banyule city council agenda 14 june 2016 - attachments only

Ordinary Meeting of Council

Council Chambers, Service Centre

275 Upper Heidelberg Road, Ivanhoe

14 June 2016 commencing at 7.45pm

ATTACHMENTS

4.1 91 Darebin Street, HEIDELBERG - Construction of a multi level mixeduse development

Attachment 1. Attachment 1 - Background information - P1135/2015 pt1 ....................3

Attachment 2. Attachment 2 - Assessment against Higher Density DesignGuidelines - P1135/2015 pt1 ................................................................9

Attachment 3. Attachment 3 - Advertised Plans.........................................................19

4.2 Infrastructure Victoria 30 Year Strategy - Draft Submission

Attachment 1. Infrastructure Victoria Options Paper - Council SubmissionJune 2016...........................................................................................57

5.1 Petrie Park and Rattary Reserve Master Plan

Attachment 1. Petrie Park and Rattray Reserve - Summary of KeyThemes ..............................................................................................65

Attachment 2. Petrie Park and Rattray Reserve Master Plan - Final Report- June 2016.........................................................................................67

6.2 Adoption of Banyule's Budget for the period 1 July 2016 to 30 June2017

Attachment 1. Summary of Consideration of Submissions Received on theProposed Budget 2016/2017 (and Proposed City Plan2013-2017 (Year 4)) ..........................................................................89

6.3 Return of the 2016 General Re-valuation

Attachment 1. Statutory Declaration of the return of the 2016 GeneralRevaluation for the Municipality of Banyule.......................................105

6.4 Items for Noting

Attachment 1. Banyule Environment Advisory Committee BEAC April2016 Meeting notes ..........................................................................107

Attachment 2. Banyule Environment Advisory Committee (BEAC) May2016 Notes .......................................................................................111

Attachment 3. Chandler Highway Widening - Hon Bruce Atkinson MLCresponse...........................................................................................115

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 14 June 2016

Attachment 4. Chandler Highway Widening - Mr Colin Brooks MP ..........................117

Attachment 5. Planning Infringement Penalties For Illegal Tree Removal -The Hon Richard Wynne...................................................................119

Item: 4.1 Attachment 1: Attachment 1 - Background information - P1135/2015 pt1


Att

ach

men

t1

4.1

91 Darebin Street HEIDELBERG Attachment 1

PROPOSAL IN DETAIL

Apartment Bedrooms Open space Open space locationG01 Two 39 m2 Ground level, Darebin St frontageG02 Two 44 m2 Ground level, eastG03 Two 36 m2 Ground level, eastG04 Two 79 m2 Ground level, east & south101 Two 23 m2 Ground level, west102 Two 40 m2 Ground level, north & balcony, west103 Two 29 m2 Balcony, north & east104 Two 12 m2 Balcony, east105 One 12 m2 Balcony, east106 Two 12 m2 Balcony, east107 Two 10 m2 Balcony, east108 Two 63 m2 Balcony, west109 Two 23 m2 Balcony, west201 Two 12 m2 Balcony, west202 Two 30 m2 Balcony, north & west203 Two 29 m2 Balcony, north & east204 Two 12 m2 Balcony, east205 One 12 m2 Balcony, east206 Two 12 m2 Balcony, east207 Two 10 m2 Balcony, east208 Two 13 m2 Balcony, west209 Two 12 m2 Balcony, west301 Two 12 m2 Balcony, west302 Two 30 m2 Balcony, north & west303 Two 29 m2 Balcony, north & east304 Two 23 m2 Balcony, east305 One 18 m2 Balcony, east306 Two 47 m2 Balcony, east & south307 Two 13 m2 Balcony, west308 Two 12 m2 Balcony, west401 Three 133 m2 Balcony, north, east & west402 Two 19 m2 Balcony, west403 Two 19 m2 Balcony, west404 Three 113 m2 Balcony, south, east & west501 Three 72 m2 Balcony, north, east & west502 Three 44 m2 Balcony, west503 Three 68 m2 Balcony, south, east & west

Due to the varied width of the proposed balconies (which reduces down to as low as 700mm inplaces), the usable open space areas for Dwellings 107, 201, 207-209, 301 and 307-309 is in theorder of 6 m2 each.

In addition to the open space areas nominated, a 34m2 communal roof terrace is indicated at Level4.

Dwelling Density 1:m2

Impervious Site Coverage 78%



Att

ach

men

t1

4.1

PLANNING CONTROLS IN DETAIL

SPECIAL USE ZONE SCHEDULE 3

The purposes of Schedule 3 to the Special Use Zone are:

• To implement the Heidelberg Precinct Structure Plan.

• To encourage the consolidation of medical services within this precinct.

• To enable a mix of uses within developments that provides dwellings within upperlevels of buildings.

• To protect the amenity of patients and residents within and around this precinct.

A permit is required to use land for a dwelling, unless it is located more than 10m above groundlevel. No planning permit is required for a medical centre (save for any reduction in the standardparking provision).

Decision guidelines include:

• All floor to ceiling heights within buildings, must be adequate to enable theconversion of other uses, (such as a dwelling) to Medical Centre.

• Whether the proposed development provides an appropriate level of amenity tonearby dwellings, medical centres and hospitals.

DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY

Schedule 5 to the Overlay outlines that it seeks:

• To promote new development that provides a positive contribution to the built form and publicrealm by:

o Respecting the preferred scale and character of the Heidelberg Activity Centre.

o Protecting views from the public realm along and across the Burgundy Street valley.

o Incorporating a combination of articulation, materials and colours to create visualinterest.

o Providing façade treatments that are sympathetic with nearby areas of parklands andvegetation.

o Providing a sympathetic design response to nearby sites of known heritage value.

o Providing building setbacks that create a sense of openness within the streetscapeenvironment and maintain the amenity of peripheral residential and other sensitiveuses.

…

o Encouraging development to provide passive surveillance to the streetscape and otherpublic areas.

o Maintaining sunlight and daylight access to adjoining private open spaces of dwellingsin accordance with clause 55.

o Locating living areas, windows and private open spaces to minimise the potential foroverlooking in accordance with clause 55.

o Ensuring ground-level street frontages have activity and interest for pedestrians.

o Ensuring car parking is appropriately screened by buildings and landscaping.

• To promote design that enables environmentally sustainable development.

• To discourage the underdevelopment of land by not permitting buildings or entrenching usesthat are inconsistent with the preferred scale and character, identified by the maximumbuilding heights and setbacks detailed in this Schedule



Att

ach

men

t1

4.1

A planning permit is required for buildings and works pursuant to the Design and DevelopmentOverlay. The Overlay outlines for this site that:

• A preferred maximum height of 10m applies; and

• Street frontage should be consistent with Clause 55.03-1 (ResCode)

Decision guidelines with respect to built form include:

• Whether the proposed heights and setbacks are balanced, in relation to thepreferred maximum built form of the site and adjoining sites.

• Whether building height greater than the standard provides a positive contributionto the form of the building.

• Whether building height greater than the standard unreasonably reducesopportunities for adjoining buildings to make effective use of natural light.

• Whether building height greater than the standard respects the scale ofsurrounding development and the topography of the surrounding land.

• Whether the proposal provides for an appropriate scale of development in orderto accommodate the preferred mix and intensity of use.

…

• Whether building height that is less than the preferred maximum height respectsthe scale of preferred maximum built form and the topography of the land.

• Whether the facades of new development that is visible from nearby parklandsprovide treatments that are sympathetic with the parklands environment.

• Whether the development provides adequate opportunities for natural light topenetrate to lower levels of buildings.

VEGETATION PROTECTION OVERLAY

None of the trees on site have a height of 12m or more and a trunk circumference of more than400mm, meaning that no permit is required for the proposed tree removal.

CLAUSE 52.06 – CAR PARKING

Clause 52.06 outlines that parking facilities are required as follows:

Rate No. proposedParking

requirement

Dwelling

1-2 bedrooms 1 space/dwelling 32 32 spaces3 bedrooms 2 spaces/dwelling 5 10 spacesVisitor parking 1 space/5 dwellings 37 7 spaces

Total 49 spaces

Medical centre 5 spaces for the firstpractitioner, 3 spaces thereafter

2 practitioners 8 spaces

The proposal incorporates 47 parking spaces, with the reduction sought identified as being seven(7) residential visitor parking spaces and three (3) medical centre spaces.



Att

ach

men

t1

4.1

HEIDELBERG STRUCTURE PLAN

The Heidelberg Structure Plan underpins Schedule 5 to the Design and Development Overlay, andis reflective of the provisions of the Local Places Policy contained in Clause 21.08. The Planindicates the site as being within an area which will support both health care land uses andresidential mixed use development (Plan 17). Objectives of the Plan include to improve the imageand identity of the medical precinct. It is policy that medical uses are clustered around the existinghospitals. Witrh respect to built form it notes:

To ensure the built form responds positively to sensitive interfaces, commercial, retailand service imperatives, landscape and topography and housing needs and characterthe following strategic objectives have been identified:

1. To ensure that new residential development is an appropriate scale and issensitive to the interface with the Yarra River open space environment andfloodplain.

2. To encourage high quality commercial buildings of appropriate height and scale.

3. To ensure Burgundy Street retains its primary retail form.

4. To ensure that new development makes a positive contribution to the existingstreetscapes and urban form.

5. To respond to and respect the character of urban form in residential areasadjoining the precinct.

6. To allow for built form that signifies the importance of the medical servicesprecinct, whilst not detracting from the high quality low scale residentialdevelopment in the precinct.

7. To encourage a more diverse housing stock to enable and facilitate people toreside in or adjacent to the centre such as in upper floors above retail orcommercial spaces in well designed mixed use buildings.

8. To develop dwellings compatible with the prevailing residential built form.

9. To use environmentally sensitive and sustainable design and buildingtechnologies.

The Plan outlines with respect to Setback Standard 4, which applies to this site and other sites witha 10m height nominated (but not to any sites which have a preferred maximum height of greaterthan 10m):

Setback Guideline 4

• Setback to be consistent with Clause 55 of the Banyule Planning Scheme.

• Façade can be as high as 10 metres.

• 2 further levels (6m) above 10 metres, setback 1.5 metres per 3 metre floor. Thismaintains the feeling of openness while, in east-west streets, it is sufficient toensure at least 3 hours of sunlight per day in the middle of winter reaches the firstfloor windows of the building across the street.

• Street façade can extend across full width of the frontage at the lower two levelsbut may have side setbacks at the 3rd level.

• Balconies should be recessed into the front of the 3rd level. A framework ofbalustrades, fin walls and verandas should extend to the front boundary to definethe street façade.

BACKGROUND/HISTORY

There have been no previous planning applications for this site



Att

ach

men

t1

4.1

REFERRAL COMMENTS

ENGINEERING SERVICES

Council’s Engineering Services Section have reviewed the proposal and advised as follows:

Stormwater detentionA minimum of 10.27m3 of on-site stormwater detention will be required to be provided.

Car parking provision

The reduction in the number of car parking spaces is acceptable provided that:

• Car parking spaces adjacent to storage cages are allocated to the dwellings to which thecar parking spaces are allocated to.

• A minimum of three car parking spaces are allocated to the medical centre for long termusers.

• A minimum of eight spaces in Basement 1 (including the proposed accessible bay) areallocated to visitors to the building (to be shared between the residential and medicalcentre components)

Car parking design

The car park generally complies with the design standards.

The applicant is to provide further details in relation to the operation of the proposed “stop andgo” system to manage vehicular movements between Basement 1 and Basement 2.

Bicycle parking

The plans indicate that the statutory requirement for bicycle parking is met. However, it would bepreferable to have the visitors’ spaces close to the main pedestrian access to the building, at streetlevel.

Waste collection

The proposed collection of waste and recyclables off the kerbside is not supported as it reduceson-street parking availability on Darebin Street.

DEVELOPMENT PLANNING ARBORIST

Council’s Development Planning Arborist has advised that the proposed tree removal isacceptable, and that the proposal incorporates sufficient separation from the existing street trees(including at basement level) to ensure their protection.

BUILDING PERMITS AND INSPECTION SERVICES

Council’s Building Permits and Inspection Services section advises that the minimum floor-ceilingheight for medical centres within the Building Code is 2.4m, with a 3.0m floor-ceiling heightrequired if operations are to be conducted.

Item: 4.1 Attachment 2: Attachment 2 - Assessment against Higher Density Design Guidelines - P1135/2015 pt1


Att

ach

men

t2

4.1

91 Darebin Street HEIDELBERG Attachment 2

ASSESSMENT AGAINST GUIDELINES FOR HIGHER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

APPLICATION NO.: P1135/2015PROPOSAL: Buildings and works to construct a multi dwelling development (up to 6 storeys) including 37

apartments within a Design and Development Overlay; removal of vegetation; and, a reduction in thestandard car parking requirements

Element 1: Urban context

Neighbourhood character and strategic context

1.1 To ensure buildings respond creatively to theirexisting context and to agreed aspirations forthe future development of the area. This shouldtake the form of an urban context report.

Complies The proposal is accompanied by an appropriate site analysis and design response,including consideration of the site, character of the neighbourhood, and its strategiccontext.

Design ResponseThe suitability of the proposal to the character of the area is influenced by the provisions ofthe Design and Development Overlay, and the existing surrounding development to thesouth and east. The boundary of the DDO is indicative of the fact that it is anticipated thatthere will be a distinct character difference between development on the eastern andwestern sides of Powlett Street, and between the northern and southern sides of DarebinStreet.

1.2 To provide a creative design response that isbased on a clear understanding of the urbancontext and neighbourhood character.

Complies

Element 2: Building envelope

Height and massing

2.1 To ensure that the height of new developmentresponds to existing urban context andneighbourhood character objectives of the area.

Complies The proposal incorporates a height of 17.4m to 19m above natural ground level (or 17m –19.8m above street level), with the slope of the site meaning that the building is at itshighest along the eastern façade. This represents a height of 2.5 – 3 storeys over thepreferred maximum of 10m for this precinct, with the 16m height to Powlett Street beingcomparable with both the existing hospital car park at 230-232 Burgundy Street and theapproved development at 12 Powlett Street (the latter is currently subject of an objectorappeal).



Att

ach

men

t2

4.1 The upper levels of the proposal are apparent from Darebin Street, where the top two

levels will be visible save from the footpath and parking lane on the southern side of thestreet, and from surrounding properties. The impact upon Powlett Street is lesspronounced, with the slope of the land reducing the apparent height of the building fromboth the street and properties on its western side.

By way of absolute comparison, the height to AHD of the proposal and existing/approveddevelopment in the vicinity is as follows:

Proposal 90.2230-232 Burgundy Street (Hospital Car Park) 85.910 Martin Street (constructed) 92.19-11 Martin Street & 12 Powlett Street (currently before VCAT) 90.5

It is considered that in light of surrounding development and the slope of the land awayfrom Powlett Street the height of the proposal above street level is acceptable. The use ofcurved balconies, additional recession, clear balustrades and appropriate render coloursto the upper level façade results in an upper portion which achieves an appropriate level ofvisual and physical recession. The absolute height of the building is also considered to beacceptable, and will not result in an unacceptable impact upon view-lines from keyvantage points, including the intersection of Upper Heidelberg Road and BurgundyStreet/the Bell Street off-ramp.

2.2 To ensure new development is appropriate tothe scale of nearby streets, other public spaces,and buildings.

Complies It is considered that the form of the proposed building, associated balconies, and choice ofmaterials and colours results in a building which will be appropriate to the developingcharacter of this section of Heidelberg.

2.3 To protect sunlight access to public spaces. Complies The orientation of the site ensures that the proposal will not have an inappropriate impactupon the level of sunlight enjoyed by Darebin Street or the Powlett Street road reservation(including the grassed section adjoining the site).

Street setbacks

2.4 To respond to existing or preferred streetcharacter.

Variationto

Standard

Both the DDO and the Heidelberg Structure Plan outline that in this location a buildingshould be set back in accordance with Clause 55 (ie. 7m to Darebin Street and 2m toPowlett Street), however the Structure Plan also refers to the potential to provide anadditional 6m in height provided that an additional setback of 1.5m to each storey (3mheight) is provided.



Att

ach

men

t2

4.1By comparison the proposal incorporates the following setbacks:

Darebin Street Powlett StreetLevels G-3 6m to façade, minimum of 4m to

balconies3.5m to façade, minimum of 1.5mto balconies

Level 4 7.7m to façade, minimum of 4m tobalconies

4.3m to façade, minimum of 1.5mto balconies

Level 5 Minimum of 8.85m to façade and6.55m to balcony

Minimum of 5.6 to façade, 3.5m tobalconies

The proposal incorporates a 1m reduced setback to the proposed façade and 3m to thebalconies when compared with the adjoining development to the east. It is noted,however, that other development in the immediate vicinity has setbacks in the order of 5m.In this context, and given the use of sections of clear balustrading and the break in themid-point of the balconies results in a built form which is acceptable in terms ofpresentation to and setback from Darebin Street. The proposed setback at the upperlevels includes an appropriate amount of recession from the street when compared withthe levels beneath.

With the exception of relatively small sections of the curved balconies, the proposalcomplies with the setbacks outlined to Powlett Street for Levels 1-3, with the balconiesintruding into the setbacks at Level 4 and 5. The curvature of the balconies, the narrowbreak provided between them mid-way along the façade, and the topography of the landcombine to form an acceptable outcome, however.

Relationship to adjoining buildings

2.5 To ensure building separation supports privateamenity and reinforces neighbourhoodcharacter.

Ability tocomply

It is considered that, subject to minor modification, the proposal will not result in anunacceptable impact upon the amenity of adjoining properties:

ShadowingThe proposed southern and western boundary setbacks assist in reducing the amount ofshadow cast by the proposal upon the adjoining properties at 16 Powlett Street and 85-89Darebin Street. As a result, and due to the orientation of the land, the proposal will resultin:

• Minimal shadowing to the adjoining property at 16 Powlett Street at 9am and noonon 22 September;

• Overshadowing of the entire yard of Units 5 and 6, 85 Darebin Street at 3pm on 22September;



Att

ach

men

t2

4.1 • Shadowing of approximately half of the rear yard of 16 Powlett Street at 3pm on 22

September.

The information supplied indicates that the existing fencing on site also currently shadesthe entirety of the private open space at Units 5 and 6, 85 Darebin Street.

It is considered that these shadow impacts are acceptable in this setting, and do not overlyrestrict future development of the adjoining property at 16 Powlett Street. It is noted thatwhilst the adjoining property owner has raised concern about the level of shade cast bythe proposal over 16 Powlett Street during winter, winter shade is not ordinarily consideredwhen assessing a planning application. Existing buildings, landscaping and fencing alsocurrently cast significant levels of shade to the yard areas concerned.

Overlooking

The plans indicate screening to selected balconies on the eastern side of the proposedbuilding. This is restricted to Levels 1-3, and does not include the balconies which wraparound the north of the building or the entirety of balconies to the dwellings located at thesouthern end of the building.

An assessment of the plans indicates that:

• The use of appropriately angled louvres would allow longer-range views fromBalconies 107 and 207 to the south-east whilst ensuring appropriate levels ofprivacy are maintained by 16 Powlett Street and 5/85 Darebin Street.

• Screening is necessary to the Communal Roof Terrace;

• Screening to the narrow (1.2m – 1.4m wide) section of east facing balcony at Level5 is not considered to be necessary, given the horizontal and vertical separation ofthe balcony from the adjoining property and the anticipated low utilisation of thissection of balcony.

• Screening to restrict overlooking should be provided to:

o The south facing Apartment 207 dining room window;

o The south-east facing section of balcony to Apartment 207;

o Extend the proposed screening to Balcony 306 to the south and south-east(but not necessarily the curved section facing south-west)

o The balconies of Apartments 401 and 404, from a point approximately 14mfrom the Darebin Street frontage, along the eastern façade and to a pointapproximately 10m from the Powlett Street frontage.



Att

ach

men

t2

4.1Screening should be designed to focus views toward the broader area, rather than

preventing outlook. In some instances, use of planter boxes or similar to prevent accessto the outer edge of a balcony may be sufficient to screen overlooking.

The plans should also be annotated to reflect the screening indicated to the south facingbalcony of Apartment 306 that is shown on the southern elevation.

Noise

The proposal will not result in an unacceptable impact upon surrounding properties bymeans of vehicular noise. Any permit issued should include a requirement to showfacilities, with these to be commonly located and screened, so as to prevent individual airconditioning units resulting in amenity impacts to both existing and future residents.

2.6 To ensure areas can develop with equitableaccess to outlook and sunlight.

Complies Refer above.

2.7 To ensure visual impacts to dwellings at the rearare appropriate to the context.

Complies Whilst the proposed building is undeniably larger than the existing three level dwelling tothe rear and the single and double storey dwellings to the east, this is anticipated by theDDO affecting the land, and the proposed boundary setbacks are sufficient to allowappropriate levels of daylight access and outlook from the adjoining properties.

Views to and from residential units2.8 To maximise informal or passive surveillance of

streets and other public open spaces.Complies The proposal incorporates good levels of surveillance of both Darebin Street and Powlett

Street.

2.9 To maximise residential amenity through theprovision of views and protection of privacywithin the subject site and on neighbouringproperties.

Complies As detailed above, measures to restrict overlooking of the adjoining properties should bedesigned to direct views to the longer-distance views available, rather than restrictingoutlook from the dwellings and balconies. This can be achieved through measures suchas appropriately angled slat screens, or use of planter boxes to prevent access to theedge of balconies.

Wind protection2.10 To ensure new tall buildings do not create

adverse wind effects.Complies The proposal incorporates steps in the built form, which will assist in addressing any wind

impacts.

Roof forms2.11 To treat roof spaces and forms as a considered

aspect of the overall building design.Complies The proposed flat roof form is appropriate to the dwelling style proposed.



Att

ach

men

t2

4.1

Element 3: Street pattern and street-edge quality

Street pattern and street edge integration

3.1 To create walkable areas within a safe andinteresting public setting.

Complies The form of the building and the level of overlooking of public areas afforded from it willassist in providing a safe and interesting public setting.

3.2 To closely integrate the layout and occupationpatterns of new development with the street.

Complies Good levels of integration, including access to Powlett Street from individual private openspace areas, are proposed.

3.3 To ensure car parking does not dominate thestreet frontage.

Complies A single access point from Darebin Street is proposed.

Building entries

3.4 To create street entrances with a strong identitythat provide a transition from the street toresidential interiors.

Ability tocomply

The proposal incorporates the provision of gas and water meters and booster facilitieswithin the frontage setback to the medical component of the building. These have thepotential to have a significant impact upon the streetscape presentation of the building,and will need to be appropriately detailed.

3.5 To ensure car park entries do not detract fromthe street.

Complies The proposed narrowing of the driveway at the entrance to the car park results in an abilityto provide appropriate landscaping to soften the driveway as viewed from Darebin Street.The slope of the driveway down from the street also assists in ensuring that garaging willnot be dominant or detract from the streetscape presentation of the site.

Front fences

3.6 To avoid creating inactive frontages as a resultof fencing private open spaces.

Complies The proposal incorporates curved sections of 2.2m high fence to Powlett Street, withlandscaping to soften them as viewed from the roadway. The curvature of the fence andprovision of landscaping ensures that the fence, whilst higher than a traditional side palingfence, will be acceptable within the neighbourhood setting. Importantly, the fencing doesnot prevent surveillance of the roadway.

Fencing to Darebin Street is set 2.4m from the street, although screening to the facilitiesoutlined above may extend closer to the street (the elevations indicate a booster cabinetheight of up to 1.7m at the frontage). Again, view to the street is not prevented by thisfencing.

3.7 To ensure that front fences respect andcontribute to the neighbourhood character.

Ability tocomply



Att

ach

men

t2

4.1

Element 4: Circulation and services

Parking layout

4.1 To provide adequate, safe and efficientlydesigned parking layouts.

Ability tocomply

Council’s Traffic Engineers have advised that the porposed parking layout is acceptable,

provided that more information is provided in relation to the operation of the proposed

“stop and go” system to manage vehicular movements between Basement 1 and

Basement 2.

4.2 To provide safe and convenient access betweencar parking and bicycle areas and thepedestrian entry to buildings.

Complies The proposal incorporates an appropriate number of bicycle parking spaces. WhilstCouncil’s Traffic Engineers have highlighted a preference for visitor parking spaces to belocated close to the main pedestrian access to the building, at street level, the proposedparking spaces are located at the upper basement level and close to the point of entry.This is considered to be acceptable. Access from both car and bicycle parking areas inthe basement to the building proper is appropriate in terms of safety and convenience.

Circulation spaces

4.3 To create shared internal spaces that contributepositively to the experience of living in higherdensity development.

Complies The proposal incorporates a communal gym (at Ground Level) and ‘rooftop’ terrace (atLevel 4).

Site services

4.4 To minimise running and maintenance costs. Ability tocomply

The Sustainable Management Plan submitted with the application indicates the use of:

• Passive cooling through the use of ventilation and fans, a potential to provide aminimum star rating of 6.5 stars, with an average of 7.3 (no undertaking is given toprovide more than the minimum required by the Building Regulations – 5 starminimum, 6 star average - however).

• Individual air conditioning units for dwellings (to provide residents with greatercontrol over their own environment),

• Daylight sensors/time clocks for external lighting,

• Appropriate sensors to car park ventilation,

• A rainwater tank, with water utilised in the ground level toilets.

It is considered that, from a neighbouring amenity point of view, use of air conditioningunits on individual balconies should be replaced with rooftop plant. Similarly, the SMPshould identify measures to minimise reliance upon clothes dryers. In addition, therequirements of the SMP should be shown on the plans. This can be required by permitcondition.

4.5 To minimise water use. Ability tocomply



Att

ach

men

t2

4.1

4.6 To incorporate provision for site services in thebuilding design to ensure good function andease of service and maintenance.

Ability tocomply

The proposal includes preliminary information in relation to site services required at thefrontage. Additional details are required, however, to ensure that these services do notinappropriately detract from the streetscape presentation of the proposal.

The proposed lift is 1.4m in width as drawn on the plans, and the ability to transferfurniture from the ground level/basement of the building to upper levels by the stairs or(preferably) the lift should be verified.

Element 5: Building layout and design

Dwelling diversity

5.1 To provide a range of dwelling sizes and typesin higher density residential developments.

Complies The proposal incorporates a mixture of one, two and three bedroom dwellings. Council’sLivable Housing Guidelines would indicate that at least 20% of dwellings should bedesigned to cater for those with limited mobility. An assessment of the plans suppliedindicates that a majority of dwellings can be readily adapted to meet this requirementthrough the use of appropriate door widths, bathroom detailing, etc., although detailedannotations are required on the plans to ensure that occurs.

Building layout

5.2 To optimise the layout of buildings in responseto occupants’ needs as well as identifiedexternal influences and characteristics of a site.

Complies The proposal has been designed to give all dwellings access to daylight and an outlook,with no dwelling purely facing south. Saddleback bedrooms are largely avoided.Appropriate levels of storage, car and bicycle parking are also provided.

5.3 To create functional, flexible, efficient andcomfortable residential apartments.

Complies

5.4 To ensure that a good standard of naturallighting and ventilation is provided to internalbuilding spaces.

Complies

5.5 To provide adequate storage space forhousehold items.

Complies

Design detail

5.6 To promote buildings of high architecturalquality and visual interest.

Complies It is considered that the form and detailing of the proposed building is of high architecturalquality, and that it will provide visual interest in its setting.



Att

ach

men

t2

4.1Element 6: Open space and landscape design

Private and communal open space

6.1 To ensure access to adequate open space forall residents.

Ability tocomply

Due to the varied width of the proposed balconies (which reduces down to as low as700mm in places), the usable open space areas for Dwellings 107, 201, 207-209, 301 and307-309 is in the order of 6m

2each. Whilst communal open space is provided, it is

considered that this does not compensate for the provision of less than 8m2

of balconyspace to each dwelling, particularly for two and three bedroom dwellings. The shortfallshould be addressed by either an increase in balcony space to a minimum of 8m

2with a

width of 1.6m, or through an increase in the minimum balcony width to 1.0m, without areduction in street setbacks.

6.2 To ensure common or shared spaces arefunctional and attractive for their intended users.

Complies

6.3 To allow solar access to the private and sharedopen spaces of new high density residentialunits.

Complies

6.4 To integrate the design of shared and privateopen spaces into the overall building design andfaçade composition.

Complies

6.5 To provide for greenery within open spaces. Complies

Public open space

6.6 To create public open space appropriate to itscontext.

N/A

Item: 4.1 Attachment 3: Attachment 3 - Advertised Plans


Att

ach

men

t3

4.1

Item: 4.2 Attachment 1: Infrastructure Victoria Options Paper - Council Submission June2016


Att

ach

men

t1

4.2

30 Year Infrastructure Strategy

All Things Considered – Options Paper

Submission to Infrastructure Victoria

By Banyule City Council

17 June 2016



Att

ach

men

t1

4.2 Table of Contents

1 Introduction...........................................................................................................................3

2 Options Discussion................................................................................................................3

2.1 Overall .............................................................................................................................................................. 3

2.2 Cultural, Civic, Sporting, Recreation and Tourism................................................................................ 3

2.3 Education and Training ................................................................................................................................. 4

2.4 Transport ......................................................................................................................................................... 4

Road Congestion and Freight ...................................................................................................................... 4

Active Transport............................................................................................................................................. 5

Mobility and Accessibility Projects.............................................................................................................. 5

Public Transport Improvements.................................................................................................................. 6

2.5 Water and Waste .......................................................................................................................................... 7

3 Conclusions............................................................................................................................7



Att

ach

men

t1

4.21 Introduction

Local government is a major provider of infrastructure within Victoria, including roads, footpaths,community halls, leisure facilities, bicycle paths, libraries, waste management and parks. All of thesefacilities have a significant contribution to public life, and there is increasing demand on providing suitableand fit-for-purpose facilities for the growing population.

Banyule City Council is pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the 30 year infrastructureoptions paper, and has provided commentary on a number of initiatives identified in the options paper inthe following sections.

The following documents provide further information on Council’s infrastructure priorities:

Council’s City Plan (2013-2017)

The Banyule Integrated Transport Plan

Northern Regional Trails Strategy

Recreation Strategy (2013 – 2017)

Arts Plan (2013 – 2017)

Joint Community Infrastructure Plan (incorporating the Darebin Creek Masterplan)

Banyule’s Draft Public Open Space Plan (2016- 2031)

2 Options Discussion

This section provides Council’s response to a number of initiatives under the topics identified in theOptions paper. Similar initiatives have been grouped together under a mutual heading with the relevantcode as appropriate.

2.1 Overall

Centralised Planning Scheme (CPS1)

State and local government planning is identifying preferred places for high growth within Melbourne’sestablished suburbs. These locations are linked with the Government’s Plan Melbourne strategy andknown as National Employment Clusters (NEC). Banyule Council has been working collaboratively withthe Metropolitan Planning Authority, Darebin Council and major stakeholders to setup a land use,development and transport planning framework for the LaTrobe NEC.

Moving forward, Banyule welcomes the MPA’s ongoing leadership for the LaTrobe Cluster’s planningand their future relationship with Infrastructure Victoria for infrastructure that enables investmentattraction to the cluster. Banyule also welcomes the MPA playing a role to do precinct planning insidethe cluster in partnership with Banyule. For the planning scheme, Banyule believes it is best placed tomanage decision-making for property development in the cluster. For the LaTrobe Cluster, there is noneed for a centralised planning scheme that divests Banyule’s responsibility as a Planning Authority andResponsible Authority. Instead, Council encourages the State to focus on priority public-sectorinfrastructure investment that gives momentum to wider investment in the cluster.



Att

ach

men

t1

4.2 Subregional infrastructure Planning (SIP)

Council strongly supports formalising and simplifying a “whole of government” approach to sub-regionalplanning. Improved relationships and partnerships between State Government, State Government bodiesand Local Government are important in ensuring the appropriate planning and delivery of infrastructureprojects.

2.2 Cultural, Civic, Sporting, Recreation and Tourism

Community space refurbishment or rationalisation (CSR)

A significant portion of community infrastructure is not fit-for-purpose and requires significantinvestment to bring it up to the appropriate standard. Further development of this concept should betreated as a high priority.

Cultural and sports major infrastructure investment framework (CSM)

Funding for community sports and cultural facilities should be guided by a transparent investmentframework, including a methodology and criteria to prioritise investment decision-making, to ensurethat infrastructure delivery can have the added benefits of supporting local sports and community artsparticipation. Council strongly supports this initiative and recommends its future development should betreated as a high priority.

Sport and recreational facility investment framework (SRF)

As the state’s population continues to grow, significant investment is required to deliver new andupgraded facilities which can meet the needs of a growing and diverse population. This initiative isstrongly supported and it is recommended further development of this concept be treated as a highpriority.

Community space shared use agreements (CSS1)

Community spare shared use agreements are vital in providing a greater number and variety ofcommunity activities to be held, particularly in areas with limited community space. Council stronglysupports improving resources and governance processes to assist in establishing shared use agreementsfor community spaces and facilities between different agencies and associations across Victoria.

Integrated shared use community and recreation facilities (RFC)

Council strongly supports the improvement in joint planning, coordination and governance processes toencourage the delivery of integrated facilities for cultural sporting and recreational activity in multi-purpose, shared use facilities.

Community infrastructure accessibility (CIM)

Council strongly supports using design principles that promote universal access, and provide a designsolution that can accommodate and include all people irrespective of mobility, gender or age. It isrecommended that further development of this concept be treated as a high priority.



Att

ach

men

t1

4.22.3 Education and Training

Lifelong learning hubs (LLH)

Council supports the provision of infrastructure that can provide learning across all age groups andbenefit all generations. It is recommended that further development of this concept be treated as a highpriority.

2.4 Transport

Road Congestion and Freight

North-East Link (NEL)

The North-East Link is Council’s highest transport priority. Banyule’s current arterial road network,including Rosanna Road and Greensborough Highway, is used as a link for freight and commuter trafficbetween the northern and western suburbs and the south eastern suburbs. Rosanna Road andGreensborough Hwy experience high levels of congestion, impacting on road user safety and theamenity of surrounding residents.

The Banyule Integrated Transport Plan (BITP) advocates for a North-East Link as a direct orbital linkfrom the Metropolitan Ring Road to Eastlink. This would provide a direct link for freight and commuterstravelling from the northern suburbs to the south eastern suburbs, and provide an alternative link forfreight accessing the Hume Highway corridor.

A future North East Link is expected to have a greater impact on Rosanna Road, GreensboroughHighway and Fitzsimmons Lane than on Plenty Road and Spring St/St Georges Road as identified in theOptions paper. It is strongly recommended the Options paper be updated to reflect this.

Road space allocation changes (RSA)

Council supports the allocation of road space to support a shift towards active and public transport,particularly within Activity Centres and on key routes to and from National Employment Clusters, suchas the La Trobe Employment Cluster. Improving public transport service reliability along these areas willprovide a greater level of service to the community.

Active Transport

Active established areas (AEA)

Council strongly supports and advocates for increased investment in cycling and walking infrastructurewithin established areas, including the completion of the Principle Bicycle Network and Strategic CyclingCorridors within and beyond Banyule. For walking and cycling to become mainstream transport modes,routes should be well connected, direct, and comfortable for people of all abilities.

Active lifestyle infrastructure provision and regulation (ALP, ALR)

Council strongly supports using design principles that promote walking and cycling in neighbourhoods,such as the Heart Foundations ‘Healthy by Design’. End of trip facilities are essential in increasing use ofactive transport in our Activity and Neighbourhood Centres, employment locations, schools and publictransport hubs, however more needs to be done to facilitate the provision of these facilities. As well asdeveloping funding mechanisms to retrofit end of trip facilities, the Victorian Planning Scheme should beupdated to ensure new developments in established areas improve active transport uptake through



Att

ach

men

t1

4.2 increased provision of end of trip facilities. The current requirements within the planning scheme are

well below standard and best practice.

Bicycle and walking data and network expansion (BWP1, BWP2, BWP3)

Council strongly supports the collection of active transport data to enhance understanding of thesetransport modes, and provide better planning of infrastructure to support increased uptake of activetransport.

Council further supports and advocates strongly for the expansion of the on- and off-street cyclingnetwork, particularly along missing links within the identified strategic cycling corridors. However,further work needs to be undertaken prior to large scale separation of pedestrians and cyclists, toensure the appropriate type of infrastructure is constructed. Outside of highly pedestrianised areas oralong major cycling routes, Council encourages road users to share the road spare, and considers thisapproach to be suitable outside of the higher trafficked areas.

Mobility and Accessibility Projects

Public transport accessibility (PTV)

Council strongly supports the provision of universal access across the public transport system, as itprovides people of all abilities with the opportunity to use public transport. Further investment isrequired to ensure railway stations and other transport interchanges are accessible, as the majority ofrailway stations within Banyule do not have suitable wheelchair access. In the interim, informationshould be made available to identify to passengers the accessibility arrangements at each station.

Public transport alternative use of taxis or hire cars (PTA)

Community transport provides an important link for transport disadvantaged members of thecommunity (those with limited or no access to cars and restricted access to conventional publictransport), allowing those with limited mobility to connect to services, jobs, and social opportunities.Council supports the development of a State Government community transport model, and considerschanging the regulations to support and encourage alternative transport services in outer suburban,regional and rural areas to provide greater opportunity to those with poor access to public transport.

Public Transport Improvements

Employment centre mass transit network (MTN)

Work is currently underway to identify the transport needs of the Latrobe National EmploymentCluster. Ensuring services are delivered to the required level of service is vital in ensuring ongoinggrowth and success of these clusters. Council strongly supports the provision of a mass transit networkthat connects heavy rail and outlying areas to the Latrobe cluster that complements the existing heavyrail system.

Doncaster Public Transport (DBI, DHR, DTS)

Council strongly supports the provision of a heavy rail link to Doncaster via the Clifton Hill Loop. WhileDART provides a direct connection from Doncaster to the CBD as a ‘park and ride’ service, this doesnot offer or provide connections for other destinations along the route, including Bulleen, Ivanhoe East,Kew and the future development at the Alphington Paper Mill site at Chandler Highway.



Att

ach

men

t1

4.2Given the future and growing prominence of the Latrobe Employment Cluster, providing a heavy rail

connection to link into the Heidelberg-Hurstbridge Link is considered to be an important link inreducing commuter traffic in the north east.

Metropolitan bus network reform and Smartbus service increase (MBN, SSP)

Council strongly supports a reform of the metropolitan bus network to improve service reliability,coverage and improved timetable coordination between bus and rail services. Expansion of the SmartBusnetwork is also supported, however it is important to tie the expansion into the emerging nationalemployment areas, not just the inner and western suburbs. The introduction of a route hierarchy is alsosupported, as it is considered to lead to a better public transport network.

Melbourne Metro 2 (MMS)

Council supports the Melbourne Metro 2 proposal, and its resulting frequency and serviceimprovements to services along the Hurstbridge and South Morang rail lines. This project wouldremove the bottleneck at Clifton Hill, and allow for the future integration of the Doncaster Rail Line

Upgrade of Public Transport modal interchanges

It is disappointing there is no discussion or initiative within the options paper on the upgrading of publictransport modal interchanges. Providing effective and efficient connection points between publictransport modes improves the attractiveness of public transport, and enhances the coverage of thepublic transport network.

Within Banyule, both Greensborough and Heidelberg railway stations are serviced by a number ofpremium bus services (SmartBus services such as the 901, 902 and 903 routes) and neighbourhood busservices. However, connections between modes at these locations are limited due to the lack ofintegration between the bus stops and the railway stations.

Upgrading modal interchanges would work well in conjunction with a number of initiatives outlinedabove and would address the following needs identified within the Options Paper:

- Address infrastructure demands in areas with high population growth.

- Respond to increasing pressures on health infrastructure, particularly due to ageing.

- Improve accessibility for people with mobility challenges.

- Meet growing demand for access to economic activity in central Melbourne.

- Improve access to middle and outer metropolitan major employment centres.

- Improve access to jobs and services for people in regional and rural areas.

Council strongly supports further consideration of this initiative as part of the final InfrastructureStrategy.



Att

ach

men

t1

4.2 2.5 Water and Waste

Stormwater Harvesting and Quality Management (SRH, SRQ)

Council supports the harvesting of stormwater for use in a range of non-potable purposes, and hasalready invested $6 million over the past five years to provide a suitable water supply for a number ofsporting reserves and parks. Further exploration of this initiative to provide large scale stormwatermanagement projects across municipal boundaries is recommended.

Wastewater system augmentation in high growth areas (WWS)

Council supports increasing capacity for sewerage and wastewater treatment to manage the futuredemand in Melbourne and regional Victoria. The development of this concept should be treated as ahigh priority, particularly in relation to providing recycled water for sporting fields and parks.

3 Conclusions

Council welcomes this opportunity to have its say and looks forward to working further withInfrastructure Victoria and the State Government to progress the initiatives identified within the optionspaper and the future infrastructure strategy.

Item: 5.1 Attachment 1: Petrie Park and Rattray Reserve - Summary of Key Themes


Att

ach

men

t1

5.1

Item: 5.1 Attachment 2: Petrie Park and Rattray Reserve Master Plan - Final Report - June2016


Att

ach

men

t2

5.1

Item: 6.2 Attachment 1: Summary of Consideration of Submissions Received on theProposed Budget 2016/2017 (and Proposed City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 4))


Att

ach

men

t1

6.2

Item: 6.3 Attachment 1: Statutory Declaration of the return of the 2016 General Revaluationfor the Municipality of Banyule


Att

ach

men

t1

6.3

Item: 6.4 Attachment 1: Banyule Environment Advisory Committee BEAC April 2016Meeting notes


Att

ach

men

t1

6.4Banyule Environment Advisory Committee

Meeting Notes

Wednesday 13 April, 20166.30PM (Refreshments) 7PM - 9PM

Rosanna Meeting Room 1

1. Present

Community Representatives: Kate Roberts (interim Chair), Alan Leenaerts, MattHall, Denise Fernando, Maree Keenan, Peter Castaldo. Guests The Wilderness Society

Council Officers: Daniel Kollmorgen, John Milkins,

Councillor Representatives/Attendees: Cr Mark Di Pasquale, CR Craig Langdon foritem 16.01

Apologies: Jonathan Thom, John D’Aloia

2. Confirmation of March meeting notes

AL / MK

3. Disclosures of Interests

None

4. Matters arising from previous meetings

16.01 Beyond ParisBZE Case Study (AL)

AL is seeking a presentation for next meeting.

Hazelwood advocacy (AL/PC)

BEAC discussed a range of matters relevant to the operation of the Hazelwood powerstation.

AL provided the following links and examples of transition from coal:

UK announces end of coalhttp://www.bbc.com/news/business-34851718

Dutch end of coalhttp://phys.org/news/2015-11-dutch-lawmakers-coal-power.html

Belgium’s last coal power plant, Langerlo, closed on 30 March.2016

In July, Delta Energy announced it was closing the Munmorah coal power station on theNSW central coast.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34851718

http://phys.org/news/2015-11-dutch-lawmakers-coal-power.html



Att

ach

men

t1

6.4

America's Power Plant Problem - Pacific Standardwww.psmag.com/.../what-to-do-with-americas-abandoned-power-plants?...Feb 1, 2016 - More than 200 out of the 523 coal-fired power plants that were inoperation five years ago are now closed or slated for closure.

The final coal plant in Ontario, Thunder Bay Generating Station, stopped burning coal inApril 2014.[36]

India's federal energy minister is planning to stop importing thermal coal by 2018.[39]

In 2007, Germany announced plans to phase out hard coal-industry subsidies by 2018, amove which is expected to end hard coal mining in Germany.[41][42][43][44][45]

In 2014, almost 80 per cent of the electricity produced in New Zealand was Sustainableenergy.[51] On 6 August 2015,Genesis Energy Limited announced to closed its twolast coal-fueled power stations.[52]

In 2007, 154 new coal-fired plants were on the drawing board in 42 states.[60] By 2012,that had dropped to 15, mostly due to new rules limiting mercury emissions, and limitingcarbon emissions to 1,000 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour of electricity produced.[61]

Despite such pledges, a 2012 report by Oil Change International which analyzed 2011spending by the world's wealthy nations found five times as much being spent on fossilfuel subsidies than climate aid: $58 billion was spent in fossil fuel subsidies that year, ascompared with $11 billion spent by such nations towards climate adaptation andmitigation in developing countries, with figures for the U.S. at $13 billion in fossil fuelsubsidies versus $2.5 billion in climate aid for 2011.[30]

Recommendation

BEAC recommended that Council consider writing to the State governmenturging the rapid decommissioning of Hazelwood and investment in renewableenergy sources.

14.23 Urban Forest Strategy (DF)

DF raised concern that the Urban Forest Strategy listed plane trees (Plantanus) as aspecies that sequesters carbon at a high rate. There is concern that this listing is basedon European or North American data wholly inappropriate for Australian conditions, andmay lead plane trees being planted in preference to local species.

JM noted Parks and Gardens department advice that approximately 10 Plane trees havebeen planted in the last decade as infill plantings in existing Plane tree avenues. There isno intent to plant beyond these areas and, and the development of the Urban ForestManagement Plan and the Street Tree Master Plan under the overall Strategy.

Nonetheless, the underlying science must be relevant to the Australian context, whichthe consultant indicated was the case in the modelling tool used in the developmentUrban Forest Strategy.

ActionManager Parks and Gardens to facilitate a meeting with DF & colleagues and theUrban Forest Strategy consultants to discuss the scientific basis of carbonsequestration figures in the local Australian context.

http://www.psmag.com/nature-and-technology/what-to-do-with-americas-abandoned-power-plants?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+miller-mccune%2Fmain_feed+(Pacific+Standard+-+Main+Feed)

http://www.psmag.com/.../what-to-do-with-americas-abandoned-power-plants

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunder_Bay_Generating_Station

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil-fuel_phase-out#cite_note-36


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil-fuel_phase-out#cite_note-autogenerated1-41





https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_energy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_energy


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_Energy_Limited

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil-fuel_power_station







Att

ach

men

t1

6.4

5. Other Business

6. 16.08 Ethical Paper Pledge (All)

Local members of the Wilderness Society (WS) were invited to speak to BEAC inreference to a Notice of Motion at Council’s meeting of 4 April 2016, which read:

That a report be presented to Council regarding the use of ethical office paper in itsoperations and any implications of signing the Wilderness Society of Victoria’s EthicalPaper pledge. Such a report is to include advice from Council’s Environment AdvisoryCommittee.

In addition to the Wilderness Society presentation, a submission to BEAC was circulatedfrom a local community member providing an alternative point of view.

BEAC discussed the WS presentation and additional submission and requested that theitem be tabled for feedback at the May meeting following consideration of the pointsraised in the material provided.

7. 16.09 Great Forest National Park (All)

Local members of the Wilderness Society (WS) were invited to speak to BEAC inreference to a Notice of Motion at Council’s meeting of April 2016, which read:

That a report be presented to Council regarding the proposal to create a Great ForestNational Park in the Central Highlands to the east of Melbourne. The report is to includeconsideration of advice from Council’s Environment Advisory Committee and EconomicDevelopment Department.

In addition to the Wilderness Society presentation, a submission to BEAC was circulatedfrom a local community member providing an alternative point of view, as well as a letterto Council from the Institute of Foresters Australia, and a recent media article.

BEAC discussed the WS presentation and additional submissions and requested that theitem be tabled for feedback at the May meeting following consideration of the pointsraised in the material provided.

Contact John Milkins on 9457 9834 for further information

Next Meeting: May 18, 2016

Item: 6.4 Attachment 2: Banyule Environment Advisory Committee (BEAC) May 2016Notes


Att

ach

men

t2

6.4Banyule Environment Advisory Committee

Meeting Notes

Wednesday 18 May, 20166.30PM (Refreshments) 7PM - 9PM

Rosanna Meeting Room 1

1. Present

Community Representatives: Denise Fernando (interim Chair), Alan Leenaerts, JonathanThom, Matt Hall, Maree Keenan, Peter Castaldo. Guests Justine Holmes (BZE), Marie-Claire Holm (CLS SHCP)

Council Officers: Daniel Kollmorgen, John Milkins,

Councillor Representatives/Attendees: CR Craig Langdon for items 16.01, 16.08CR Tom Melican for 16.09 16.11, 16.12,16.13

Apologies: Kate Roberts, John D’Aloia

2. Confirmation of March meeting notes

MK / AL

3. Disclosures of Interests

AL and PC noted that they were members of Beyond Zero Emissions (BZE).

4. Matters arising from previous meetings

16.01 Beyond ParisBZE Case Study (AL)

Justine Holmes from Beyond Zero Emissions (BZE) (http://bze.org.au/) presented toBEAC on opportunities for the development and support of Zero Carbon Communities inBanyule. A range of BZE research and publications were covered including the ZeroCarbon Australia Buildings Plan, Stationery Energy Plan, Renewable EnergySuperpower and Energy Freedom. The concept of High Ambition Communities seekingto achieve zero carbon, zero net carbon or 100% renewable source power within anominated timeframe was discussed.

RecommendationBEAC recommended that Council consider opportunities to support a suburb ordefined area of the municipality in seeking to achieve the status of a High AmbitionCommunity (zero carbon / zero net carbon emissions/100 % renewables)

http://bze.org.au/



Att

ach

men

t2

6.4 16.08 Ethical Paper Pledge (All)

Local members of the Wilderness Society (WS) were invited to speak to BEAC’s Aprilmeeting in reference to a Notice of Motion at Council’s meeting of 4 April 2016, whichread:

That a report be presented to Council regarding the use of ethical office paper in itsoperations and any implications of signing the Wilderness Society of Victoria’s EthicalPaper pledge. Such a report is to include advice from Council’s Environment AdvisoryCommittee.

In addition to the Wilderness Society presentation, a submission to BEAC was circulatedfrom a local community member providing an alternative point of view.

Over April, BEAC reviewed the presentation and submission and the item was discussedat the May meeting.

RecommendationBEAC recommended that Council sign the Ethical Paper Pledge, noting thatCouncil’s paper usage is already in accord with the pledge.

16.09 Great Forest National Park (All)

Local members of the Wilderness Society (WS) were invited to speak to BEAC inreference to a Notice of Motion at Council’s meeting of April 2016, which read:

That a report be presented to Council regarding the proposal to create a Great ForestNational Park in the Central Highlands to the east of Melbourne. The report is to includeconsideration of advice from Council’s Environment Advisory Committee and EconomicDevelopment Department.

In addition to the Wilderness Society presentation, a submission to BEAC was circulatedfrom a local community member providing an alternative point of view, as well as a letterto Council from the Institute of Foresters of Australia, and a recent media article.

Over April, BEAC reviewed the presentation and submission and the item was discussedat the May meeting.

RecommendationBEAC supports the proposal for a Great Forest National Park and recommends thatCouncil also indicate its support for the creation of a Great Forest National Park dueto the direct and indirect benefits to Banyule residents. BEAC noted that theprecautionary principle should be applied to facilitate benefit realisation in the areasof:

• biodiversity• water quality• drinking water supply• tourism opportunities• wildlife corridor connectivity• mental health• clean air• the uniqueness of the old growth tall forests of SE Australia• inter and intragenerational equity• natural heritage



Att

ach

men

t2

6.4

5. Other Business

16.11 Sister City proposal (Marie Claire Holmes Community Leaders, SustainableHomes & Communities Program)

Marie Claire Holmes from the Community Leaders course running under Council’sSustainable Homes & Communities Program presented to BEAC on the opportunity for asister city relationship with the Swedish town of Växjö. This town has made significantprogress with climate change adaptation and mitigation and has a strong TransitionTown community.

ActionJM to circulate a Sister City MOU example between a local Melbourne Council and aEuropean town.

RecommendationBEAC encouraged the development of community to community links with the Swedishtown of Växjö, and will review further information to be provided on MOUsthat mightfacilitate Council to Council links.

16.12 Plastic Bag Free Victoria (DK)

BEAC reviewed a recent Surf Coast Shire Policy relating to Plastic wise events on Councilmanaged land.

RecommendationBEAC recommended that Council develop a policy addressing the use of single useplastics at events conducted on land, roads or buildings managed by Council.

16.13 Draft Banyule Open Space Strategy (JM)

JM circulated a link to the draft Banyule Open Space Strategy for BEAC’s review and inputat the June meeting. http://www.banyule.vic.gov.au/Council/Community-Consultation/Draft-Open-Space-Plan-2016-to-2031

Contact John Milkins on 9457 9834 for further information

Next Meeting: June 8, 2016

http://www.banyule.vic.gov.au/Council/Community-Consultation/Draft-Open-Space-Plan-2016-to-2031

http://www.banyule.vic.gov.au/Council/Community-Consultation/Draft-Open-Space-Plan-2016-to-2031

Item: 6.4 Attachment 3: Chandler Highway Widening - Hon Bruce Atkinson MLC response


Att

ach

men

t3

6.4

Item: 6.4 Attachment 4: Chandler Highway Widening - Mr Colin Brooks MP


Att

ach

men

t4

6.4

Item: 6.4 Attachment 5: Planning Infringement Penalties For Illegal Tree Removal - The HonRichard Wynne


Att

ach

men

t5

6.4

banyule city council agenda 14 june 2016 - attachments only

Documents