for the provision of Mobile Garbage Bins (and associated spare parts): 1. Contract No. 1801/0503 for Mobile Garbage Bins to Sulo MGB Australia and, to

Trident Plastics (SA) Pty Ltd upon it attaining AS4123 accreditation by 30 April 2015.

2. That the Procurement Australia Opt In letters be signed by Chief Executive

Officer

6.8


CONTRACT FOR PROVISION OF MOBILE GARBAGE BINS cont’d


3. That extension options available under the contract be exercised under delegation the Chief Executive Officer if required.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

7.1

Sealing of Documents


7.1 SEALING OF DOCUMENTS Author: Jeanette Kringle - Property Co-ordinator, City Development

Andrea Turville – Property Officer – City Development

Ward: Olympia & Hawdon

File: F2014/1995 & F2013/1418

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

.

PARTY\PARTIES: Banyule City Council and Visy Paper Pty Ltd OFFICER: Jeanette Kringle FILE NUMBER: F2014/1995 DOCUMENT: Deed of Renewal of Lease ADDRESS: 325 Waterdale Road Ivanhoe WARD: Olympia BRIEF EXPLANATION: Council is the owner of the land known as 325

Waterdale Road Ivanhoe (Land). Council leases part of the Land to Visy Paper Pty Ltd (Visy) for the operation of a Materials Recovery Facility. The current lease, which expired on 30 June 2014, provides for four (4) further terms of three (3) years each. Visy exercised its option for a further term of three (3) years commencing on 1 July 2014. A Deed of Renewal of Lease has been prepared to document the terms and conditions of the renewed lease. Council should formally ratify the renewed lease by resolving to affix its Common Seal to the Deed.

2

.

PARTY\PARTIES: Banyule City Council and Montmorency South Primary School

OFFICER: Andrea Turville FILE NUMBER: F2013/1418 DOCUMENT: Agreement ADDRESS: 97 Reichelt Avenue, Montmorency WARD: Hawdon BRIEF EXPLANATION: Council is the owner of land at 97 Reichelt Avenue,

Montmorency (“the Land”). At its Ordinary Meeting of 4 April 2011 (Item CO2011/1) Council consented to the construction of a multipurpose centre at the Montmorency South Primary School (School) on the western title boundary of the Land. Such consent was subject to the School entering into a formal Agreement with Council obliging the School, at its expense, to implement a vandalism and graffiti removal management plan, install a swale drain and floodlighting and ongoing maintenance. Council should formally ratify the Agreement by resolving to affix its Common Seal.

7.1

Sealing of Documents

SEALING OF DOCUMENTS cont’d


RECOMMENDATION

That the Common Seal of the Banyule City Council be affixed to the following documents: 1. The Deed of Renewal of Lease between Banyule City Council and Visy Paper

Pty Ltd for the renewal of the lease for Materials Recovery Facility located on part of the Council owned land known as 325 Waterdale Road Ivanhoe for the term of three years commencing on 1 July 2014.

2. The Agreement between Banyule City Council and Montmorency South Primary School consenting to the construction of the multipurpose centre on the western title boundary of the Council-owned land at 97 Reichelt Avenue Montmorency.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

banyule city council agenda 1 december 2014 - 1 of 4

Documents

ivanhoe parade

people community

wurundjeri people

community life

heidelberg heights

banyule youth summit

environmental stewardship

biodiversity plan