banyule city council agenda 18 august 2014

Ordinary Meeting of Council

Council Chambers, Service Centre

275 Upper Heidelberg Road, Ivanhoe

18 August 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

Confirmation of Minutes Ordinary Meeting of Council held 4 August 2014

Disclosure of Interests

1. Petitions

1.1 Petition against planning application at 118 Locksley Road Eaglemont .............................................................................................................. 3

REPORTS:

2. People – Community Strengthening and Support

Nil

3. Planet – Environmental Sustainability

Nil

4. Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.1 Banyule Planning Scheme Amendment C93 - Consideration of Panel Recommendations ........................................................................................ 5

4.2 Review of planning controls for the Middle Yarra River corridor ............................ 10

4.3 Proposed residential subdivision and development at 108-130 and 132 Diamond Creek Road, St Helena ................................................................... 15

AGENDA (Cont’d)

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 18 August 2014

4.4 Additional Paid Parking Locations in Heidelberg ................................................... 56

4.5 Lower Heidelberg Road / Yarra Street Intersection Alterations ............................. 60

4.6 Proposed apartment building at 20 Morwell Avenue, Watsonia ............................. 65

5. Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life

5.1 Council Meeting Dates for 2015 ............................................................................ 85

5.2 Advocacy on Behalf of the Community - 1 January 2014-30 June 2014 ..................................................................................................................... 87

6. Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.1 Heidelberg Activity Centre - Pedestrian Precinct 40km/h Zone ............................. 89

6.2 14 Scotts Parade, Ivanhoe - Proposed vesting and removal of reserve status from drainage reserve .................................................................... 94

6.3 Planning and Building Enforcement Framework consultation outcomes and adoption ....................................................................................... 100

6.4 Assembly of Councillors ...................................................................................... 102

6.5 Proposed MAV WorkCare Insurance Scheme ................................................... 105

7. Sealing of Documents

7.1 Sealing of Documents ........................................................................................ 107

8. Notices of Motion

8.1 Review of Residential Parking Permits ............................................................... 111

8.2 Real Opportunities, Real Jobs ........................................................................... 112

8.3 Watsonia RSL - Volunteer car parking ................................................................ 113

8.4 Bolton Street, Eltham - Proposed Upgrade ......................................................... 114

8.5 History of the Olympic Village ............................................................................ 115

8.6 Community Groups - Former Bellfield School Site .............................................. 116

9. General Business

10. Urgent Business

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

11. Confidential Matters

11.1 Contractual matters

11.2 Contractual matters

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

Closure of Meeting

1.1

Petitions


1.1 PETITION AGAINST PLANNING APPLICATION AT 118 LOCKSLEY ROAD, EAGLEMONT

Author: Georgia Coulson - Planning Technical Officer, City Development

Ward: Griffin

File: P187/14

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A petition with 24 signatures of Eaglemont residents has been received. The petition raises concern in relation to a Planning Application currently under consideration for four three storey dwellings at 118 Locksley Road, Eaglemont. We the undersigned, residents and rates payers of the Banyule City Council wish to bring to the attention of Council: The petition prayer is as follows: “Our petition is against the proposed development at 118 Locksley Road, Eaglemont, for the construction of four three storey dwellings with removal of vegetation in a vegetation protection overlay. Planning permit application number P187/2014. We therefore request Banyule Council to:

Refuse permit due to the height and overall mass and reduction in garden space, the design is out of keeping with the character of the streetscape, loss of privacy to residents in the neighbourhood, and increased noise and traffic impact.”

OFFICER COMMENT

A detailed assessment of the application against the relevant sections of the Banyule Planning Scheme will be undertaken in due course by Council Officers.

RECOMMENDATION

1. That Council receives and notes the petition.

2. Concerns raised in the petition be considered in assessing the merits of the application.

3. The primary petitioner is advised accordingly.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

4.1

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment


4.1 BANYULE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C93 - CONSIDERATION OF PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS

Author: Anne North - Senior Strategic Planner, City Development

Ward: Griffin and Olympia

File: F2013/1385

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

At its Meeting on 21 July 2014, Council resolved to make the Panel Report for Amendment C93 (Ivanhoe Structure Plan) publicly available. Council also resolved to approve a two-step process for addressing the recommendations outlined in the Panel Report: Step 1 involves allocating each Panel recommendation into one of the following three categories: 1. Accept 2. Partially Accept 3. Not Accept Step 2 involves completing further work to prepare a final amendment that Council would consider for adoption at a future Council meeting. Attachment 1 to the report gives the Panel recommendations coupled with one of the three categories. This report seeks Council’s direction on Step 1 and proceeding to Step 2. It is also recommended that a final report be presented to Council, in not more than three months, seeking the adoption of Amendment C93 and requesting approval from the Minister for Planning.

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 “strengthen local activity and employment areas”.

4.1


BANYULE PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C93 - CONSIDERATION OF PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS cont’d


BACKGROUND

The Ivanhoe community has helped to shape the Ivanhoe Structure Plan and the associated planning scheme controls proposed through Amendment C93. The results of community consultation have shown that there is general community support for the proposed planning scheme controls. Those remaining concerns about particular elements of the planning scheme amendment were heard by a Planning Panel on 13 and 14 May 2014. In reaching its conclusions and recommendations the Panel considered written submissions, evidence and verbal presentations at the Panel Hearing. The Panel’s conclusions and recommendations are outlined in the Panel Report dated 1 July 2014. At its meeting on 21 July 2014 Council resolved to make the Panel Report for Amendment C93 publicly available, thereby meeting the requirements of Section 26(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Council also resolved to approve a two-step process for addressing the recommendations outlined in the Panel Report as follows: Step 1 involves allocating each Panel recommendation into one of the following three categories 1: Accept, 2: Partially Accept, 3: Not Accept. Step 2 involves completing further work to prepare a final amendment that Council would consider for adoption at a future Council meeting.

DISCUSSION

Since the Council Meeting on 21 July 2014, work has been done for Step 1, by considering and allocating each Panel recommendation into one of the three categories. Council’s decision to accept, partially accept or not accept each Panel’s recommendation will not only be influenced by the discussion in the Panel Report, but also what was agreed with the community during the extensive consultation process that informed the Council’s adopted structure plan. Category 1 - Accept A review of the Panel’s recommendations has found that most of the Panel’s recommendations can be accepted, particularly those that involve minor corrections or improvements to the legibility of the Amendment documents. These recommendations do not alter the overall intent of the Ivanhoe Structure Plan. The recommendations that are considered reasonable to accept that differ from Council’s adopted structure plan are summarised as:

Consider replacing the 12<15m preferred maximum height control within Built Form Plan DDO11-5B with a 15m preferred maximum height control.

Replace Setback 10, Public Space and Landscape Settings, with Setback 5, Urban Street, Urban Laneway and Side Interface, for 19-33 Upper Heidelberg Road in the Precinct Built Form Plan DDO11-5B; and

4.1




Consider specifying preferred heights in metres only, and clarifying that any reference to levels is for guidance purposes.

These changes are considered appropriate because they reduce ambiguity for building heights and maintain the need for building setbacks that provide for a landscaped entrance to the activity centre. Category 2 – Partially Accept While some of the Panel’s recommendations may have technical merit, Council must also consider the weight of community concern and expectation for certain aspects of the Amendment. Some of the recommendations may be accepted in part, with care taken to ensure that the elements agreed to with the community are not diluted. The recommendations that fall into this category are that:

There should be a general review of the provisions of all precincts containing land to be included in the Mixed Use Zone;

The exhibited Amendment provisions for 1065 Heidelberg Road should be adopted except that Setback 4 should not apply to the property boundary with the railway land;

The exhibited Amendment provisions for 1031 Heidelberg Road should be adopted except that Setback 4 should not be applied to the rear of that property abutting the railway land; and

Before adoption of 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.

These recommendations can be partly accepted because only a partial review of the MUZ is needed. Furthermore, because Setback Standard 4 creates a landscape buffer, it is important to carry forward this objective into the final amendment. However, there are some areas along the property boundary where the Setback Standard 4 is not required due to existing screening opportunities or the ability to provide an articulated building form. In relation to the north western boundary we’ve not received any submissions from these residents during public exhibition of the amendment. However, it is reasonable to seek the views of the effected residents as to whether they would prefer to be outside of the precinct rather than currently within it. Category 3 – Not Accept The recommendations that Council may choose not to accept involve changes to building heights and setbacks that were developed in close consultation with the Ivanhoe community. Accepting these recommendations would result in an outcome that is substantially different from what was developed with the community during consultation. The recommendations that Council may decide not to accept are summarised as:

The exhibited Amendment provisions for 1045‐1059 Heidelberg Road, should be adopted except that the preferred maximum built height control for the site should be revised from 12m to 15m; and

4.1




The exhibited Amendment provisions for 1065 Heidelberg Road should be

adopted except that the preferred maximum built height control for the site

should be revised from 12m to 15m.

These recommendations deviate from the building heights agreed with the community in the adopted structure plan. The table in Attachment 1 details each of the Panel’s recommendations and discusses whether the recommendation should be accepted, partially accepted or not accepted. New Residential Zones Amendment C100, incorporating the new residential zones into the Banyule Planning Scheme has been approved by the Government. The new zones were published in the Government Gazette on Thursday 24 July. The changes apply the General Residential Zone (GRZ1) to all land that was formerly zoned, or was proposed to be zoned, Residential 1 Zone (R1Z) within the Ivanhoe Structure Plan area. The GRZ1 now applies to residential land within both the Diversity and Accessible Precincts. Ivanhoe Structure Plan The Panel recommendations that are accepted by Council to make minor corrections or improvements to the legibility of the Amendment documents will also require changes to be made to the adopted Structure Plan. This will ensure that the Structure Plan and Amendment documents are consistent. Any proposed changes to the Structure Plan will be presented to Council in a future report.

NEXT STEPS

A final report will be presented to Council in not more than three months including the final amendment proposal. The purpose of this future report will be to seek Council’s adoption of the Amendment as well as any associated refinements to the structure plan to ensure consistency between the two, and seek approval from the Minister for Planning.

CONCLUSION

Step 1 of Council’s two-step process for considering the Panel’s recommendations is now proposed. In categorising each of the recommendations consideration has been given to the Panel’s comments and the feedback received throughout the extensive period of community consultation. Following Council’s approval of Step 1 as outlined in Attachment 1, work can commence on Step 2 which will bring Council closer to a final Planning Scheme Amendment being forwarded to the Minister for Planning.

4.1




RECOMMENDATION

That Council: 1. Accept, Partially Accept and Not Accept the Panel recommendations for

Amendment C93 to the Banyule Planning Scheme in accordance with Attachment 1.

2. Prepare a final amendment for consideration at a future Council meeting. 3. Receive a further report in not more than three months, that includes the final

amendment and any corresponding clarifications for the adopted Structure Plan proposal for Council’s adoption before seeking approval from the Minister for Planning.

1.

ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 Recommendations to Responses 118

4.2



4.2 REVIEW OF PLANNING CONTROLS FOR THE MIDDLE YARRA RIVER CORRIDOR

Author: Emma Shorter - Senior Strategic Planner, City Development

File: F2013/1430

Previous Items Councillor Briefing on 24 Jul 2014 - (Item 2014/112 - Review of Planning Controls for

Yarra River Corridor)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Government is undertaking a study of the Middle Yarra River corridor. The study highlights and assesses the values of the river and the potential threats to them from inappropriate development. Banyule, Nillumbik, Manningham Councils and Melbourne Water have all provided information into the study. The study seeks ways in which the planning schemes of Banyule, Nillumbik and Manningham can be modified to provide a consistent approach to control design and development within the Middle Yarra River corridor. A draft Recommendations Report has been prepared. The draft report articulates the study’s findings and proposed planning scheme changes. The report has been reviewed and its intent is broadly consistent with sound strategic planning principles and Banyule’s approach. However there are some details that need to be clarified to ensure Council’s priorities for neighbourhoods, landscaping and environments are effectively addressed. The next stages of the study will be the Government’s production of a Final Report and then preparation of planning scheme details for future consideration.



CITY PLAN

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

BACKGROUND

In 2013 the Minister for Planning announced that a new study would be progressed to strengthen planning controls and provide greater guidance for appropriate development along the Middle Yarra River between Burke Road, Ivanhoe, and Warrandyte. The Middle Yarra River Corridor Study (the Study) would assist in ensuring that future development does not encroach on the Yarra River’s environmental, aesthetic, cultural or recreational values.

4.2


REVIEW OF PLANNING CONTROLS FOR THE MIDDLE YARRA RIVER CORRIDOR cont’d


The Department for Transport Planning and Local Infrastructure (DTPLI) has lead work on the Study with information collected from Banyule, Nillumbik, Manningham and Melbourne Water. Since starting the Study, work has been done to better understand the history, landscape character, pressures and key issues facing the middle Yarra River corridor. A round of public consultation was also done in November 2013 seeking comment on this background research, a draft vision and development principles. A map of the study area is attached in Attachment 1.

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.

CURRENT SITUATION

DTPLI has released a draft Recommendations Report (the draft Report) for the Study. The draft Report provides:

An Introduction to the Study and a brief history of planning for the Yarra River.

A Vision and a Statement of Significance for the Yarra River.

A description of the Middle Yarra River corridor’s values and potential threats to these values.

A definition of the six (6) river interface character types within the study area.

An analysis of key views of the river and the ways in which the river is experienced.

Recommended areas where development should be managed in the Middle Yarra River corridor, and objectives and guidelines for new development. These state how buildings and landscaping should be designed to protect the values of the river into the future.

More detailed recommendations articulated through updated or amended planning controls in four (4) sub-areas.

The Banyule Planning Scheme currently has several planning controls to assist in the regulation of design and development in the Middle Yarra River Corridor. The Nillumbik and Manningham Planning Schemes also have their own approaches to planning controls in this Corridor. The Study has reviewed all of these controls and is proposing a more consistent approach across the three Councils. A consistent approach is sought by the Government as assets along the Middle Yarra River are often shared between the three municipalities and a whole landscape approach should therefore be adopted. Assets can also be located on the opposite side of the river, such as views. In these instances the planning control to recognise and protect this asset is implemented in another municipal planning scheme.

4.2




Broadly speaking for Banyule, this consistent approach is sought through the application of a new Design and Development Overlay and through recommended amendments to the existing Environmental Significance Overlay, Significant Landscape Overlay and Rural Conservation Zone which have effect within the Middle Yarra River Corridor landscape. The draft Report recommends design and development objectives and guidelines to be included within these controls. The draft Report also provides support for the application of the recently introduced Neighbourhood Residential Zone, maintenance of existing environmental controls, Neighbourhood Character Local Policy and a proposed new Development Plan Overlay (DPO) to be applied to all publically owned land along the Middle Yarra River. Banyule City Council’s interests would be affected by this. The DPO will restrict the use and development of land until a master plan with design and development guidance has been prepared by the public land owner. It is proposed that once the draft Report has been finalised, Municipal toolkits will be provided to each of the three Councils. These toolkits will include updated planning scheme provisions to form the basis of planning scheme amendments. It is not clear at this stage who will lead the amendment process. It is considered to be the State’s responsibility with Council to provide a supporting role.

CONSULTATION

The draft Report is available for public comment up until 22 August 2014. The local community has been notified of the draft Report through advertisements at Council’s Local Service Centres, Libraries and in the local Leader newspapers. Council’s environment advisory group (BEAC) has been informed of the draft Report as they have had input in the past and are interested in understanding any flora and fauna impacts of the proposal.

DISCUSSION

The intent of the proposed planning scheme changes is broadly supported. However, some flexibility is needed in planning scheme implementation. This is because critical issues and opportunities vary along the length of the Middle Yarra River. For example the attributes in Ivanhoe near the river are very different to those further upstream, in Lower Plenty. Concurrently with the Study, work has progressed on two relevant planning scheme amendments:

C71: a planning scheme “fix up” amendment (currently with DTPLI for processing through a Ministerial Amendment).

C100: the amendment which implements the new residential zones (now gazetted and part of the planning scheme).

The outcomes of these amendments are helping to implement the planning control recommendations of the Study.

4.2




For example, Council has achieved an outcome for the Neighbourhood Residential Zone in the Planning Scheme through the provisions managing additional dwellings and heights of buildings. It is considered that where a design outcome cannot be achieved through the zoning provisions of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone then minor alterations to existing controls are more appropriate, rather than introducing any new planning overlays. For example the management of the public private interface could be included as decision guideline in the Significant Landscape Overlay. The application of a DPO on Council owned land is not supported. The submission articulates this and encourages Government to pursue this on its own land and through the work that the Metropolitan Planning Authority will commence on a Metropolitan Open Space Strategy. The proposed submission in Attachment 2 seeks clarification on planning scheme controls which specify a quantitative outcome. For example; why is 5m the specified setback proposed at the public/private interface? In addition the Study would significantly benefit from a detailed mapping exercise. These matters highlight that if the Study and the draft Report will one day provide the strategic justification for any future planning scheme amendment then a significant amount of ‘strengthening’ work is required. The attached submission also provides general comments in regards to report structure, typographical errors and stronger links between the language and analysis used throughout the document.

TIMELINES

The deadline for comments on the draft Recommendations Report is 22 August 2014. Between August and October 2014 DTPLI will review feedback and finalise its recommendations. They state that they will prepare “planning scheme ready” detail for each recommendation and seek Councils support on this. Also in this period the planning scheme amendment roll-out program will considered by the Government. It is unclear what the timeframes for future planning scheme amendments will be and who will be leading them. A project reference group is scheduled for mid-September 2014 and further clarity will be sought on future timings and responsibilities. For future planning scheme amendments for the Middle Yarra River Corridor, it is highlighted that Banyule’s priorities are already in progress through C71 to fix-up language detail in existing provisions and C100 which has secured the Neighbourhood Residential Zone around the corridor and a permanent 0.4ha lot size minimum in the Low Density Residential Zone. Moving forward, given that Council has already progressed the Study’s priorities for the corridor any future changes would be a low priority.

4.2




CONCLUSION

The draft Report is a good basis to further discuss, refine and inform potential future changes to the planning schemes of Nillumbik, Manningham and Banyule. These changes will assist in more consistent approaches to design and development considerations on proposals in the Middle Yarra River Corridor. Further refinement and clarification on certain matters outlined in our submission are sought. This includes the strategic justification for planning control parametres and a detailed mapping exercise which will support the understanding and implementation of this Study. Broadly speaking most of the Report’s intent and recommendations are supported. However recent planning scheme amendments allow for much of the recommendations proposed to have already been achieved. Given progress on separate amendments that are benefitting the river corridor, Council can inform the Minister that the Government may lead and fund future planning scheme amendments for the corridor.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Approves the drafted response to the Middle Yarra River Corridor Study draft Recommendations Report, as shown in Attachment 2.

2. Writes to the Minister for Planning to inform that priorities for the Middle Yarra River corridor are already progressed through C100 and C71 and that any further amendments should be progressed and funded by the State Government.

ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 Middle Yarra River Study Area 133

2 Banyule Submission to the Middle Yarra River draft Recommendations Report

135

4.3



4.3 PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT AT 108-130 AND 132 DIAMOND CREEK ROAD, ST HELENA

Author: Nick Helliwell - Major Developments Planner, City Development

Ward: Beale

File: P995/2013

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This proposal considers the development of a large greenfield site located in the north-east of the municipality known as 108-130 and 132 Diamond Creek Road in St Helena. This application represents the first of a number of applications which will result in the incremental development of the site. This first application sets out a framework and seeks planning permission for the broad staging of the development through 11 stages including:

Establishment of an indicative road network and connection to existing roads as well as the removal of vegetation required for this network;

Indication of areas of public open space. This report also considers the development outcome for Stage 1 which proposes 29 two storey dwellings and associated vegetation removal. This report anticipates the implications of the bush fire prone status of the subject site as this relates to building regulation compliance and vegetation removal. Future applications will consider the development outcomes and associated vegetation removal for the remaining 10 stages. The application is being reported to Council due to the broad range of planning considerations involved and the scale of the proposal. Approval of the proposal is recommended as:

The proposal is consistent with the strategic planning policy framework and residential zoning and planning overlays applying to the land;

The proposal provides a balanced response to the opportunities and constraints of the site, including environmental and pedestrian/vehicle accessibility considerations.

4.3


PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT AT 108-130 AND 132 DIAMOND CREEK ROAD, ST HELENA cont’d


Planning Permit Application: P995/2013

Development Planner: Nick Helliwell

Address: 108-130 and 132 Diamond Creek Road, St Helena

Proposal: Staged subdivision of land for 29 residential lots (Stage 1), and 13 super lots, construction of 29 dwellings, creation of access to a road zone category 1, vegetation removal and associated buildings and works

Existing Use/Development: Part vacant land and part care, training and education facility for the intellectually disabled

Applicant: Far East Land and Housing Development Company Pty Ltd

Zoning: General Residential – Schedule 2

Overlays: Public Acquisition – Schedule 1 (VicRoads), Environmental Significance – Schedule 3 and 4, Vegetation Protection – Schedule 1

Notification (Advertising): Letters to abutting owner/occupiers, four site notices comprising one facing Diamond Creek Road and one facing each of the site entrances form Mine Street, Pindari Drive and Beales Road and a notice in the local paper

Objections Received: 44

Ward: Beale

4.3




The proposal comprises a residential subdivision of the land in 11 stages. This allows for the subdivision and development to occur in a series of separate sequences. Stage 1 of the subdivision seeks to subdivide this lot into 29 smaller residential lots and provide road and open space reserves. A plan for the second and subsequent stages indicates configuration of the remaining 10 super lots and the proposed road and open space network throughout the land holding. This plan also shows the connection of the site with the existing surrounding road network, including a new road connection with Diamond Creek Road (see Figure 1 below).

Figure 1 – Subdivision and staging plan

The application also proposes to construct 29 dwellings on each of the lots to be created under Stage 1. Detailed plans have been provided for each of these dwellings. In addition, the proposal seeks planning permission for vegetation removal associated with the development of Stage 1 and the construction of the road and footpath network throughout the site. Within Stage 1, 82 trees are proposed to be retained and 144 trees to be removed, 139 of which are native and require planning permission for their removal. The 10 super lots will be the subject of future planning permit applications for further subdivision and development. An indicative master plan showing the potential future development layout for the whole site has been prepared. This plan is indicative and is to assist in envisaging the future form and layout of future subdivision and development of the land. Separate planning applications will be required to be lodged with Council for the development of each of these subsequent stages in future years.

4.3




Subdivision Key elements of the subdivision design are:

No north south road connection between Beales Road, Pindari Drive and Mine Street. This creates three distinct residential precincts that manage their own vehicle traffic generation independently of other precincts so that traffic generation is distributed in a balanced way throughout the existing road network;

A new road connection will be provided to Diamond Creek Road to improve vehicle access to the site and traffic circulation through the road network to the south of the site;

Pedestrian and bicycle connection through the site to link with surrounding road, open space and footpath networks;

A total area of 4.89 ha of open space (25% of the site) with 11% not required for drainage;

Retention and enhancement of the creek drainage line (riparian zone)

Setback of development from this riparian zone;

Retention of a number of significant trees on the site and minimisation of impact on the ecological sensitivity of the site;

Retention of Saxam Homestead and provision of space around the homestead to provide a setting for this historic building;

Roads to be predominantly public roads built to Council specification with a couple of small body corporate roads which are to be privately maintained.

Development (Stage 1) A total of 29 dwellings are proposed in Stage 1 comprising the following. Table 1: Development summary

Lot Size (sqm)

Site Coverage (%)

Private Open Space (sqm)

Car Parking Provision

Bedrooms

Lot 1 575 48 210 2 4

Lot 2 372 60 125 2 4

Lot 3 989 39 560 2 4

Lot 4 602 44 204 2 4

Lot 5 379 74 62 2 4

Lot 6 385 71 76 2 4

Lot 7 371 74 77 2 4

Lot 8 394 68 62 2 4

Lot 9 332 56 76 2 4

Lot 10 116 56 39 2 3

Lot 11 116 56 38 2 3

Lot 12 217 56 47 2 4

Lot 13 460 58 70 2 4

Lot 14 447 61 117 2 4

Lot 15 889 51 294 2 4

Lot 16 569 41 281 2 4

Lot 17 554 47 277 2 4

Lot 18 541 50 229 2 4

Lot 19 453 49 209 2 4

Lot 20 445 57 177 2 4

4.3




Lot 21 447 58 150 2 4

Lot 22 509 52 176 2 4

Lot 23 1160 28 810 2 4

Lot 24 446 44 136 2 4

Lot 25 378 52 80 2 4

Lot 26 378 52 77 2 4

Lot 27 378 52 79 2 4

Lot 28 378 52 77 2 4

Lot 29 387 50 79 2 4

In addition to the private car parking, 23 on street car parking spaces are also proposed for this stage within indented car parking bays. The proposed dwellings have a maximum height of two storeys. The design of the dwellings is contemporary incorporating modular forms, cantilevered upper levels, glass walls and hipped, gabled, mono-pitched and flat roofs. A variety of facing materials are proposed including brick, timber, stone, colorbond and painted render. A copy of the application plans are shown in Attachment 1 to this report.



BACKGROUND/HISTORY

A planning permit was issued by the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal in 1990 for an 86 lot subdivision, roads and public open space reserves and for one detached house to be constructed on each lot, subject to amended plans. The amended plans sought lot sizes of 800 square metres with a minimum of 12 lots in the south-eastern corner of the site with a minimum area of 1,000 square metres. No amended plans were endorsed under the planning permit. The permit was not acted upon and has lapsed. Planning permission was granted on 21 November 2013 for a 2 lot subdivision of land located to the west of the application site and known as Churinga (Council reference P525/13). Churinga is operated by St John of God Accord, a private not for profit disability provider that delivers training and education services to intellectually disabled clients. Lot 1 of the subdivision has an area of 3.39 ha and was granted a planning permit on 17 February 2014 to allow for the redevelopment of the existing care facilities on the site to provide new, up to date facilities (Council reference P644/13). Lot 2 has an area of 5.02 ha and was sold to the current permit applicant to form part of the proposed development site. The subdivision design provides for a new access to Diamond Creek Road to serve both Lots 1 and 2.

4.3




SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Diamond Creek Road to the east of its junction with the Greensborough Bypass. The site has existing vehicle access to the north of the Greensborough Bypass roundabout from a slip road off the southbound section of Diamond Creek Road which serves Churinga. Three other roads extend to the site and terminate at the site boundary; Beales Road and Pindari Drive to the north and Mine Street to the south. The site is an irregular shaped land holding comprising three main land parcels; the northern portion having an area of 5.26 ha, the eastern parcel having an area of 8.57 ha and the western portion of the site (comprising Lot 2 purchased from and located to the east of Churinga) having an area of 5.02 ha. A fourth narrow parcel of land of 333 square metres in area extends parallel to the access from Diamond Creek Road to provide a total combined site area of 18.89 ha. An area of 3.26 ha in the northern portion of the site is affected by the proposed extension of the Greensborough Bypass and is not available for development, reducing the gross developable area of the site to 15.63 ha.

Figure 2 – Locality Plan

The northern part of the site comprises predominantly gently sloping grassland with belts and copses of trees and individual freestanding feature trees. The eastern part of the site is traversed by a creek that emerges on the northern site boundary from a barrel drain under Pindari Drive. The creek flows above ground across the site and into Brown’s Reserve which abuts the south-eastern site boundary. The site slopes up steeply on either side of the creek at a gradient of approximately 1:6. The land on the eastern side of the creek comprises densely treed and vegetated areas on the lower slopes, thinning out to grassland and individual features trees towards the top of the slope.

4.3




The western bank of the creek comprises predominantly grassland with a few thickets of trees and individual free standing specimens. This bank slopes steeply up to the brow of a hill which accommodates a series of single storey buildings that previously formed part of the Churinga building complex. This group of buildings includes Saxom Homestead which has been identified as being of heritage significance and is to be retained as part of the proposal. The rest of the buildings are to be demolished with a number of feature trees, including an avenue of semi-mature Narrow-leaved Ash trees along the driveway to the Homestead, to be retained as part of the redevelopment. The northern, southern and eastern boundaries of the site are bordered by established residential areas comprising predominantly single and double storey detached dwellings. Greenhills Primary School and Browns Reserve also abut the southern site boundary. Browns Reserve is a native bush reserve owned by Council. The land is protected by a conservation covenant to conserve its ecological and natural significance. The western site boundary abuts Diamond Creek Road with part of the north-western portion of the site identified by VicRoads for future road works.

CONSULTATION AND PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

A number of pre-application information and discussion meetings were held with the local community which were attended by the Ward Councillor, permit applicant and council officers. Following lodgement of the planning application, an additional community information meeting was held prior to the public notification of the application to clarify the planning application process. Following this meeting, public notification of the proposal was undertaken. This comprised site notices on the Diamond Creek site frontage and at the Mine Street, Pindari Drive and Beales Road entrances to the site, letters to adjoining land owners/occupiers and residents along the local roads proposed to service the development and a notice in the local paper. A total of 44 objections were received regarding the proposal. The grounds for objection are summarised as:

Increased traffic on existing surrounding road network and associated congestion, noise, road safety issues and pollution;

Lack of car parking;

Narrow roads and inadequate service and emergency vehicle access;

Pedestrian/bicycle access to Browns Reserve and Paraweena Court;

Density of development and building scale out of keeping with neighbourhood character and Precinct 2 of Garden Court Neighbourhood Character Area

Higher density development;

Vegetation removal and impact on wildlife and ecology of the site and area

Increased noise due to residential density;

Ecology report does not identify all fauna eg. sugar gliders;

Lengthy construction/development period and associated impacts;

Overlooking to rear of 3 and 5 Pindari Drive;

Drainage at the rear of 5 Tathra Place.

4.3




A further public information meeting was held following closure of the public notification and referral process to discuss external referral authority and Council department comments and inform the community on the next stage of the application assessment process.

REFERRAL COMMENTS

The following referrals were undertaken in the assessment of the proposal. External Referral Yarra Valley Water No objection subject to standard water and sewerage connection permit conditions. Telstra Standard telecommunication conditions required. Department of Environment and Primary Industries Further information was initially requested regarding the extent of vegetation to be removed to address bushfire risk management and other mitigation measures to be applied. This information has been provided and no further comments have been received. VicRoads No objection subject to conditions requiring the Diamond Creek Road access to be constructed prior to land titles being issued for subdivision of Stages 6 to 11 Public Transport Victoria No objection. Bicycle Victoria No objection subject to further consideration of shared paths and site access along the southern site boundary and increased consideration of pedestrians and cyclists in the road design north of Mine Street. Melbourne Water No objection subject to conditions to control surface and stormwater run-off, landscaping details along the waterway, details of the wetland and waterway works, an environmental management plan and lots to be above the flood level of the St Helena West Drain. Country Fire Authority No objection subject to conditions specifying hydrant location and road design.

4.3




SP Ausnet No objection subject to conditions specifying electricity supply. APA No objection and no permit conditions required for gas supply. Nillumbik Shire Council Objection on increased vehicle traffic on Nillumbik Shire roads, including part of Beales Road. Internal Referral The following referrals were undertaken in the assessment of the proposal. Engineering Services (Developments and Drainage and Transport) No objection subject to conditions requiring fine tuning of road layout and design, including parking bays, roundabouts, pedestrian and bicycle connectivity and waste collection. Arborist No objection subject to clarification of the extent of tree clearance required for bushfire management and conditions to protect trees to be retained. Environmental Sustainability No objection subject to conditions to minimise the extent of vegetation to be removed to address bushfire risk management and other mitigation measures to be applied. Strategic Planning No objection subject to a condition requiring a building survey being undertaken of Saxam Homestead to identify any repairs or works required to secure the maintenance of the building as identified in the panel Report to Amendment C94 to the Banyule Planning Scheme. Parks and Gardens No objection and no conditions. ESD No objection subject to conditions requiring additional details to be shown on plan.

4.3




PLANNING CONTROLS

The planning controls applicable to the site are outlined in Table 1 below: Table 1: Applicable Planning Controls

Control Clause Permit Triggered

General Residential Zone - Schedule 2 32.08 Yes

Environmental Significance Overlay – Schedules 3 and 4

42.01 Yes

Vegetation Protection Overlay – Schedule 1 42.02 Yes

Public Acquisition Overlay – Schedule 1 45.01 No

Public open space contribution and subdivision 52.01 No

Car Parking requirements 52.06 Yes

Native vegetation 52.17 Yes

POLICIES CONSIDERED

Relevant policies considered in the assessment of this proposal are outlined in Table 2 below: Table 2: Relevant Planning Scheme Policy

Policy Clause

SPPF

Settlement 11

Environmental and Landscape Values 12

Environmental Risks - Bushfire 13.05

Built Environment and Heritage (including sub clauses) 15

Housing (including sub clauses) 16

Transport 18

Infrastructure 19

LPPF

Cultural Heritage 21.03

Land Use 21.04

Natural Environment 21.05

Built Environment (Incremental area) 21.06

Transport and Infrastructure 21.07

Residential Neighbourhood Character Policy – Garden Court Precinct 2 (East).

22.02

Safer Design Policy 22.03

Cultural Heritage Conservation 22.06

TECHNICAL CONSIDERATION

The following key technical considerations are considered relevant in determining the suitability of the proposal.

4.3




Response to Policy Framework The site is located within an incremental change area under Council’s Residential Areas Framework. These areas are typically located further away from Activity Centres and the Principal Public Transport Network, where there is less convenient pedestrian access. They will provide for well designed single dwellings and medium density dwellings. Development must also make a positive contribution to the desired future neighbourhood character, including opportunities for tree protection and planting. The proposal is considered to meet this outcome. The site is also affected by environmental and vegetation protection overlay controls which recognise the special contribution that individual trees and clusters of vegetation make to the environmental, neighbourhood character and natural habitat values of the area. A key objective of the Environmental Significance Overlays is to protect and enhance trees and areas of vegetation that are significant for botanical, zoological and habitat reasons. The proposal is considered to meet this outcome. The site is located within Garden Court Precinct 2 (East) of the Residential Neighbourhood Character Policy. Importantly this precinct compliments the landscape and environmental outcomes identified above by seeking to maintain and strengthen the garden and landscape dominated character of the area and create recessive building forms that are subordinate to the landscape. The indicative overall master plan for the site demonstrates that the proposal has sought to minimise the extent of vegetation to be removed, retain the ecologically sensitive trees and vegetation throughout the site and minimise the impact of works upon trees to be retained. The detailed layout and design for Stage 1 of the proposal has sought to meet these objectives and minimise the visual impact of the development upon neighbouring properties. These details are expanded on below. Vegetation removal and protection for trees to be retained There are two sets of matters to consider in relation to the vegetation on the site; the first is the ecological considerations and the second the arboricultural considerations. Ecological considerations The assessment of the trees to be removed from the site relates to Stage 1 development, roads across the total site, walking paths, the retarding basin and associated works. Planning permission is required to remove native vegetation from the site under Vegetation Protection Overlay – Schedule 1 and Environmental Significance Overlay – Schedule 3. In addition, as the site has an area of more than 0.4 ha, planning permission is also required for native vegetation removal, including dead trees with a diameter at breast height of more than 40cm, under Clause 52.17 - Native Vegetation of the Scheme. In broad terms, the overarching objectives of these controls is to protect and conserve native vegetation to ensure that the development, use and management of land is compatible with the existing character and landscape conservation of the area as well and the environmental and natural habitat values of the area for plants and animals.

4.3




The proposal seeks to retain the densely treed and vegetated areas on the lower slopes of the creek line crossing the site. This area of the site has been identified as having the greatest ecological importance and effectively provides an extension of the ecological qualities of the adjoining Browns Reserve into the site. Some vegetation clearance within and along the edge of the creek is required to provide for the storm water retardation works within the creek line. These works will require the construction of pools and rifles to safely convey water flows and have be designed to also provide habitat eg. for native frogs, and contribute to the ecological characteristics of the area as well as beautify the creek and its setting. Some clearing and thinning out of vegetation along this riparian corridor on the middle to upper slopes of the creek bank will also be required to provide defendable space from attack by bushfire. A peer review of the applicant’s ecological assessment of the proposal and internal review by Council’s Environmental Sustainability officer has considered that the proposal adequately avoids the clearing of native vegetation in the context of the significance of the native vegetation and its distribution on the site and has minimised biodiversity impacts from the removal of this native vegetation. This includes an assessment of the Bushfire Attack Level of Stages 1 to 3 of the subdivision to ensure that the proposal does not significantly increase the threat to life and surrounding property from bushfire and minimise potential vegetation clearance within recognised ecologically sensitive areas of the site to create defendable space around future dwellings. This is a material planning consideration under Clause 13.05 – Bushfire and Clause 52.17 – Native vegetation. Any native vegetation that is permitted to be removed under Clause 52.17 is required to be offset in a manner that makes an equivalent contribution to Victoria’s biodiversity. The applicant has provided confirmation that an appropriate offset will be provided in accordance with the procedures approved by the Department of Environment and Primary Industry. This has been independently reviewed and considered acceptable, noting that there may also be some opportunity for offset planting to occur within the site to further enhance the identified ecologically sensitive and protected areas of the site. Whilst the Department of Environment and Primary Industry have not provided any final response in relation to the referral process, Council officers are now satisfied that with the peer review of the additional information submitted by the applicant, the proposal now reasonably addresses issues identified in the assessment process, subject to conditions requiring habitat protection, off-set planting etc. The proposed western boundary of Reserve No. 9 in future Stage 5 is located in within the Tree Protection Zone of an Oak tree (Tree 303) which is listed in Council’s Significant Trees Register (see Attachment 2). This tree is protected under Environmental Significance Overlay – Schedule 4. Modifications to the reserve boundary will be required as a condition of permit to provide sufficient protection for this tree. No reduction in the size of the reserve is envisaged as a result of this adjustment. In terms of Stages 2 to 11, 67 trees are proposed to be removed for road works. A number of these have been assessed by Council’s arborist of capable of being retained by modification of the road layout and this is required as a condition of permit.

4.3




The ecological outcomes that will be realised as a result of the proposal will be the protection and enhancement of the creek line and the vegetation corridor as an important site of botanical, zoological and habitat significance. This will in turn assist in maintaining the biological diversity of indigenous plants, animals and other organisms occurring within the site and surrounding area through protection and enhancement of regional and strategic habitat links. Arboricultural considerations Council’s arborist has assessed the vegetation to be removed from the site and the impact of the proposed works upon the vegetation to be retained. With regard to a number of the trees to be removed under Stage 1 to provide for defendable space from bushfire attack, Council’s arborist is satisfied with the peer review of the applicant’s bushfire attack assessment and the extent of tree removal required for this defendable space. Opportunity remains for some individual dispersed trees and vegetation to be retained within the defendable space area, which are currently designated for removal, without any reduction in the effectiveness of the buffer. This will be required to be investigated further as a condition of permit. In terms of the trees to be retained, the extent of development encroachment into the tree protection and structural root zones of three trees within Stage 1 requires detailed investigation to confirm the appropriateness of the encroachment and any fine tuning required to the design solution to minimise impact to an acceptable degree. Council’s arborist is satisfied that this can be addressed as a condition of permit. The proximity of other works to trees to be retained will require the pruning back of the canopy of some seven trees within Stage 1 to reduce future pressure on these trees form the development. This will also be required as a condition of permit. Traffic and car parking Concern has been raised by local residents on traffic issues associated with the proposal. Key concerns are the proposed new road connection with Diamond Creek Road, increased traffic and impact of access arrangements on local streets and neighbouring properties, associated noise and disturbance from increased traffic, the narrowness of roads within the proposed development and in the existing surrounding area and their adequacy for service and emergency vehicle access. New road access to Diamond Creek Road VicRoads are the responsible authority for providing traffic engineering advice on any new access to a primary road. The creation of a new access to Diamond Creek Road has previously been approved as part of the approved subdivision of the Churinga land. In assessing this subdivision, VicRoads were aware of the proposed future subdivision and development of the application site, the proposed road layout and expected future traffic generation and split between three distinct and separate traffic generating precincts within the development. VicRoads raise no objection to the proposal subject to conditions requiring VicRoads approval of the detailed design, including signage and line marking, of the new road junction with Diamond Creek Road and construction of this access at the applicant’s expense prior to Statements of Compliance being issued for Stages 6 to 11 inclusive.

4.3




Northern Area – Pindari Drive Precinct - Access Point Council’s traffic engineering department are responsible for assessment of traffic engineering matters in relation to local residential streets. Council’s engineers have provided the following assessment of each of the three proposed traffic precincts associated with the proposal. There are 30 existing homes along Pindari Drive, Baloo Court and Tathra Place. In the absence of collected volume data, and the ‘no through road’ nature of road connection, it is anticipated that there are currently 270-300 vehicle movements per day into and out of Pindari Drive. The peak hour volume is expected to be around 27-30 vehicle movements during the peak hour (one vehicle every two minutes). The additional 42 dwellings proposed to be accessed via Pindari Drive are likely to generate 378 additional daily traffic movements, with 38 additional movements generated during the peak periods. Should the development proceed, the anticipated total daily traffic volume along Pindari Drive is expected to be around 780 vehicles per day, with 78 vehicle movements expected during peak hour. This volume is within acceptable limits for a ‘local’ street such as Pindari Drive. During the consultation process, residents raised concern over vehicle movement along Pindari Drive during the evening periods, when vehicles are parked along both sides of the road. Pindari Road is 7.2m wide between the kerbs, which allows vehicles to park on both sides of the street and maintain a 3m through traffic lane. While it is recognised there is insufficient width for two-way movement, the likelihood of vehicles passing one another is considered to be low. In line with the expected traffic volumes, it would be expected for a car to travel along the street every 30 seconds to 1 minute on average during the peak hour, and every two minutes or less outside of these times. Should two vehicles be required to pass, there is opportunity to do so by utilising the spaces in front of driveways. This arrangement is considered acceptable for the estimated volumes along Pindari Drive and is common in similar streets throughout the municipality. While there is opportunity for a portion of dwellings (approximately 10 dwellings) within this precinct to alternatively be accessed from Diamond Creek Road (thereby reducing traffic generation by 90 vehicle movements per day on Pindari Drive), Council’s engineers consider that in terms of the overall traffic generation such a modification is unwarranted. Beales Road Precinct - Access along Beales Road / Allumba Drive The additional 48 dwellings proposed within the Beales Road Precinct are likely to generate 432 additional daily traffic movements, with 43 additional movements generated during the peak periods. When combined with the traffic generated by the proposed Pindari Drive precinct, it is anticipated the proposed northern area development will generate 810 vehicle movements per day, with 81 vehicle movements occurring during the peak hour. Current traffic volume data indicates Allumba Drive carries around 2,000 vehicles per day. Data provided by Nillumbik Council indicates Beales Drive carries around 2,300 vehicles per day. Sunrise Drive, which connects Beales Road to Diamond Creek Road and the wider arterial road network, carries around 3,500 vehicles per day.

4.3




Vehicles will be required to travel along Allumba Drive (Banyule) or Beales Drive (Banyule/Nillumbik) to access the arterial road network. The traffic report provided by Cardno suggests a 45 / 55 distribution ratio between each road respectively. It is noted that Nillumbik Council disputes this ratio, and contends a 35 / 65 split is more likely given the existing traffic calming measures along Allumba Drive. Council’s Engineering Section considers the distribution detailed by Cardno to be a fair statement of the expected traffic split, based on observations of traffic movement in the area. When considering the expected split of traffic, it is anticipated the proposed northern area development will generate 364 additional movements along Allumba Drive per day, and an additional 445 movements along Beales Drive per day. It is anticipated that the traffic volumes along Allumba Drive and Beales Road following the completion of the development will be around 2,400 vehicles and 2,800 vehicles respectively. Both Allumba Drive and Beales Drive (within Banyule) are classified under Council’s Road Hierarchy as a ‘distributor’ road. Such roads can expect traffic volumes of up to 4,000 vehicles per day. Given the connectivity these streets provide between the residential area and the wider road network, the proposed additional volumes along these roads are considered reasonable. It is noted that within Nillumbik’s Road Management Plan there is no given maximum traffic volume for ‘Link’ or ‘Collector’ roads. Correspondence from Nillumbik indicates that the maximum volume for a Level 1 Collector Road (such as Sunrise Drive) within the planning scheme is 3,000 vehicles per day. However, Banyule Council’s Engineering Section considers that given the width of Sunrise Drive, the road is able to carry up to 7,000 vehicles per day, in line with the maximum volume for a Level 2 Collector Road. Accordingly, Banyule Council’s traffic engineers consider the design of Sunrise Drive will allow the road to accommodate the additional 445 expected vehicle movements per day. Southern Area - Mine Street/Diamond Creek Road Precinct The proposed 169 dwellings (including 40 multi-unit dwellings) within the Mine Street Precinct are likely to generate 1442 additional daily traffic movements, with 144 additional movements generated during the peak periods. Current traffic volume data indicates Mine Street currently carries around 1,230 vehicles per day, with Greenhill Road (towards St Helena Road to the south) carrying around 2,700 vehicles per day. Diamond Creek Road (an arterial road) currently carries around 38,000 vehicles to the north of the Greensborough Bypass (i.e. towards Sunrise Drive) and 18,800 vehicles south of the Greensborough Bypass (towards Greenhill Road). For the residential development, the applicant’s traffic engineers anticipate a 46%/54% split of traffic between Mine Street and Diamond Creek Road. Council engineering department considers this to be somewhat conservative, and would anticipate the distribution of traffic towards Diamond Creek Road to be slightly higher due to the uncontrolled intersection at St Helena Road and Greenhill Road to the south. Nonetheless, Council’s Engineering Section accept the distributions as detailed in the report.

4.3




When considering the anticipated split of traffic, it is expected the proposed residential development will generate 768 additional movements through the site to Diamond Creek Road, and 675 additional movements south along Mine Street. However, the distribution of the traffic associated with the southern section of the development will be affected by the opening of Mine Street (and the subsequent redistribution of Greenhill Primary School traffic), and the redirection of the St John of God traffic through the proposed access road from Diamond Creek Road. The expected additional movements (both directions combined) generated by the redistribution of traffic as detailed in the applicant’s traffic report are outlined in the table below. Table 3: Additional Traffic Movement

Road AM Peak PM Peak

Proposed Access Road 268 197

Mine Street -17 -16

Greenhill Road (East of Mine St) 63 54

Greenhill Road (West of Mine St) -83 -70

This suggests that there is an overall decrease in traffic along both Mine Street and Greenhill Road to the West of Mine Street (towards Diamond Creek Road), which is largely attributed to the redistribution of the school traffic along the proposed access road. There is an increase in traffic along Greenhill Road to the east of Mine Street during the AM and PM peak hours, which equates to approximately one vehicle movement per minute during these peak periods. Greenhill Road functions as a distributor road, providing a link between the residential areas within the Greenhill’s Estate and the wider arterial road network. While it is noted there will be an increase in traffic along the south-eastern section due to the distribution of traffic, Council’s Engineering Section considers this to be acceptable. Future estimated traffic volumes along the northern section of Mine Street (North of Albion Crescent) will likely require the Mine Street School crossing to be supervised (currently unsupervised). It is recommended that civil works be undertaken to raise this school crossing to ensure a safe crossing point for children and pedestrians at this location. In summary, in addition to standard engineering conditions, Council’s Engineering Section recommend conditions requiring:

Redirect access to 11 dwellings from the Pindari Drive precinct to the Diamond Creek Road Precinct to address concerns of Nillumbik and nearby residents

Provide Give way line marking at the intersections of Allumba Drive/Beales Road and Pindari Drive/Beales Road to Council’s satisfaction

Replace the existing school crossing on Mine Street, to the south of the residential development, with a raised school crossing to Council’s satisfaction.

4.3




Pedestrian/bicycle access to Browns Reserve and Paraweena Court The indicative overall master plan for the site shows pedestrian and bicycle path access to Browns Reserve and Paraweena Court. The applicant has advised that this was not intended and this will be required to be removed as a condition of permit as such access is not desirable for a conservation reserve. Increased traffic Whilst the proposed development will inevitably increase traffic on local roads, this traffic flow will be distributed amongst the existing residential road network which has been designed to absorb the traffic flow associated with the proposal. Any additional traffic movement as a result of the proposal can therefore only be considered to be within the design tolerances of the road network and therefore acceptable. Building density, scale and design The site is located within Garden Court Precinct 2 (East) of the Residential Neighbourhood Character Policy. Importantly this precinct seeks to compliment the landscape and environmental outcomes identified above by seeking to maintain and strengthen the garden and landscape dominated character of the area and create recessive building forms that are subordinate to the landscape. The proposed lot sizes for Stage 1 range from 166 square metres within the centre of the stage to 1160 square metres on the edge of the stage ie. lot sizes increase in area as they get closer to existing residential properties that border Stage 1. The three smallest lots will provide for a row of two storey dwellings to be constructed at least 70 metres from the site boundary and screened from view form beyond the site boundary by additional new dwellings and tree planting. This is a conscious design response which seeks to provide larger lots with greater building setbacks to existing dwellings to provide greater opportunity for tree retention and new landscaping around the site perimeter and soften the interface of the new development with the existing residential area. It is important to note that the proposed lot configuration allows for the retention and protection of a large single tract of the ecologically important habitat on the site along the creek. Whilst the provision of some smaller lots within the core of the site inevitably reduces opportunities for individual canopy tree retention or planting on these lots, the return for this is that a large area of mature trees and habitat area are retained on the site in public ownership. This will not only ensure the long term preservation and enhancement of this landscape area that may not otherwise be obtained if the land was divided up into separate lots in private ownership but is also considered to provide a better landscape and environmental outcome for the area. This landscaping will also be supplemented by new street tree planting and tree planting within most of the proposed lots to further enhance the setting of the development. Detailed architectural plans and a landscape concept plans have been provided for the dwellings to be constructed under Stage 1. These plans demonstrate:

Contemporary architecture utilising a combination of gable ended, mono pitched and flat roofed designs and varied materials.

4.3




The use of a flat and mono pitched roof form allows the building bulk to be reduced and follow the slope of the land with a maximum building height above natural ground level of no more than 9 metres.

Building setbacks to the site boundary generally varying from 4.3 to 27 metres (there is one dwelling at the rear of 3 and 5 Pindari Drive where a 1 metre setback is proposed but this is to the corner of a single storey flat roofed part of a building which angles sharply away from the site boundary and allows for screen planting).

Varied placing of dwellings looking out over the creek and vegetation reserve.

Stepping of the development up the slope of the land.

Buildings viewed through a well vegetated and enhanced creek line against the backdrop of the slope of the land and an existing residential area A detailed landscaping plan for Stage 1 will also be required as a condition of permit. A detailed neighbourhood character assessment of the proposal is contained in Attachment 3 to this report. ResCode The proposal demonstrates a high level of compliance with Clause 55 – Two or more dwellings on a lot and Clause 56 – Residential subdivision. A detailed assessment of the proposal against each of these clauses are contained in Attachments 4 and 5 to this report. Clause 55 and 56 - ResCode The proposal demonstrates a high level of compliance with Clause 55 – Two or more dwellings on a lot and Clause 56 – Residential subdivision. A detailed assessment of the proposal against each of these clauses are contained in Attachments 4 and 5 to this report. Public Open Space Council’s Public Open Space Strategy (2007-2012) was adopted by Council on 1 October 2007. Amendment C61 gazetted on 8 October 2009, restructuring Councils Municipal Strategic Statement and updating reference documents within the Local Planning Policy Framework. The Public Open Space Strategy is now a reference document at Clause 21.09-6. At Part 2.4 of the Strategy, the following objective is relevant to this application: To improve the quality and quantity of public open space within Banyule, in order to more effectively meet the needs of residents. The Strategy divides the municipality into precincts to ensure the needs of local residents and any local character which is unique to a particular area can be taken into account in the planning of public open space. The subject site falls within the St Helena/Eltham North Precinct, which identifies the following open space issues:

4.3




The impact that school children have on the St Helena Bush Land Reserve. There is a need for signage and an education program about the appropriate use of the reserve.

There is a general lack of park infrastructure in this area, particularly for families, children and teenagers, such as playgrounds picnic/barbecue facilities, toilets, etc. This is particularly significant given the present relatively young demographic of the area.

Settlers Reserve needs a path for its entire length so that it can function as a genuine linear park.

There is lack of informal recreation facilities in Anthony Beale Reserve, e.g. picnic/barbeque facilities, play facilities for teenagers.

The provision of facilities suitable for teenagers is of particular importance. There needs to be an assessment of the needs of young people in the area and appropriate facilities provided accordingly.

There is a need for management strategies for bush land & nature reserves in this precinct.

Interpretive signage required in small bush land reserves in this precinct.

The natural reserves in this area are of high conservation significance and should be managed accordingly.

The indigenous vegetation at the eastern end of Anthony Beale Reserve requires enhanced management.

The requirement for public open space has been considered having regard to Council’s Public Open Space Strategy and Section 18 of the Subdivision Act 1988. The land has not previously been occupied by dwellings other than Saxam Homestead which would appear not to have been occupied for some years. As a result, there will be an increase of around 258 dwellings in the area. Whilst the strategy recognises St Helena/Eltham North has five times the quantitative benchmark for open space, the ecological and natural features of the site require preservation whilst at the same time lending themselves as positive features of the development. Council’s Public Open Space Strategy identifies the following recommendation within the precinct:

That the public open space issues identified above be systematically addressed through Council’s New Works and Services Program as a priority.

The requirement for public open space has been considered having regard to open space contributions which can be in the form of land, money or a combination of both and cannot exceed 5% of the land or cost of the land. The proposal sets aside 25% of the site for public open space. The definition of public open space in Section 3 of the Subdivision Act 1988 is:

public open space means land set aside in a plan or land in a plan zoned or reserved under a planning scheme—

(a) for public recreation or public resort; or

(b) as parklands; or

(c) for similar purposes;

4.3




The riparian corridor and other ecologically sensitive areas throughout the site are required to be defined by a low and visually unobtrusive fencing to prevent slashing and discourage access to the general public. Through doing this, public access to these areas will still be available as parkland, although be limited. Access to the open space surrounding these areas will be more openly available for public recreation. Due to the natural site features, different areas of public open space have the ability to play different recreational roles eg. the treed creek line within Reserve No. 1 is more suited to walking whereas the large more even ground of Reserve No. 9 is more suited to a formal children’s play area. Both of these areas are therefore considered to meet the definition of public open space. As a result of the above, a public open space requirement of well in excess of 5% is provided within the site and no further contribution is considered appropriate. Drainage and watercourse works Council’s Engineering Section have assessed the drainage details of the application and have determined these to be satisfactory subject to conditions. It is noted by that some erosion is occurring in Browns Reserve where the creek enters the reserve and that there is an opportunity to stabilise the creek bank at the rear of 15 and 16 Paraweena Court and improve the condition of this bank as part of the drainage works associated with the proposal. Drainage at the rear of 5 Tathra Place Concern has been raised by the residents of 5 Tathra Place regarding the ability of the drain located at the rear of their property accommodating the drainage requirements of the development. These works are proposed at Stage 5 of the subdivision. Council’s drainage engineer has advised that the existing 375mm drain located in the drainage easement along the southern boundary of No.5 Tathra Place, was designed with the expectation that additional development within its natural catchment would contribute storm flows into the system. The 235mm internal diameter “connection point” referred to in the objection letter is not a restriction to inflow as it will be replaced by an appropriately sized inlet pipe once the drainage designs for the development are finalised. Cultural Heritage A site of Aboriginal cultural sensitivity has been identified on the application site on the border of Stages 4,5 7 and 11 of the subdivision. A Cultural Heritage Management Plan was prepared by the permit applicant under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 and was approved by the Registered Aboriginal Party (Wurundjeri Tribe) on 10th October 2013. In terms of European settlement, a freestanding weatherboard dwelling is located on the site within Stage 9 and known as Saxam Homestead. The homestead has been assessed as culturally and historically significant as a place which contributed to the development of St Helena and the broader Greensborough area. It is a representative of the rural development historical theme within the Greensborough areas and therefore culturally and historically significant because:

4.3




It is one of the remaining homestead places within the St Helena area;

It was established in the late 1880s and therefore one of the first farming properties in the area and representative of the rural development local historical theme;

It is one of three remaining homestead places and buildings in the Greensborough area; and

It displays elements which make it part of the broader Victorian themes (Promoting Settlement and Farming)

Heritage protection of the building through a Heritage Overlay was sought by Council under Amendment C94 to the Banyule Planning Scheme. The Panel appointed by the Minister for Planning to consider the amendment recommended that Council consider including a condition in any subdivision permit for the site and surrounding area requiring the developer to clear the Saxam Homestead and its site of debris, secure the building from water damage (as outlined on page 8 of the Panel report) and undertake any additional urgent works identified as necessary to secure the building, prior to the commencement of subdivision works. This recommendation is to be implemented through a condition of permit. OBJECTOR’S CONCERNS In addition to the above, the following concerns have also been raised by objectors with a response provided to each of the matters raised. Higher density development Whilst the indicative master plan indicates the location of potential higher density development in Stage 11, the master plan is not being endorsed as part of this assessment. Any future proposal to develop this land will require a separate planning permit and will be assessed at that time. Ecology report does not identify all fauna eg. sugar gliders One objector raised the matter that the applicant’s ecology assessment did not identify all fauna frequenting the site. The ecology assessment prepared by Brett Lane and Associates dated March 2014 notes at page 4 the limitations of field assessments, including that field surveys can fail to record all species present for various reasons, including short survey duration. Lengthy construction/development period and associated impacts The time over which a development may occur is controlled through a planning permit condition which requires development to commence within two years of a permit being granted and completed within two years of commencement of the works. Whilst these time periods may be extended, it is often the case that the developer proceeds with the development sooner rather than later so that the development can be marketed to finance further development. As the current proposal is a large site and is to be a staged development undertaken by a single developer, the individual stages of the development are likely to be completed to finance subsequent stages. The fact that the stages are all relatively close together will mean that the development may move on to another stage but still be relatively close to residents. This is unfortunate and is a consequence of living close to a large residentially zoned parcel of undeveloped land.

4.3




Noise and other impacts associated with development construction can be a nuisance to surrounding residences. The potential off site impacts associated with construction will be addressed through the construction management plan. This will be required as a condition of permit to specifically minimise the potential impact of site works on neighbouring property. Drainage at the rear of 5 Tathra Place Concern has been raised by the residents of 5 Tathra Place regarding the ability of the drain located at the rear of their property accommodating the drainage requirements of the development. These works are proposed at Stage 5 of the subdivision. Council’s drainage engineer has advised that the existing 375mm drain located in the drainage easement along the southern boundary of No.5 Tathra Place, was designed with the expectation that additional development within its natural catchment would contribute storm flows into the system. The 235mm internal diameter “connection point” referred to in the objection letter is not a restriction to inflow as it will be replaced by an appropriately sized inlet pipe once the drainage designs for the development are finalised.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons outlined above, the proposal is considered to be consistent with planning policy for the area and achieves an appropriate balance between neighbourhood character and environmental outcomes for the site and surrounding area. The subdivision layout is considered to provide a fair distribution of traffic flows through the site and surrounding road network and is therefore considered acceptable subject to conditions.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council having complied with Section 52, 58, 60, 61 and 62 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, resolves that a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit P995/2013 be issued in respect of Application No. P995/2013 for Staged subdivision of land for 29 residential lots (Stage 1) and 10 further stages, construction of 29 dwellings, creation of access to a Road Zone category 1, vegetation removal and associated building and works at 108-130 and 132 Diamond Creek Road ST HELENA subject to the following conditions: Superlot Subdivision and Staging Plan Amended Superlot Subdivision and Staging Plan Required (1) Prior to Certification of the Plan of Subdivision for any stage, a Staging Plan to

the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plan submitted with the application prepared by Brown Consulting (Ref: M130592, Version J, Sheets 1 to 3, Revision: 13/2/14) but modified to show:

4.3




(a) Roads 2, 4 & 18 deleted and shown as common property

(b) The separate area of each individual Open Space Reserve No’s 1 to 10

(c) Common property formerly labelled as Road 18 located outside Tree Protection Zone of Tree 312

(d) Eastern boundary of Stage 5 modified to avoid Tree Protection Zone of Tree 303

(e) Adjustment to alignment of Road 3 in Stage 1 to provide for the retention and protection of Tree 139

(f) Adjustment to alignment of Road 5 in Stage 6 to provide for the retention and protection of Tree 292

(g) The sequencing of staging of lots, timing of release of lots, development of infrastructure (including services, roads and pathways) and landscaping and reserve provision and facilities to be provided. The staging of the subdivision must be arranged to provide for the timely provision of infrastructure to the area

(h) A note indicating that the subdivision must proceed in the order of stages as shown on the endorsed plans unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority

(i) The location of tree protection fencing to be employed during the construction of the Stage.

Building Preservation (2) Prior to the commencement of any subdivision works on the land, the applicant

shall clear Saxam Homestead and its site of debris, secure the building from water damage and undertake any additional urgent works identified as necessary to secure the building, in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Planning Panels Victoria Panel Report in relation to Planning Scheme Amendment C94 to the Banyule Planning Scheme dated 10th June 2014, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Financial Contribution – Raised School Crossing (3) Prior to Certification of the Plan of Subdivision for any of Stages 6 to 11,

payment of a financial contribution shall be made to the Responsible Authority for the construction of a raised school crossing on Mine Street to the south of the site to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority.

Landscaping Plan (4) Prior to Certification of the Plan of Subdivision for each stage, a satisfactory

detailed landscape plan for all streets, common property and open space reserves within the subdivision must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority for the relevant stage. Such plan must be prepared by a person suitably qualified or experienced in landscape design and shall include:

(a) The siting for all street tree planting having regard to issues such as service conduits, crossovers and street lighting location;

4.3




(b) A planting schedule including species selection, planting requirements and maintenance requirements;

(c) Typical cross sections for all streets;

(d) Measures for the protection of planted street trees (such as tree guards);

(e) Details of landscaping and development of the public open space reserves and local link reserves where appropriate which is to include: - Top soiling and grass cover; - The planting of trees, shrubs and other vegetation including ground

cover which is suitable for the site; - Water supply and taps; - Suitable bollards or fencing along the roadside boundary; - Park furniture including seating, bins and other features; - Identification signs; - Paths; - Playground equipment.

(f) Tree protection measures for trees to be retained;

(g) Details of all retaining walls proposed, having regard to the submitted Arborist report;

(h) Details of all permanent fences to be erected along all boundaries at the extent of the subdivision.

NOTE:

The selection of species for the landscape plan must have regard to the Banyule City Council Street Tree Strategy.

Tree planting material and installation requirements must meet the minimum standards and specifications of Council’s Parks and Buildings Department.

(5) The subdivision must proceed in the order of stages as shown on the endorsed

plans unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority. Completion of Works (6) Prior to Statement of Compliance of the Plan of Subdivision for each stage, all

subdivision and development works relevant to the specific stage must be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. This includes planting of trees within road and open space reserves.

VicRoads (7) Prior to the commencement of any works on Diamond Creek Road, functional

layout plans must be submitted to VicRoads and the responsible Authority for approval for the following works:

(a) Proposed access point to the site from Diamond Creek road, including

kerbs, drains, signs and any line markings

4.3




(8) Before the issuance of a Statement of Compliance for Stages 6,7,8,9,10 and 11 of the subdivision, the access works approved as per the above condition must be completed at no cost to VicRoads and to the satisfaction of VicRoads and the Responsible Authority.

Underground servicing (9) All site services are to be provided underground, utilise shared trenching and

be located beyond the Tree Protection Zone of any trees to be retained on site or on adjoining land unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority.

Tree Protection (10) Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority, prior to the

commencement of works (including demolition) on the site Tree Preservation Zones must be established around trees to be retained. You must contact Council’s Development Planning Arborist on 9457 9808 once the Tree Preservation Fencing is erected so that an inspection of the fencing can be carried out. Once installed and inspected the Tree Preservation Zones must be maintained until the conclusion of works to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, and meet the following requirements:

(a) Extent

Tree Preservation Zones are to be provided to the extent of the TPZ where it occurs within the subject property of all trees indicated as being retained on the endorsed plan. The fencing can be realigned and suitable ground protection provided to allow the approved construction therein only to the satisfaction of the project arborist and only when approved by the Responsible Authority. The fencing can be realigned and suitable ground protection provided to allow the approved construction therein only to the satisfaction of the project arborist and only when approved by the Responsible Authority. (b) Management of works

A suitably qualified arborist must supervise or undertake all approved activity within the calculated TPZ of a retained tree. Any root severance within the TPZ must be undertaken to their satisfaction using a clean sharp and sterilised pruning saw. All and any excavations within the TPZ of retained trees must be undertaken by hand or by approved non-destructive techniques suitable in the vicinity of trees, and must be undertaken outside the calculated structural root zone of any tree unless otherwise approved. (c) Weed control

Any weeds located within the Tree Preservation Zone are to be removed and the area mulched with 100mm of composted coarse grade woodchips. (d) Fencing

(i) Protective fencing must consist of chain wire mesh panels with shade cloth attached, held in place with concrete feet.

(ii) The fences must not be removed or relocated without the prior consent of the Responsible Authority.

4.3




(e) Signage

Fixed signs are to be provided on all visible sides of the Tree Preservation Fencing, stating “Tree Preservation Zone – No entry without permission from the City of Banyule”.

(f) Irrigation

The area must be irrigated during the summer months with 5 litres of clean water for every 1 cm of trunk girth measured at the soil / trunk interface on a monthly basis during summer (or a percentage thereof equivalent to the percentage of TPZ area occurring within the subject site).

(g) Access to Tree Preservation Zone

(i) No persons, vehicles or machinery are to enter the Vegetation Protection Zone except with the consent of the Responsible Authority;

(ii) No fuel, oil dumps or chemicals are allowed to be used or stored within the Vegetation Preservation Zone and the servicing and re-fuelling of equipment and vehicles must be carried out away from the root zones;

(iii) No storage of material, equipment or temporary building is to take place within the Vegetation Preservation Zone;

(iv) Nothing whatsoever, including temporary services wires, nails, screws or any other fixing device, is to be attached to any tree.

NOTE: Requests for consent of the Responsible Authority (City of Banyule) pursuant to this Condition should be directed to Council’s Arborist – Development Planning on 9457 9808. Consent for the conduct of further works within the Tree Protection Zone, where granted, may be subject to conditions. Such conditions may include a requirement that:

Any underground service installations within the Tree Protection Zone be bored to a depth of at least 0.6 metres;

All root excavation be carried out by hand digging or with the use of ‘Air-Excavation’ techniques;

Roots required to be cut are to be severed by saw cutting and undertaken by a qualified arborist.

Or other conditions, as relevant, to ensure the ongoing health and stability of the subject tree/s. Section 173 Agreement (11) Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority, prior to the

Certification of the Plan of Subdivision, the owner/s of the land at 108-130 and 132 Diamond Creek Road ST HELENA must enter into an agreement with the Responsible Authority pursuant to Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. This requirement may be waived should construction be completed prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance. Such agreement shall require that:

4.3




(a) Each lot and Common Property created as part of Stage 1 of the Plan of Subdivision shall only be developed in accordance with the conditions and endorsed plans pursuant to Planning Permit P995/13, unless otherwise approved by the Responsible Authority in limited circumstances (see note below).

(b) Each lot and Common Property created as part of subsequent Stages of

the subdivision shall only be developed in accordance with the conditions and endorsed plans pursuant to a subsequent Planning Permit for development of that land, unless otherwise approved by the Responsible Authority in limited circumstances (see note below).

(b) Prior to the occupation of any dwelling within a Stage, all dwellings within

that Stage must be numbered in accordance with Council’s allocation of street numbers.

(c) Immediately upon completion of the development permitted under any

Stage, the owner or developer of the subject land must notify Council’s Development Planning Section that the development is complete and complies with all requirements of the permit. The development will then be inspected to ensure compliance.

(d) The owner acknowledges that all Council garbage collection from the

land will be from public roads. (e) Prior to the commencement of works for each stage of the subdivision

(including demolition), a bond of 150% of the cost of the landscaping works within roadways and Reserves or an amount agreed by the Responsible Authority must be lodged by the owner with the Responsible Authority to ensure the satisfactory establishment of landscaping works within each stage of the subdivision. Once landscaping has been completed in accordance with the endorsed landscaping plan, Council must be notified so that a site inspection can confirm the landscaping is compliant, and a 12 month establishment period will commence. The bond will be returned after landscaping has been initially maintained for that period to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. After the establishment period, the landscaping must be maintained in accordance with the endorsed landscaping plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

4.3




Multi dwelling development for Stage 1 (29 Dwellings) Plans (12) Before the development associated with Stage 1 permitted by this permit starts,

amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the advertised plans submitted with the application but modified to show:

(a) Delete two (2) indented parking bays adjacent to lots 5 & 13;

(b) Provide two (2) additional parking bays adjacent to Gross Pollutant Trap in Road 1. These spaces must be 3 metres in width;

(c) Delete two (2) indented parking bays in Road 3 directly south of proposed Road 4;

(d) Provide two (2) indented parking bays in Road 3 adjacent to, and to the North of Lot 24;

(g) Delete two (2) indented parking bays in Road 3 adjacent to Lot 15;

(e) Provide two (2) indented parking bays in Road 3 adjacent to Open Space Reserve No. 2 and opposite Lot 15;

(f) Delete six (6) indented parking bays on East side of Road 3 adjacent to Lots 24 - 29;

(g) Delete two (2) indented parking bays on North side of Road 3 adjacent to Lot 15;

(h) Provide eight (8) indented parking bays on West side of Road 3 adjacent to Reserve no. 2;

(i) Provide pedestrian crossing point across Road 3 at interface with Beales Road;

(j) Provide pedestrian crossing point across Road 3 immediately East of proposed Road 2;

(k) Relocate light pole adjacent to Lot 17 to opposing street corner adjacent to reserve;

(l) Sections through Lots 15,16,19,23 to show depth of site cut and excavation works within the Tree Protection Zone of Tree 1;

(m) Screening of the north facing terrace and deck areas for the proposed dwelling on Lot 3 in accordance with Standard B22 of Clause 55 of the Banyule Planning Scheme;

(n) All proposed sustainable design features indicated in the submitted Sustainable Management Plan (SMP) dated 7 March 2014 prepared by Ark Resources. Where sustainable design features outlined in the SMP cannot be visually shown, include a notes table providing details of the requirements (i.e. energy and water efficiency ratings for heating/cooling systems and plumbing fittings and fixtures, etc)

(o) Location of external clothes drying facilities;

4.3




(p) Provision of north facing windows to the habitable rooms of the proposed dwelling on Lot 8 to improve energy efficiency in accordance with Standard B10 of Clause 55 of the Banyule Planning Scheme;

(q) Secluded private open space of the proposed dwellings on Lots 10 and 11 increased to a minimum of 40 square metres in accordance with Standard B28 of Clause 55 of the Banyule Planning Scheme;

(r) Deletion of front fencing to the proposed dwellings on Lots 9 to 12;

(s) Bin storage and service meter box locations in accordance with Standard B34 of Clause 55 of the Banyule Planning Scheme;

(t) A schedule of external building materials and colours, including details of cladding, paving and roofing materials; the schedule should be presented on a separate sheet and must include colour samples;

(u) Landscaping as required by Condition 12 of this permit;

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

(i) The use of an On-site Stormwater Detention (OSD) system; (ii) The connection to the Council nominated legal point of discharge; (iii) The outfall drainage works necessary to connect the subject site to

the Council nominated Legal Point of Discharge; (iv) The specified flood level for the property. (v) The integration, details and connections of all Water Sensitive Urban

Design features in accordance with the endorsed Sustainable Management Plan dated 7 March 2014 prepared by Ark and include drainage details as a result of landscaping.

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

(w) The Tree Preservation Fencing in accordance with the conditions of this permit;

(x) Landscape and tree zones to be clearly marked with hatching, colour coding or similar and distinguished from useable open space areas;

(y) A plan notation indicating that no building works or facilities are to be provided within the dedicated landscape areas;

(z) The provision of a rainwater storage tank for each of the dwellings including its location, sizing and a notation of the connections and end use;

(aa) Hard standing area within Road 3 for rubbish bin collection for Lots 9 to12;

(bb) A minimum of 20% of the proposed dwellings to comply with Council’s Livable Housing Design Guidelines.

4.3




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

Landscaping Plan (14) The development permitted by this permit must not be commenced until a

satisfactory detailed landscaping plan for Stage 1 is submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Such plan must be prepared by a person suitably qualified or experienced in landscape design and shall include:

(a) Details of planting throughout Stage 1, including individual lots and tree planting within open space and road reserves;

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

(c) Provision of formed garden beds with edging around the landscape zone within the front setback to prevent cars parking within those areas

(d) Planting adjacent to driveways and within landscaping zones to consist of varying heights and species;

(e) A plan notation indicating that no building works or facilities are to be provided within the dedicated landscape areas;

(f) Provision of replacement planting for vegetation that is to be removed including any off-set planting required;

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

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

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

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

(k) No pedestrian/bicycle path to Browns Reserve and Paraweena Court

(l) Screen planting along the northern boundary of Lot 3 to soften views of this building from the north

Offset Plan (15) The development permitted by this permit must not be commenced until an

Offset Plan has been submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Three copies must be provided and must show the following:

(a) Appropriate offsets to compensate for the loss of habitat hectares of vegetation;

(b) Include details of:

4.3




(i) Means of calculating the offsets (ii) Locations where offsets will be provided (iii) Type of offsets to be provided for each location (iv) Details of revegetation including the number of trees, shrubs and

other plants, species mix and density (v) Means of interim protection for the offsets (vi) Methods of permanent protection for the offsets (vii) Persons responsible for implementing and monitoring the offset

plans (viii) Time frames for implementing the offset plans (ix) Details of any earthworks, drainage and other works

(c) The plans may include: (i) A requirement for the owner to enter into a Section 173 Agreement

in respect of specified land (ii) A requirement for the owner to enter a binding agreement with a

specified person in order to implement aspects of the offset plan (iii) A requirement for the owner to provide a bond as security for

completion of any part of the offset plan.

(d) When approved, offset plans must be implemented within 12 months of the commencement of works associated with subdivision unless otherwise specified in the offset plans. Maintenance and replanting of vegetation is to be undertaken if necessary until all the requisite numbers of plants are effectively established and have survived for at least 3 years.

General (16) Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority the proposed

dwelling(s) permitted by this permit must not be occupied until Stage 1 of the development has been completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority in accordance with the permit and endorsed plans (including, but not limited to built form and layout, parking, landscaping, drainage, street numbering, replacement of street trees).

Amenity (17) Noise emissions from any air-conditioning, heating, ventilation and the like

must comply with State Environment Protection (Residential Noise) Regulations 1997 and/or Environmental Protection Authority Noise Control Guidelines TG 302/92, which ever is deemed to be appropriate by the Responsible Authority.

Urban Design / External Appearance (18) The walls of the development on the boundary of adjoining properties must be

cleaned and finished in a manner to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

(19) All external materials, finishes and paint colours are to be to the satisfaction of

the Responsible Authority.

4.3




Car Parking / Access (20) Areas set aside for the parking of vehicles together with the aisles and access

lanes must be properly formed to such levels that they can be utilised in accordance with the endorsed plans and must be drained and provided with an all weather seal coat. The areas must be constructed, drained and maintained in a continuously useable condition to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

(21) Areas set aside for the parking and movement of vehicles as shown on the

endorsed plan(s) must be made available for such use and must not be used for any other purpose.

(22) Vehicular access or egress to the subject land from any roadway or service

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

Tree Protection / Landscaping (23) Except with the further written consent of the Responsible Authority, no

vegetation (other than that indicated on the endorsed plan, or exempt from planning permission under the provisions of the Banyule Planning Scheme) shall be damaged, removed, destroyed or lopped.

(24) The development permitted by this permit must not be commenced until a

satisfactory Tree Protection Plan for Stage 1 is submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Such a report must be prepared by a person suitably qualified or experienced in arboriculture, must be prepared in accordance with Section 5, AS4970 – Protection of Trees on Development Sites, and shall include:

(a) Three copies of an A3 plan and corresponding detail identifying:

(i) The location of each tree (those to be retained only), their species and other relevant identifying information

(ii) The locations of tree protection fencing and any other methods such as hording that may be used to protect trees during demolition and construction.

4.3




(b) In relation to the development phase:

(i) The processes required to initiate, manage and protect the canopies, limbs and root systems of retained trees during the construction process. All processes and protective measures must be undertaken in accordance with the guidelines detailed in AS4970-2009 Protection of Trees on Development Sites. Particular detail must given in regards to the management process of tree root systems – including supervision, root exposure and excavation method, and root severance – where works are approved within the TPZ of a retained tree. No works shall be commenced within the TPZ of any of these trees until such a protection plan report is received and endorsed by the Responsible Authority.

(ii) Inclusion of the project arborist details, and dates when periodical inspections will take place to ensure compliance as well as the scheduling of proposed tree management techniques.

(c) Following completion of the development:

(i) Maintenance requirements for the trees. (ii) Ongoing tree protection requirements. (iii) Other relevant recommendations.

(25) Except with the further written consent of the Responsible Authority, no

vegetation (other than that indicated on the endorsed plan, or exempt from planning permission under the provisions of the Banyule Planning Scheme) shall be damaged, removed, destroyed or lopped.

(26) Any underground service installations within the calculated Tree Protection

Zone of any retained tree must be bored to a depth of at least 600mm. (27) All and any tree pruning is to be carried out by a trained and competent arborist

who has a thorough knowledge of tree physiology and pruning methods. Pruning must be carried out in accordance with Australian Standard AS4373-2007 Pruning of Amenity Trees. Tree pruning is to be restricted to the removal of no greater than 15% of the total live canopy of individual trees.

Melbourne Water (28) Pollution and sediment laden runoff shall not be discharged directly or indirectly

into Melbourne water’s drains or waterways. (29) Stormwater runoff from the subdivision must achieve State Environment

Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria) objectives for environmental management of stormwater as set out in the ‘Urban Stormwater Best practice Environmental Management Guidelines (CSIRO) 1999’.

(30) Prior to the commencement of works, separate application must be submitted

to Melbourne Water for any new or modified stormwater connection to the St Helena west Drain.

4.3




(31) Prior to the commencement of works, a landscape plan must be submitted to Melbourne Water for approval that details any planting or vegetation within the waterway corridor.

(32) Prior to the commencement of works, detailed functional plans for the wetland

and related waterway works must be submitted to Melbourne Water for review. The on line wetland system must be constructed and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

(33) Prior to the commencement of works, a Site Environmental Management plan

(SEMP) must be submitted that includes details of measures to protect or mitigate risk to waterway values (both at the site and further downstream). This should include a site map detailing the location and design of all measures such as:

a. Silt fencing; b. Access tracks; c. Spoil stockpiling d. Trenching locations e. Machinery/Plant locations f. Exclusion fencing around native vegetation/habitat

(34) Stormwater drainage shall be to Council’s satisfaction. (35) Any new development must not increase flood levels downstream during a 1 in

100 year flood event. (36) All lots must be filled to a minimum of 600mm above the applicable flood level

associated with the St Helena West Drain. Construction Management Plan (37) Before the development starts, a construction management plan must be

prepared and submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval. The plan must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Once approved, the plan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The plan must address the following issues:

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

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

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

(d) site security;

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

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

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

4.3




(h) cleaning and maintaining surrounding road surfaces;

(i) a requirement that construction works must only be carried out during the following hours:

Monday to Friday (inclusive) – 7.00am to 6.00pm; Saturday – 9.00am to 1.00pm; Saturday – 1.00pm to 5.00pm

(Only activities associated with the erection of buildings. This does not include

excavation or the use of heavy machinery.) No work is to be carried out on Sundays, ANZAC Day, Christmas Day or Good

Friday. Stage 1 - Subdivision Plan Amended Subdivision Plan Required (38) Prior to Certification of the Plan of Subdivision for Stage 1, amended plans to

the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application but modified to show:

(a) Deletion of Road 2 and show as common property

(b) The ground area of each Open Space Reserve No’s 1 to 6

(c) Adjustment to alignment of Road 3 in Stage 1 to provide for the retention and protection of Tree 139

(39) The subdivision as shown on the endorsed plan for shall not be altered or

modified (whether or not in order to comply with any statute, Statutory Rule or By-Law or for any other reason) without the consent of the Responsible Authority.

Roadworks and Drainage (40) Prior to a Statement of Compliance being issued for Stage 1 the Plan of

Subdivision, ‘Give Way’ line marking at the intersections of Allumba Drive/Beales Road and Pindari Drive/Beales Road shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

(41) Prior to Certification of the Plan of Subdivision for Stage 1 detailed road works

and drainage civil works plans with specifications must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Such plans must include:

a. Fully sealed asphalt pavements with SM2kerb and channel on both sides of carriageway and concrete vehicular crossings for each allotment where appropriate. Road pavements must be a minimum of 5.5 metres between kerb inverts. A pavement design must be considerate of subgrade conditions and sub-grade improvements may be warranted. Minimum pavement depth is to be 260mm

4.3




b. All Court bowls, T-head courts and intersections designed to cater for 12 metre long refuse and drain vacuum trucks;

c. An at grade threshold surface treatment at the interface of Road 3 and Beales Road extending to the intersection of Road 1 and Road 3.

d. An at grade threshold surface treatment at the intersection of Road 3 and Road 3 outside lot 17.

e. A concrete footpath of 1.5 metres in width and maximum x-fall 1:40 is to be provided on at least one side of all roads.

f. Concrete footpaths must be provided through all reserves as identified on plan TP070

g. Kerb and channel with the use of 600mm wide SM2 Rollover kerb;

h. Surface and underground drains including;

a. Pit and pipe layout, long sections, pit schedules and drainage computations

b. Details of GPT’s including sizing calculations and future maintenance regime

c. 100 year storm overland flow paths

i. GPT and wetland maintenance structures including hardstands for 12.5m vacuum drain trucks and access roads for 8.8m service vehicles.

j. Underground conduits for water, gas, electricity and telephone;

k. Appropriate intersection and traffic measures;

l. Street lighting in accordance with Australian Standards(with electrical supply plan and lighting layout plan);

m. Street signage and line marking;

n. High stability permanent survey marks;

o. Vehicle crossings with a maximum width of 3.0m;

p. The location of street trees;

q. Reserve fencing around all open space reserves to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

r. Earthworks and fill with a compacted depth greater than 150mm. The details of the road works and drainage plan may be varied with the consent of the Responsible Authority.

(42) Prior to a Statement of Compliance being issued for Stage 1, all street tree and

reserve planting and other facilities are to have been completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Melbourne Water (43) Prior to Certification, the Plan of Subdivision must be referred to Melbourne

Water, in accordance with section 8 of the Subdivision Act 1988.

4.3




(44) Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance, the owner shall enter into and comply with an agreement with Melbourne Water Corporation for the acceptance of surface and storm water from the subject land directly or indirectly into Melbourne Water’s drainage systems and waterways, the provision of drainage works and other matters in accordance with the statutory powers of Melbourne Water Corporation.

(45) Prior to Certification of the Plan of Subdivision for any stage, a hydraulic report

must be submitted to Melbourne water demonstrating that the proposed development will have no adverse impacts on the floodplain or increase flood levels downstream. Computations must be submitted that details impacts upon flows, velocities, flood storage and flood levels.

CFA Hydrants (46) Operable hydrants, above or below ground must be provided to the satisfaction

of the CFA. (47) The maximum distance between these hydrants and the rear of all building

envelopes (or in the absence of the building, the rear of all lots) must be 120m and hydrants must be no more than 200m apart.

(48) Hydrants must be identified as specified in ‘Identification of Street Hydrants for

Firefighting Purposes’ available under publications on the Country Fire Authority web site (www.cfa.vic.gov.au)

Roads (49) Roads must be constructed to a standard so that they are accessible in all

weather conditions and capable of accommodating a vehicle of 15 tonnes for the trafficable road width.

(50) The average grade must be no more than 1 in 7 (14.4%) (8.1 degrees) with a

maximum of no more than 1 in 5 (20%) (11.3 degrees) for no more than 50 meters. Dips must have no more than a 1 in 8 (12%) (7.1 degrees) entry and exit angle.

Yarra Valley Water (51) The owner of the subject land must enter into an agreement with Yarra Valley

Water for the provision of water supply. (52) The owner of the subject land must enter into an agreement with Yarra Valley

Water for the provision of sewerage. SP Ausnet (53) The applicant must –

Enter in an agreement with SPI Electricity Pty Ltd for supply of electricity to each lot on the endorsed plan.

4.3




Enter into an agreement with SPI Electricity Pty Ltd for the rearrangement of the existing electricity supply system.

Enter into an agreement with SPI Electricity Pty Ltd, for rearrangement of the points of supply to any existing installations affected by any private electric power line which would cross a boundary created by the subdivision, or by such means as may be agreed by SPI Electricity Pty Ltd.

Provide easements satisfactory to SPI Electricity Pty Ltd for the purpose of “Power Line” in the favour of “SPI Electricity Pty Ltd” pursuant to Section 88 of the Electricity Industry Act 2000, where easements have not been otherwise provided, for all existing SPI Electricity Pty Ltd electric power lines and for any new power lines required to service the lots on the endorsed plan and/or abutting land.

Obtain for the use of SPI Electricity Pty Ltd any other easement required to service the lots.

Adjust the position of any existing SPI Electricity Pty Ltd easement to accord with the position of the electricity line(s) as determined by survey.

Set aside on the plan of subdivision Reserves for the use of SPI Electricity Pty Ltd for electric substations

Provide survey plans for any electric substations required by SPI Electricity Pty Ltd and for associated power lines and cables and executes leases for a period of 30 years, at a nominal rental with a right to extend the lease for a further 30 years. SPI Electricity Pty Ltd requires that such leases are to be noted on the title by way of a caveat or notification under section 88(2) of the Transfer of land Act prior to the registration of the plan of subdivision.

Provide to SPI Electricity Pty Ltd a copy of the plan of subdivision submitted for certification that shows any amendments that have been required.

Agree to provide alternative electricity supply to lot owners and/or each lot until such time as permanent supply is available to the development by SPI Electricity Pty Ltd. Individual generators must be provided at each supply point. The generator for temporary supply must be installed in such a manner as to comply with the Electricity Safety Act 1998.

Ensure that all necessary auditing is completed to the satisfaction of SPI Electricity Pty Ltd to allow the new network assets to be safely connected to the distribution network.

Telecommunications (54) The owner of the land must enter into an agreement with:

a telecommunications network or service provider for the provision of telecommunication services to each lot shown on the endorsed plan in accordance with the provider’s requirements and relevant legislation at the time; and

4.3




a suitably qualified person for the provision of fibre ready telecommunication facilities to each lot shown on the endorsed plan in accordance with any industry specifications or any standards set by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, unless the applicant can demonstrate that the land is in an area where the National Broadband Network will not be provided by optical fibre.

(55) Before the issue of a Statement of Compliance for any stage of the subdivision

under the Subdivision Act 1988, the owner of the land must provide written confirmation from:

a telecommunications network or service provider that all lots are connected to or are ready for connection to telecommunications services in accordance with the provider’s requirements and relevant legislation at the time; and

a suitably qualified person that fibre ready telecommunication facilities have been provided in accordance with any industry specifications or any standards set by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, unless the applicant can demonstrate that the land is in an area where the National Broadband Network will not be provided by optical fibre.

Time Limits Subdivision (56) In accordance with section 68 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, this

permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

(a) the plan of subdivision for the first stage is not certified within 2 years of the date of this permit; or

(b) the plan of subdivision for any subsequent stage is not certified within 2

years of the date of certification of the previous stage of the subdivision. (c) the registration of any stage of the subdivision is not completed within 5

years of the date of certification of the plans of subdivision. The responsible authority may extend the time if a request is made in

writing in accordance with, and within the timeframes specified, in Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Development (57) In accordance with section 68 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, this permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

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

The development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit.

4.3




In accordance with section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing: (a) Before the permit expires, or (b) Within six months afterwards, or (c) Within 12 months afterwards if the development started lawfully before the permit expired. Permit Notes (A) Expiry of Permit In the event that this permit expires or the subject land is proposed to be used or developed for purposes different from those for which this permit is granted, there is no guarantee that a new permit will be granted. If a permit is granted then the permit conditions may vary from those included on this permit having regard to changes that might occur to circumstances, planning scheme provisions or policy. (B) Completion of Development Immediately upon completion of the development permitted by this permit, the owner or developer of the subject land must notify Council’s Development Planning Section that the development is complete and complies with all requirements of the permit. The development will then be inspected to ensure compliance. An early inspection process will ensure that the subdivision approvals including the Statement of Compliance can be issued without delay. (C) Street Numbering Please note that property addresses are allocated by Council. Please contact Council to discuss street naming and numbering prior to Certification of the Plan of Subdivision. (D) Access to Council Reserve No permission can be granted either temporary or otherwise by Council and/or its employees with respect to access to the adjacent Council owned land (including the road reserve) for any purposes relating to the proposal (eg. parking of surplus vehicles, delivery of materials etc.), without application being made for the requisite permit (ie. Local Law Permit). (E) Commencement of Works Pursuant to Section 17(1) of the Subdivision Act 1988, works relating to the subdivision must not be commenced prior to certification of the plan of subdivision, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority.

4.3




(F) Melbourne Water Contact If further information is required in relation to Melbourne water’s permit conditions shown above, please contact Melbourne water on telephone 9679 7517, quoting Melbourne Water’s reference 236725

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

4.4



4.4 ADDITIONAL PAID PARKING LOCATIONS IN HEIDELBERG

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

Ward: Griffin

File: F2014/131

Previous Items Council on 23 September 2013 (Item 4.3 - Additional Paid Parking Locations in

Banyule)

Council on 26 August 2013 (Item 4.1 - Additional Paid Parking Locations in Banyule)

Council on 17 December 2012 (Item 9.1 - Additional pay parking locations in Banyule)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council allocated $132,000 funding in the 2014/15 Capital Works program to introduce paid parking at specific locations in Heidelberg and replace existing parking meters with ticket machines. Following an assessment of these projects, they have been re-scoped to achieve a more efficient use of resources and provide a better response to parking demand.



CITY PLAN

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

BACKGROUND

Consistent with Resolution CO2013/327 (Council Meeting on 23 September 2013) to provide additional paid parking in Banyule, Council included $132,000 funding in the 2014/15 Capital Works program to introduce paid parking at specific locations in Heidelberg and replace some existing parking meters with ticket machines. Further work has been undertaken to assess the cost and benefit of these works. This Report sets out the proposed installation of paid parking systems at locations that provide an efficient and effective use of resources and appropriate response to parking demand. The proposal details the locations for installation of new ticket machines and relocation of redundant parking meters to alternative locations in Heidelberg.

4.4


ADDITIONAL PAID PARKING LOCATIONS IN HEIDELBERG cont’d


Locality Plan

Figure 1. Heidelberg paid parking locations discussed in this report

CURRENT SITUATION

Individual (lollipop style) parking meters manage the paid parking at 8 spaces on the east side of Upper Heidelberg Road (Brown St to opposite Montgomery St), 19 spaces on the north side of Darebin Street (Upper Heidelberg Rd to Powlett St) and a further 8 spaces on the South side of Darebin Street (Stradbroke Ave to Martin St). There is unrestricted all-day parking on the west side of Powlett Street (Darebin St to Brown St). Currently approximately 29 vehicles park in this area each weekday. Similarly there is unrestricted all-day parking for up to four vehicles on the south side of Brown Street (Powlett St to opposite Mortimer St).

FUNDING IMPLICATIONS

Council has allocated $132,000 in the 2014/15 Capital Works budget for the following works: 1. Replace the eight parking meters on the east side of Upper Heidelberg Road

(Brown St to opposite Montgomery St) with a ticket machine ($20,500); 2. Introduce a paid parking system for four parking spaces on the south side of

Brown Street (Powlett St to opposite Mortimer St) ($22,500); and 3. Introduce a paid parking system for 29 spaces on the west side of Powlett

Street (Darebin St to Brown St) ($89,000, including significant footpath and infrastructure works).

4.4




DISCUSSION

The following assessment has been undertaken of the cost and benefit of the paid parking projects funded in the 2014/15 Capital Works budget:

Item 1 above is considered appropriate. One new ticket machine will be provided to replace the existing eight parking meters. The parking meters will become surplus.

Item 2 above is considered appropriate however the provision of a new ticket machine to manage four parking spaces is considered inefficient. It is proposed that parking meters released from Item 1 be relocated to manage these four parking spaces. If the occupancy of these paid parking spaces warrants, future consideration could be given to allocating additional paid parking spaces and replacing the parking meters with a new ticket machine.

The original proposal for Item 3 above was to provide new ticket machines to manage the parking and construct a new footpath on the west side of Powlett Street between Darebin Street and Brown Street. The site constraints would require significant infrastructure works with potential impact on trees to provide adequate, safe, pedestrian access to the ticket machines. It is considered more efficient to provide 29 individual parking meters at this location, providing safe access and significantly less infrastructure works. The provision of a new footpath on the west side of Powlett Street between Darebin Street and Brown Street is considered appropriate to provide a continuous footpath between the paid parking area in Brown Street to Burgundy Street. The full extent of works on the West side of Powlett Street between Darebin Street and Brown Street could be undertaken as a future project.

In addition, it is proposed to replace the existing 19 parking meters on the north side of Darebin Street (Upper Heidelberg Rd to Powlett St) with two new ticket machines and replace existing 8 parking meters on the south side of Darebin Street (Stradbroke Ave to Martin St) with one new ticket machine. This will release 27 parking meters that can be relocated to Powlett Street (Item 3 above) with the shortfall to be sourced from surplus parking meters removed in item 1. These works can be implemented within the $132,000 funds allocated for the original projects. The existing revenue from the parking meters in Upper Heidelberg Road (Brown St to opposite Montgomery St) and Darebin Street (Upper Heidelberg Rd to Martin St) is approximately $3,600 per month. Based on this and the utilisation of other paid parking in the Heidelberg area, it is estimated that the future revenue from the four locations proposed here will be $5,500 per month.

TIMELINES

The re-scoped projects can be commenced immediately.

CONCLUSION

Following an assessment of the $132,000 paid parking projects funded in the 2014/115 Capital Works program, it is considered appropriate to re-scope the projects to achieve a more efficient use of resources and provide a better response to parking demand.

4.4




RECOMMENDATION

That Council notes the re-scoping of the Capital Works projects to implement paid parking measures in Heidelberg to provide more efficient use of resources and supports: 1. The replacement of eight parking meters to manage parking on the east side of

Upper Heidelberg Road (Brown St to opposite Montgomery St) with one new ticket machine;

2. The relocation of parking meters (from 1 above) to manage parking at four parking spaces on the south side of Brown Street (Powlett St to opposite Mortimer St);

3. The installation of two new ticket machines to manage parking at 19 parking

spaces on the north side of Darebin Street (Upper Heidelberg Rd to Powlett St) and one new ticket machine to manage 8 parking spaces on the south side of Darebin Street (Stradbroke Ave to Martin St); and

4. The relocation of parking meters (from 1 and 3 above) at 29 spaces on the

west side of Powlett Street (Darebin St to Brown St).

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

4.5



4.5 LOWER HEIDELBERG ROAD / YARRA STREET INTERSECTION ALTERATIONS

Author: Sanjev Sivananthanayagam - Transport Engineer, City Development

Ward: Griffin

File: F2014/141

Previous Items Council on 7 July 2014 (Item 4.17 - Rosanna Road and Greensborough Highway

safety and amenity)

Council on 17 June 2013 (Item 9.2 - Rosanna Road and Greensborough Highway - Safety and Amenity)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In accordance with Council resolution CO2014/207, local properties / business owners in Yarra Street have been consulted to determine the level of support for VicRoads proposed intersection alterations at Lower Heidelberg Road and Yarra Street, Heidelberg, as part of its Rosanna Road and Greensborough Highway safety and amenity project. Based on consultation feedback with business owners in proximity to the Yarra Street / Lower Heidelberg Road intersection, it is considered that modifications to VicRoads proposal should be supported. The modified version includes banning ‘straight through’ movements on Yarra Street across Lower Heidelberg Road and banning ‘right turn’ movements out of Yarra Street but retains the northbound ‘right turn’ movement from Lower Heidelberg Road into Yarra Street.



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

VicRoads has developed a proposal for road safety and amenity improvements on Lower Heidelberg Road and Rosanna Road between Banksia Street, Heidelberg and Lower Plenty Road, Rosanna to submit for TAC Road Safety funding. VicRoads has indicated that an important component of the proposal includes alterations to the intersection of Lower Heidelberg Road and Yarra Street. The proposal at Yarra Street involves the implementation of turn bans that will make Yarra Street ‘left out only’ for eastbound and westbound traffic and ban northbound right turns from Lower Heidelberg Road into Yarra Street.

4.5


LOWER HEIDELBERG ROAD / YARRA STREET INTERSECTION ALTERATIONS cont’d


At its meeting on 7 July 2014, Council considered a report regarding safety and amenity issues on Rosanna Road and Greensborough Highway, and resolved:

“That Council:

1. Consults with businesses in Yarra Street, Heidelberg between Cape Street and Dora Street to determine the potential benefits and impacts of suggested intersection alterations and turn bans at the intersection of Lower Heidelberg Road and Yarra Street.

2. Advises VicRoads that it supports the bans ‘in-principle’ on the basis that

they are introduced as part of a series of safety and amenity improvements along Rosanna Road and Greensborough Road and subject to further consultation with nearby businesses.”

Locality Plan

Figure 1 – Lower Heidelberg Road and Yarra Street Intersection

DISCUSSION

VicRoads is proposing to implement turn bans that will make Yarra Street ‘left out only’ for eastbound and westbound traffic and ban northbound right turns from Lower Heidelberg Road into Yarra Street as part of a bid for TAC Road Safety funding (See Figure 2). There have been two serious injury and four other injury crashes at this intersection in the last five years.

Subject

Location Subject Location

4.5




A community consultation survey was circulated to 14 property and business owners in Yarra Street between Cape Street and Dora Street to establish the views of local property and business owners to the proposed alterations to the Lower Heidelberg Road and Yarra Street intersection. Four written submissions were received. All four respondents were supportive of making Yarra Street left out only from both directions but did not support the proposal to ban the northbound right turn into Yarra Street.

Figure 2 – Lower Heidelberg Road and Yarra Street Intersection – VicRoads Proposed Alterations

In response to the survey feedback, a number of meetings were conducted with interested stakeholders to discuss the proposal. The stakeholders generally accepted the need for safety improvements at the Yarra Street intersection, and supported banning of the ‘straight through’ movements on Yarra Street and the ‘right out’ movements made from Yarra Street into Lower Heidelberg Road, on both sides of the intersection. There was however widespread concern among business owners / representatives of the effects of the proposed banning of the northbound right turn movement from Lower Heidelberg Road into Yarra Street. A number of businesses in the Yarra Street (East) precinct rely heavily on deliveries from truck/heavy vehicle movements that utilise the northbound right turn movement through this intersection, for which there is no practical alternative in the surrounding road network.

4.5




One business owner indicated that their business receives up to five truck movements a day (i.e. semi-trailers delivering goods) and up to 25 truck movements a week that utilise this turning movement. Another business representative indicated that up to 800 vehicle movements a day are generated by their fleet of 105 courier vehicles that also utilise the northbound right turn into Yarra Street. Three businesses raised concerns in relation to potentially losing customers to their business. In response to this community feedback, further discussions were held with VicRoads officers to consider a modified version of the proposal that retains the northbound right turn movement from Lower Heidelberg Road into Yarra Street. VicRoads indicated the alternative proposal would still rank high in their analysis and would support this proposal and proceed with the TAC funding submission. A concept plan of the modified proposal is shown at Figure 3.

Figure 3 – Lower Heidelberg Road and Yarra Street Intersection - Modified Alterations

CONCLUSION

Following consultation with business owners in Yarra Street regarding VicRoads proposed alterations to the Lower Heidelberg Road and Yarra Street intersection, the proposed banning of ‘straight through’ movements on Yarra Street and ‘right turn’ movements from Yarra Street into Lower Heidelberg Road are supported. VicRoads proposal to ban the northbound right turn into Yarra Street is not supported. The modified alternative proposal that retains the northbound right turn movement from Lower Heidelberg Road into Yarra Street (see Attachment 1) is supported.

4.5




Based on consultation feedback with business owners in proximity to the Yarra Street / Lower Heidelberg Road intersection, it is considered that modifications to VicRoads proposal should be supported. The modified version includes banning ‘straight through’ movements on Yarra Street across Lower Heidelberg Road and banning ‘right turn’ movements out of Yarra Street but retains the northbound ‘right turn’ movement from Lower Heidelberg Road into Yarra Street.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council: 1. Supports the modified alteration to the Lower Heidelberg Road and Yarra

Street intersection which includes banning ‘straight through’ movements on Yarra Street and ‘right turn’ movements from Yarra Street into Lower Heidelberg Road and retains the northbound right turn movement from Lower Heidelberg Road into Yarra Street.

2. Advises VicRoads and businesses in Yarra Street, Heidelberg between Cape Street and Dora Street of the above resolution accordingly.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

4.6



4.6 PROPOSED APARTMENT BUILDING AT 20 MORWELL AVENUE, WATSONIA

Author: Nick Helliwell - Major Developments Planner, City Development

Ward: Grimshaw

File: P604/2013

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The proposal seeks to construct a three storey apartment building, with an additional basement car park. The building presents as three storeys at the front facing the street and steps down to double storey height at the rear. The building would accommodate a total of 18 apartments, comprising eight one bedroom and ten two bedroom apartments. A total of 20 on site car parking spaces are proposed within a basement level, including two visitor spaces. This requires a waiver of one visitor parking space. The application is being reported to Council as the building scale and typology is different to the current surrounding character. Council could consider that the site is appropriately located for this type of development which, subject to some modifications, would be consistent with Council’s Residential Areas Framework which seeks to promote housing change and support this form of development in this area. Alternatively, should Council consider that the existing Neighbourhood Character for this area be given primary weight and preserved, then the proposal may be deemed inappropriate and the application refused.

Planning Permit Application: P604/2013

Development Planner: Nick Helliwell

Address: 20 Morwell Avenue, Watsonia

Proposal: Construction of a three storey apartment building with basement level car park and waiver of one on site visitor car parking space.

Existing Use/Development: Residential/Single dwelling

Applicant: David Watson Architect Pty Ltd

Zoning: General Residential

Overlays: Vegetation Protection – Schedule 5

Notification (Advertising): Abutting and opposite owners/occupiers and notice on site frontage

Objections Received: Twelve (12)

Ward: Grimshaw

4.6


PROPOSED APARTMENT BUILDING AT 20 MORWELL AVENUE, WATSONIA cont’d


The proposal has a maximum height of 9.6 metres above natural ground level at the front of the site. Along its length the building steps down in scale with a maximum height of 9.1 metres in the centre and 8 metres at the rear where the building scale is reduced to two storeys. The building would be faced with a variety of treatments and materials including textured coloured render and coloured face brickwork. Each apartment would be provided with secluded private open space ranging from 8 square metres for a first floor apartment to 72 square metres for a ground floor apartment. Removal of five trees from the site is proposed to facilitate the development although planning permission is not required for their removal.



BACKGROUND/HISTORY

Determination of the application was deferred at the 4th August 2014 Council meeting to provide the permit applicant with the opportunity to consider deleting the entire second floor level of the building from the proposal. The applicant has since confirmed that a decision is required on the application as presented to Council and that in the meantime, an application for review of Council’s failure to determine the application within the prescribed time is to be lodged with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

The site is located on the periphery of the Watsonia Neighbourhood Activity Centre on the north-eastern side of Morwell Avenue. The site is located approximately 250 metres from Watsonia railway station, 98 metres from the closest shops and 35 metres to the north-west of the Watsonia RSL. The site comprises a chisel shaped parcel of land with a frontage width of 21.3 metres and a maximum depth of 49.5 metres. The site is oriented north-east to south-west and has an area of 970 square metres. The site is encumbered by two easements; the first is a 4.6 metre wide SPI PowerNet high voltage power line easement that extends across the full frontage width of the property with the second being a 1.8 metre wide drainage easement located along the north-eastern boundary of the site.

4.6




The site is presently occupied by a single storey detached brick dwelling with a gabled clay tile roof. A detached flat roofed single garage is located to the rear of the dwelling and is constructed on the south-eastern site boundary. Access to the site is provided by a single width vehicle crossover located in the southern corner of the site. A low brick wall extends along the site frontage with the side and rear boundaries screened by 1.6 to 2.3 metre high close boarded timber fencing. The front garden comprises lawn and lower storey landscaping. No trees are located within the front garden with five small trees no greater than 7 metres in height located within the rear garden.

Figure 1 – Locality Plan

The northern site boundary abuts the rear gardens of dwellings at No’s 9 and 11 Tennyson Street. The dwelling at No 9 Tennyson Street is a single story detached brick structure located a minimum of 19.2 metres from the application site boundary. This dwelling is separated from the application site by this rear garden, which also accommodates a detached brick garage and shed. The dwelling at No.11 is a single storey detached weatherboard dwelling located a minimum of 16 metres from the application site boundary. This dwelling is also separated from the application site by the rear garden of this dwelling, which also accommodates a detached garage and shed as well as a number of mature trees up to 18 metres in height. To the east of the site is a three unit development comprising a single storey weatherboard dwelling at the front with two, two storey weatherboard dwellings to the rear. These dwellings are separated from the application site by the driveway serving these dwellings and the car port of the rear dwelling. The dwellings are located between 3.7 and 5.9 metres from the application site boundary.

4.6




To the south (frontage) of the site is the 50 metre wide road reserve of Morwell Avenue, the centre of which accommodates a high voltage electrical transmission line, beneath which is generally laid to grass and lower to middle storey landscaping. Development beyond this and opposite the application site comprises single and two storey detached dwellings with hipped clay tile roofs. To the west of the application site at 22 Morwell Avenue are two single storey dwellings with the front dwelling comprising a weatherboard structure covered with a gable ended concrete tile roof and the rear dwelling a brick structure with a zinc ridged roof. The character of the surrounding area can be described as a combination of residential and commercial uses with residential building form ranging in scale from one to two storeys in height. Commercial uses located a short distance to the south-east range in scale from single storey shops on Watsonia Road. It is worth noting the Watsonia RSL which is located two properties away to the south east and is of a similar height to the proposal.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

The proposal initially comprised a three storey apartment building comprising 20 dwellings and a waiver of four on site visitor car parking spaces. A notice was placed on the site frontage and adjoining and opposite land owners/occupiers were notified by post of the proposal. A total of twelve objections were received against the amended planning application. The grounds for objection are summarised as:

Building scale out of character with area

One bedroom dwellings out of character with the area

Vegetation removal/lack of landscaping

Drainage

Overlooking of abutting residential properties

Overshadowing of abutting residential properties

Car parking and traffic

Inadequate space for bin storage/collection within site frontage

Fire safety

Increased noise

Property devaluation A public consultation meeting was held with a number of the objectors, the permit applicant and the Ward Councillor. As a result of this meeting and discussions with the permit applicant, the application was formally amended by removing two apartments from the rear top floor section of the building to create a two storey structure at the rear and three storey building at the front. The reduction in the number of apartments also reduced the on-site visitor car parking requirement for the proposal by one space. This amended planning application was re-advertised. A total of 12 objections were received against the amended proposal with grounds remaining as outlined above.

4.6




REFERRAL COMMENTS

Referrals were made to SPI PowerNet as well as Council’s Arborist, Environmentally Sensitive Design Adviser, and Engineering Services. No objections were received from any of the referrals subject to conditions. In particular, SPI PowerNet require that no part of the proposed building be located within the high voltage power line easement, landscaping within the easement not to exceed 3 metres in height and all works within the easement to be submitted to and approved in writing by SPI PowerNet. A summary of the referral responses is provided in Attachment 2 to this report.

PLANNING CONTROLS

The planning controls applicable to the site are outlined in Table 1 below: Table 1: Applicable Planning Controls

Control Clause Permit Triggered

General Residential Zone 32.08 Yes

Vegetation Protection Overlay – Schedule 5 (VPO5) 42.02 No

Car Parking requirements 52.06 Yes

POLICIES CONSIDERED Relevant policies considered in the assessment of this proposal are outlined in table 2 below: Table 2: Relevant Planning Scheme Policy

Policy Clause

SPPF

Settlement 11

Built Environment and Heritage (including sub clauses) 15

Housing (including sub clauses) 16

LPPF

Land Use 21.04

Natural Environment 21.05

Built Environment (Accessible area) 21.06

Residential Neighbourhood Character Policy – Garden Suburban Precinct 2.

22.02

Safer Design Policy 22.03


The following key technical considerations are considered relevant in determining the suitability of the proposal. RESPONSE TO POLICY FRAMEWORK Having regard to the relevant policies that apply to the site, on balance, it is considered that the proposal should be supported:

4.6




The proposal seeks to introduce a residential scale and typology that represents a degree of change to the residential area which surrounds the Watsonia Neighbourhood Activity Centre. While there is no structure plan for the Watsonia Neighbourhood Activity Centre, Council’s Residential Areas Framework at Clause 21.06-2 of the Scheme indicates that an accessible site which is in close proximity to an activity centre and public transport presents an opportunity for a higher density development.

The proposal does not strictly comply with all of the design responses set out Council’s Neighbourhood Character Policy however, given the strategic merit based around the site’s location, it is considered that less weighting, in this case should be given to the existing and preferred neighbourhood character. In particular, tree planting opportunities are limited at the front of the site due to the power line easement and basement car park however, conditions can require modifications to provide for the establishment of a medium tree at the rear of the site. It is further noted that the powerline easement restricts opportunities for large trees in front yards along Morwell Avenue which influences the existing neighbourhood character.

The proposed development complies with the standards set out in ResCode and on this basis that an apartment style development is considered to be appropriate, compliance with the height and setback standards or ResCode indicates that the scale, massing and amenity impacts of the proposal are acceptable.

Alternatively, should Council consider that the existing Neighbourhood Character for this area be given primary weight and preserved, then the proposal may be deemed inappropriate and the application refused. Further detail is provided below in relation to height, building form and site layout, vegetation, neighbourhood character and car parking. Commentary is also provided with respect to the specific concerns raised in objections not otherwise covered in this report and attachments. HEIGHT, BUILDING FORM AND SITE LAYOUT The proposed building extends along the depth of the block as a single built form. The proposed building form and depth on the block is significantly greater than that of immediately abutting properties, nonetheless the proposal largely complies with the detailed design requirements of Clause 55 of the Scheme or can be modified to comply subject to a permit condition. In determining the appropriateness of the built form, frontage setback is more than 9 metres from the street. This setback complies with Standard B6 of Clause 55 of the Scheme. Whilst the secluded private open space areas of the two ground floor apartments facing the street are located within this setback, the floor plan allows for this open space to be provided outside this area through the relocation of the terrace for apartment 1 to the northern rear side of the apartment and the provision of a balcony or terrace for apartment 8. These modifications can be incorporated as a condition of permit.

4.6




In terms of building height, it is proposed that the development would have a maximum height of 9.6 metres above natural ground level. Due to the slope of the land, a maximum height of 10 metres is permitted under Standard B7 of Clause 55. The proposal complies with this building height. It is also noted that the proposed height is similar to that of the existing RSL located two properties to the south-east of the subject site. The site coverage would be 54% and is within the 60% maximum site coverage permitted under Standard B8 of Clause 55. Site permeability of the site would be 29% and exceeds the minimum requirement under Standard B9 of Clause 55. In relation to building side and rear boundary setbacks, the boundary set back to the rear of the site complies with Standard B17 of Clause 55. The proposal also complies with the required side setbacks in the more sensitive rear half of the site. Whilst there is an element of minor non-compliance at the front half of the site, this is considered to have minimal amenity impact upon neighbourhood character and residential amenity as a neighbouring driveway is located on the south-eastern side with the front garden and a mature tree located on the north-western side. However, due the existing multi-occupancy of the land either side of the site and the likelihood that this pattern of development is unlikely to change in the near future, it is considered appropriate that these setbacks be modified to comply with Standard B17 in order to minimise the potential visual bulk of the proposal as viewed from neighbouring property and from the street and surrounding area. It is considered that this can be achieved without compromising the integrity of the architecture or the level and standard of accommodation provided and will be required as a condition of permit. A copy of the assessment of the proposal against Clause 55 is annexed at Attachment 3 to this report. VEGETATION AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT All vegetation on the site is to be removed. The submitted arborist report supports the removal of these trees and Council’s arborist raises no objection. The setback of the building from the rear boundary ranges from 1.8 to 5.8 metres due to the angle of the boundary. This provides in area in accordance with the Development Planning department’s Tree Planting Guidelines which can provide sufficient space for a medium tree to be planted in this location, supplemented by smaller screen trees, middle storey and screening landscaping generally along site boundaries. One basement car parking space will be required to be removed to provide sufficient in ground planting space within the site and this will be required as a condition of permit. Combined with the stepped building form towards the rear of the site, this planting will not only serve to soften the setting of the development and views from neighbouring property, but will also enhance the garden setting of the development for future residents. Sufficient space is also provided along the side setbacks for the provision of three small trees on either side of the development either within planter tubs or in the ground.

4.6




Planting within the front garden of the building is limited to some extent by the power line easement and the SPI PowerNet permit condition requiring that planting within the easement have a mature height no greater than 3 metres. However, with the modifications to the design and location of the secluded private open space areas for the two ground floor level apartments facing the street, sufficient space will be available for the planting of a large shallow rooted tree, such as a palm, within the front setback to further soften the presentation of the development to the street without encroaching into the power line easement. These landscaping requirements can be required as a condition of permit. NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER The siting and design of the proposed building is considered to meet the built form and landscape objectives and design response outcomes of Council’s Neighbourhood Character Study which are relevant to such a proposal within an Accessible Area. In particular, due the high voltage power line in front of the site, the presence of large canopy trees within front gardens and the streetscape generally is not a characteristic of the area and planting of vegetation with a mature height of more than 3 metres is not supported within the power line easement. The planting of trees within the front set back of the proposal is constrained by the power line easement yet the proposal provides space for the planting of at least one medium sized tree within the front set back clear of the easement. Conditions can require modifications to provide for the establishment of a medium tree at the rear of the site. A detailed Neighbourhood Character Assessment of the proposal is annexed at Attachment 4 to this report. AMENITY IMPACTS Overlooking of neighbouring properties from the proposed development will largely be controlled at ground level through existing or proposed boundary fencing of a minimum height of 1.7 metres and 1.7 metre high screening of balconies and frosting of windows to upper floors. Some additional screening of upper level windows is required on the south-eastern side to control potential overlooking within 9 metres of neighbouring habitable room windows and this is required as a condition of permit. This will ensure compliance with Clause 55 of the Scheme. In terms of overshadowing, shadow diagrams have been provided as part of the application. These diagrams demonstrate that whilst there will be some overshadowing of neighbouring residential property, the orientation of the lot combined with the siting and design of the proposal and the configuration of neighbouring dwellings will ensure that overshadowing will be minimal. The proposal is compliant with Clause 55 of the Scheme. CAR PARKING Under Clause 52.06 of the Scheme, the parking requirement of the development is 21 parking spaces (one space for each dwelling and one space per 5 dwellings for visitors). The proposed parking provision is 20 parking spaces (18 residential and 2 visitor), which is a shortfall of 1 visitor parking space under the standard rate.

4.6




Under clause 52.34, no on site bicycle parking is required due to the scale of the development although 5 communal bicycle racks are proposed within the basement car park. Council’s traffic engineers raise no objection to the waiver of two on site visitor car parking spaces, which includes an additional space to facilitate screen planting at the rear of the site. The provision of one on site visitor space is supported based on the proximity of the site to public transport and the short stay nature of visitors. It is recommended that a car park intercom system be required at the car park entry as a condition of permit to facilitate visitor access. These modifications will be required as a condition of permit. OBJECTOR’S CONCERNS The following additional concerns have been raised by objectors with a response provided to each of the matters raised. One bedroom dwellings out of character with the area State and Local planning policy seeks to provide housing diversity in and around activity centres such as Watsonia. The proposal seeks to provide eight one bedroom apartments, representing 44% of the total number of dwellings proposed. This is considered to be consistent with planning policy. Waste collection A refuse and recyclables storage area is provided within the basement car park for residents. A waste management plan is required as a condition of permit to confirm how waste is to be collected from the premises. Fire safety Fire safety of the development is in this instance a Building Regulation matter and not a material planning consideration. Inadequate Service Infrastructure The application site is an existing serviced lot within an established developed urban area. It is therefore considered that the site is serviced by existing urban infrastructure that is capable of servicing the development. Any upgrade of this infrastructure, be it for drainage or similar works, will be required to be borne by the permit applicant. Noise Pollution In terms of noise transmission to site boundaries from activities occurring within the building, noise attenuation of the building would be addressed under the Building Regulations at the construction stage. In terms of noise transmission from residents using outdoor areas, there is no evidence that the use of these areas will result in excessive or unreasonable noise. The noise that is likely to be generated is that associated with residential use and activity. This is to be expected in residential areas.

4.6




A condition is required to ensure that air-conditioners and other plant and equipment installed on or in the building to be positioned and baffled so that any noise emitted complies with the appropriate Australian Standards and EPA requirements. Precedent for Future Development Each application is considered on its merits and precedent is not considered a justification for development. Devaluation of Property Some concern has been raised about impact on property values as a result of the proposal. Alleged depreciation of land values as a result of a proposed use or development is not a relevant ground on which to refuse a proposal. That is, property value is not, in itself, a planning consideration. Loss of Views Loss of a view is not a material planning consideration in this instance.

CONCLUSION

The proposal is considered to be consistent with planning policy to promote medium density housing within an accessible area and provide an appropriate design response to relevant neighbourhood character considerations for such areas. The proposal is generally consistent with ResCode and is considered acceptable subject to conditions.

RECOMMENDATION

That, had an application for review against Council’s Failure to Determine the application within the statutory timeframe not been lodged with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, having complied with Section 52, 58, 60, 61 and 62 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, Council would have resolved to issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit in respect of Application No. P604/2013 for Construction of a three storey apartment building with basement level car park and waiver of two on site visitor car parking spaces at 20 Morwell Avenue WATSONIA subject to the following conditions: Plans (1) Before the development permitted by this permit starts, amended plans to the

satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the advertised plans submitted on 22nd May 2014 but modified to show:

4.6




(a) Increased provision for natural daylight and passive solar energy to south-east facing elevations of bedrooms of apartments 5,6,7,9 and 15 through provision of high level windows with a minimum sill height of 1.7 metres above finished floor level and increased glazing and additional windows in the north-east facing elevations of apartments 4,11 and 12;

(b) Landscaping as required by Condition 2 of this permit;

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

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

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

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

(d) The Tree Preservation Fencing in accordance with Condition 15 of this permit;

(e) Deletion of car parking space No. 15 and realignment of the rear basement car park wall to provide additional landscaping space to the rear of the site and sufficient manoeuvring space for vehicles within the basement car park in accordance with Figure 2.3 of AS/NZS 2890.1 – Parking Facilities, Part 1: Off Street Car parking;

(f) A schedule of non-reflective external building materials and colours, including details of cladding and roofing materials; the schedule should be presented on a separate sheet and must include colour samples;

(g) The location and sizing of solar hot water units;

(h) All sustainable design features indicated in the submitted Sustainable Management Plan (SMP). Where sustainable design features outlined in the SMP cannot be visually shown, include a notes table providing details of the requirements (i.e. energy and water efficiency ratings for heating/cooling systems and plumbing fittings and fixtures, etc);

(i) The width of car space 7 increased to 3 metres with all other car spaces having a minimum dimension of 4.9 metres x 2.6 metres;

(j) Designation of one visitor car parking space within the basement car park;

(k) A car park intercom to facilitate visitor access to the basement car park;

(l) All boundary setbacks to comply with Standard B17 of Clause 55 of the Banyule Planning Scheme;

(m) Relocation of the terrace for Apartment 1 to the northern rear side of the apartment and associated internal reconfiguration; and the provision of a balcony or terrace for Apartment 8 on the façade of the building in accordance with Standard B28 of Clause 55 of the Banyule Planning Scheme;

4.6




(n) Provision of raised planter beds within the front setback of the development between the building façade and the edge of the high voltage power line easement and along the side boundaries above the basement car park to provide for canopy tree planting and landscaping;

(o) Additional screening of south-eastern upper level windows to control potential overlooking within 9 metres of neighbouring habitable room windows in accordance with Standard B22 of Clause 55 of the Banyule Planning Scheme;

(p) Design, treatment, materials and colour scheme of the car park entry ramp retaining walls and security gate;

(q) Deletion of the southern side balcony of Apartment 12;

(r) Each apartment provided with a total volume of storage in accordance with Standard B30 of Clause 55 of the Banyule Planning Scheme;

(s) Provide a passing area at the driveway entrance at least 5 metres wide and 7 metres long in accordance with Design Standard 1 – Accessways of Clause 52.06-8 of the Banyule Planning Scheme.

(2) The development permitted by this permit must not be commenced until a satisfactory detailed landscaping plan is submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Such plan must be prepared by a person suitably qualified or experienced in landscape design and shall include:

(a) Details of planting, formed garden beds and hard landscaping throughout the site;

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

(c) Planting adjacent to driveways and within landscaping zones to consist of varying heights and species;

(e) Provision of replacement planting for vegetation that is to be removed including a minimum of two medium sized canopy trees (mature height of at least 10 metres) planted at a semi-advanced state (minimum pot size 16 litre) within the front setback and one medium sized canopy tree (mature height of at least 10 metres) within the rear setback of the development and small trees to be planted throughout the site;

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

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

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

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

4.6




(k) All trees and shrubs planted on the SPI PowerNet easement to not exceed 3 metres maximum mature growth height

(m) Provision of screening vegetation along side setbacks to soften views of the development from neighbouring properties.

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

General (4) Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority the

development permitted by this permit must not be commenced until the tree protection measures required by Condition 15 are installed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

(5) Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority the proposed

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

Amenity (6) Outdoor lighting must be designed, baffled and located to the satisfaction of the

Responsible Authority such that no direct light is emitted outside the boundaries of the subject land.

(7) Noise emissions from the subject land and from any equipment required for

refrigeration, air-conditioning, heating, ventilation and the like must comply with Environmental Protection (Residential Noise) Regulations 1997 and/or Environmental Protection Authority Noise Control Guidelines TG 302/92, whichever is deemed to be appropriate by the Responsible Authority.

Urban Design / External Appearance (9) The walls of the development on the boundary of adjoining properties must be

cleaned and finished in a manner to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Car Parking / Access (10) Areas set aside for the parking of vehicles together with the aisles and access

lanes must be properly formed to such levels that they can be utilised in accordance with the endorsed plans and must be drained and provided with an all weather seal coat. The areas must be constructed, drained and maintained in a continuously useable condition to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

4.6




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

(12) Vehicular access or egress to the subject land from any roadway or service

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

(13) The boundaries of all car spaces, access and egress lanes and the direction in

which vehicles should proceed along the access lanes must at all times be clearly indicated on the ground to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Tree Protection / Landscaping (14) Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority, prior to the

commencement of works (including demolition) on the site, Tree Preservation Zones must be established around Trees 1 and 2 as identified in the arborist report prepared by Open Space Management dated 29 August 2013 . You must contact Council’s Development Planning Arborist on 9457 9878 once the Tree Preservation Fencing is erected so that an inspection of the fencing can be carried out. Once installed and inspected the Tree Preservation Zones must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, and meet the following requirements:

(a) Extent

Tree Preservation Zones are to be provided to the extent of the canopy of the trees indicated as being retained on the endorsed plan.

(b) Weed control

Any weeds located within the Tree Preservation Zone are to be removed and the area mulched with 100mm of composted coarse grade woodchips

(c) Fencing

(i) Vegetation Preservation fences with a minimum height of 1.2 to 1.5 metres of chain mesh or like and a top line of high visibility plastic hazard tape must be erected around the perimeter of the zone.

(ii) The posts must be strong enough to sustain knocks from on site excavation equipment.

(iii) The fences must not be removed or relocated without the prior consent of the Responsible Authority.

4.6




(d) Signage

Fixed signs are to be provided on all visible sides of the Tree Preservation Fencing, stating “Tree Preservation Zone – No entry without permission from the City of Banyule”.

(e) Irrigation

The area must be irrigated during the summer months with 1 litre of clean water for every 1 cm of trunk girth measured at the soil / trunk interface on a weekly basis.

(f) Access to Tree Preservation Zone

(i) No persons, vehicles or machinery are to enter the Vegetation Protection Zone except with the consent of the Responsible Authority;

(ii) No fuel, oil dumps or chemicals are allowed to be used or stored within the Vegetation Preservation Zone and the servicing and re-fuelling of equipment and vehicles must be carried out away from the root zones;

(iii) No storage of material, equipment or temporary building is to take place within the Vegetation Preservation Zone;

(iv) Nothing whatsoever, including temporary services wires, nails, screws or any other fixing device, is to be attached to any tree.

NOTE:

Requests for consent of the Responsible Authority (City of Banyule) pursuant to this Condition should be directed to Council’s Arborist – Development Planning on 9457 9878. Consent for the conduct of works within the Tree Protection Zone, where granted, may be subject to conditions. Such conditions may include a requirement that:

Any underground service installations within the Tree Protection Zone be bored to a depth of 1.5 metres;

All root excavation be carried out by hand digging or with the use of ‘Air-Excavation’ techniques;

Roots required to be cut are to be severed by saw cutting and undertaken by a qualified arborist.

Or other conditions, as relevant, to ensure the ongoing health and stability of the subject trees.

(15) Any tree pruning that may be required is to be carried out by a trained and

competent arborist who has a thorough knowledge of tree physiology and pruning methods. Pruning must be carried out in accordance with Australian Standard AS4373 Pruning of Amenity Trees. Tree pruning is to be restricted to the removal of no greater than 15% of the total live canopy of individual trees.

4.6




Rubbish Collection (16) Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a Waste Management Plan must be

submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The Waste Management Plan must include:

a) Dimensions of waste areas. b) The number of bins to be provided and capacity. c) Details on method and frequency of cleaning and maintenance of waste

areas. d) Details of ventilation. e) Details of unwanted goods storage. f) Method of waste and recyclables collection including the need to provide

for private services or utilisation of Council services. g) Hours of waste and recyclables collection. h) Measures to minimise impact upon local residential amenity. i) Method of presentation of bins for waste collection. j) Strategies for how the generation of waste and recyclables from the

development will be minimised. k) If waste is to arrive in the ground level refuse room via a chute system

details as to how waste will be sorted into hard and recycling waste to ensure minimal landfill results.

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

SPI PowerNet (17) No part of the proposed building, including eaves, awning, canopies, shelters

and the like, is permitted on SPI Powernet’s easement. (18) Any services traversing the easement must be installed underground. (19) All trees and shrubs planted on the easement must not exceed 3 metres

maximum mature growth height. (20) The storage of flammable materials is not permitted on the easement. (21) Natural ground surface levels on the easement must not be altered by the

stockpiling of excavated material or by landscaping without prior written approval from SPI PowerNet.

(22) Vehicles and equipment exceeding 3 metres maximum operating height are not

permitted on the easement during construction without prior written approval from SPI PowerNet.

(23) Scaffolding is not permitted on the easement. (24) All future works within the easement must be submitted to SPI PowerNet and

approved in writing prior to the commencement of work on site.

4.6




Construction Management Plan (25) Prior to the commencement of any site works including demolition and

excavation, the owner must submit a Construction Management Plan to the Responsible Authority for approval. No works including demolition and excavation are permitted to occur until the Plan has been approved in writing by the Responsible Authority. Once approved, the Construction Management Plan will be endorsed to form part of this permit and must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Plan must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and must provide details of the following:

a) measures to control noise, dust and water runoff; b) prevention of silt or other pollutants from entering into the Council’s

underground drainage system or road network; c) the location of where building materials are to be kept during

construction; d) site security; e) maintenance of safe movements of vehicles to and from the site during

the construction phase; f) on-site parking of vehicles associated with construction of the

development; g) wash down areas for trucks and vehicles associated with construction

activities; h) cleaning and maintaining surrounding road surfaces; i) hours for construction activity j) a liaison officer for contact by owners / residents and the Responsible

Authority in the event of relevant queries or problems experienced; k) any requirements outlined within this permit as required by SPI

PowerNet; l) measures to ensure that sub-contractors/tradespersons operating on the

site are aware of the contents of the Construction Management Plan; (m) any construction lighting to be baffled to minimise intrusion on adjoining

lots. Time Limits (26) In accordance with section 68 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, this

permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

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

The development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit.

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

(a) Before the permit expires, or

(b) Within six months afterwards, or

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

4.6




NOTES (A) Waste Management Requirements

Recent research indicates that weekly rubbish and recycling generation rates for townhouses and apartments are in the order of:

Waste source Garbage Comingled recycling

Townhouses 120 litre 120 or 240 litre

Apartments (1 Bedroom) 80 litre 80 litre

Apartments (2-3 Bedroom) 100 or 120 litre 120 litre

Any waste management plan should have regard to these generation rates in making recommendations with respect to bin volumes and collection frequency.

(B) Expiry of Permit In the event that this permit expires or the subject land is proposed to be used

or developed for purposes different from those for which this permit is granted, there is no guarantee that a new permit will be granted. If a permit is granted then the permit conditions may vary from those included on this permit having regard to changes that might occur to circumstances, planning scheme provisions or policy.

(C) Additional approvals required A Building Permit must be obtained prior to the commencement of any works

associated with the proposed development. (D) Building over Easements

No structure (including but not limited to sheds, retaining walls, eaves, water tanks, paving and landings) shall be built over any easement on the subject land except with the consent of the relevant Responsible Authority.

(E) Completion of Development

Immediately upon completion of the development permitted by this permit, the owner or developer of the subject land must notify Council’s Development Planning Section that the development is complete and complies with all requirements of the permit. The development will then be inspected to ensure compliance. An early inspection process will ensure that the subdivision approvals including the Statement of Compliance can be issued without delay.

(F) Street Numbering

Please note that property addresses are allocated by Council. This is usually formalised at the time of the issue of a certified plan and this should be discussed with Council at that time.

4.6




ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 Amended plans 149

2 Referral responses 165

3 Clause 55 assessment 166

4 Neighbourhood Character Assessment 170

5.1

Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life


5.1 COUNCIL MEETING DATES FOR 2015 Author: Kellie O'Shea - Senior Governance Officer, City Development

File: BS02/025/004

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council’s “Conduct of Meetings Local Law” requires the Council to fix the dates, times and place of Council Meetings and to provide public notice of the Meeting schedule in accordance with the Local Government Act 1989 which requires 7 days notice of an Ordinary Meeting or Special Meeting. The dates and venues of Council Meetings are published in Council’s annual calendar, The Banner and the local Leader newspapers. The proposed dates take into consideration public holidays and the legislative requirements for the Election of Mayor. This report is to consider and approve a schedule of meeting dates for the Council Meetings for 2015.

CITY PLAN

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

BACKGROUND

Council Meetings are currently held most fortnights on a Monday evening, commencing at 7.45pm. All Council Meetings are held in the Council Chambers at the Ivanhoe Service Centre. The dates proposed have been chosen to maintain the meeting cycle where possible whilst avoiding clashes with Public Holidays. There are times throughout the proposed dates that the meeting cycle is extended out to three weeks due to public holidays. One meeting has also been proposed for a Tuesday evening in June due to the Queen’s Birthday Public Holiday on the Monday, to try and maintain the fortnightly schedule whilst avoiding a meeting on the 15th of June due to the annual ALGA conference that a number of our Councillors usually attend. A Special Meeting is proposed for 22 June 2015 for the Adoption of the Council Budget and City Plan. The Mayoral Election must be held after the 4th Saturday in October, but not later than 30 November each year. A meeting for the Mayoral Election in 2015 has been set for 16 November 2015.

5.1


COUNCIL MEETING DATES FOR 2015 cont’d


RECOMMENDATION

That the Council Meeting Dates for 2015 be as follows:

2 February 9 June

(Tuesday Meeting)

5 October

16 February 22 June

(Special Meeting for the Adoption of the Budget and City

Plan)

19 October

2 March 6 July 9 November

23 March 20 July 16 November

(Mayoral Election only)

13 April 3 August 30 November

27 April 17 August 14 December

11 May 7 September

25 May 21 September

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

5.2



5.2 ADVOCACY ON BEHALF OF THE COMMUNITY - 1 JANUARY 2014-30 JUNE 2014

Author: Fiona Athersmith - Media and Marketing Communications Officer, Corporate Services

File: F2014/406

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This biannual Advocacy Report, Taking Action on What Matters to our Community, is designed to inform Council and the community about the advocacy initiatives undertaken on key issues of local, regional and wider relevance, in order to represent the best interests of the Banyule community. This Advocacy Report details the advocacy undertaken from 1 January 2014 until 30 June 2014.



CITY PLAN

This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction to “advocate on behalf of our community”.

BACKGROUND

Banyule advocates on behalf of the community on a range of key issues and in a number of ways, for example by: staff attending and participating in industry forums; submissions made to enquiries or community consultations; funding applications; meeting with Federal and State Members of Parliament; meetings with key staff from Government Departments; and work with industry and educational institutions to improve outcomes for Banyule’s community

ADVOCACY

A key function of Council is to advocate on behalf of the community on issues of importance. By representing the interests of the community in a range of forums, Council has the capacity to attract additional resources to the municipality and resolve complex issues affecting the liveability of the city.

CONCLUSION

The Advocacy Report, reflecting advocacy activities for the period 1 January to 30 June 2014, comprises summaries of the advocacy initiatives undertaken during this period. The report outlines what the issue was, how Council advocated and records any results of the advocacy. This report, which is attached, is also available for download on our website (www.banyule.vic.gov.au/advocacy) and will be promoted to the community via social media. The Advocacy Report for the period preceding this report will also be available on our website.

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

5.2


ADVOCACY ON BEHALF OF THE COMMUNITY - 1 JANUARY 2014-30 JUNE 2014 cont’d


RECOMMENDATION

That the Advocacy Report 1 January 2014 to 30 June 2014 be noted.

ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 Advocacy Report 1 January 2014 to 30 June 2014 174

6.1

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely


6.1 HEIDELBERG ACTIVITY CENTRE - PEDESTRIAN PRECINCT 40KM/H ZONE

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

Ward: Griffin

File: F2104/141

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

It is considered appropriate that Council pursue a staged approach to implementing the 40km/h zone through the core of the Heidelberg Activity Centre pedestrian precinct to provide consistency of speed limits in the area, improve kerbside amenity, provide pedestrian priority, improve safety and reduce the likelihood and severity of injuries to pedestrians. The zone would include the area bounded by Upper Heidelberg Road, Lower Heidelberg Road, Bell Banksia Link and Darebin Street. Darebin Street would be included in the zone. The implementation of the speed zone is consistent with the Banyule Integrated Transport Plan. VicRoads has indicated that approval will be given for the installation the first stage of a permanent 40km/h zone, including the area bounded by Upper Heidelberg Road, Lower Heidelberg Road, Bell Banksia Link and Darebin Street but excluding Burgundy Street between Upper Heidelberg Road and Studley Road. Darebin Street will be included in the 40km/h zone. VicRoads has indicated that it would support extending the zone to include Burgundy Street between Upper Heidelberg Road and Studley Road following appropriate infrastructure works to meet the requirements for a 40km/h zone in this area. These Stage 2 works will be the subject of a future report to Council.



CITY PLAN

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

BACKGROUND

Council has been seeking the implementation of a permanent 40km/h zone through the core of the Heidelberg Activity Centre pedestrian precinct to provide consistency of speed limits in the area, improve kerbside amenity, provide pedestrian priority, improve safety and reduce the likelihood and severity of injuries to pedestrians. The Activity Centre includes the Burgundy Street shopping precinct, Warringal Shopping Centre, Austin medical precinct, Warringal Hospital and commercial and residential premises.

6.1


HEIDELBERG ACTIVITY CENTRE - PEDESTRIAN PRECINCT 40KM/H ZONE cont’d


The existing speed zones within the Activity Centre (as shown in the locality plan provided in Figure 1 below) include:

60km/h in Burgundy Street (Upper Heidelberg Rd to Lower Heidelberg Rd);

40km/h in Cape Street (Darebin St to Banksia Street); Darebin Street (Cape St to Rosanna Road); Yarra Street (Hawdon St to Lower Heidelberg Rd); and Studley Road (Bell-Banksia Link to Burgundy St); and

50km/h in all other residential streets.

Key

Existing 60km/h speed limit Existing 40km/h speed limit 50km/h speed limit unless otherwise shown Figure 1 - Heidelberg Activity Centre - Proposed 40km/h Zone Area

FUNDING IMPLICATIONS

VicRoads has indicated that it will approve the first stage of the works without additional infrastructure works. The erection of speed limit signs will require limited funds and will be managed within the current Capital Works budget. Operation of the speed zone will be monitored and should any additional traffic management treatments be required to improve pedestrian safety, additional funds will be sought in future budget processes. Funding for stage two of the speed zone will be the subject of a future report to Council.

DISCUSSION

Council has strongly advocated for the introduction of a permanent 40km/h zone within the Heidelberg Activity Centre pedestrian precinct. The range of different speed limits causes confusion to drivers, also higher limits in residential streets and through the Burgundy Street shopping area impact on pedestrian safety.

6.1




Providing a consistent 40km/h precinct across a distinct, well signed zone would clarify speed limits in the area, improve safety and create a pedestrian priority precinct. Speed limit signing would be provided at all entry points to the 40km/h zone together with repeater signs at appropriate locations. In discussion at the Council Briefing on 28th July 2014, VicRoads indicated that approval would be given to the installation of a permanent 40km/h zone in this area. The zone would include the area bounded by Upper Heidelberg Road, Lower Heidelberg Road, Bell Banksia Link and Darebin Street. Darebin Street would be included in the 40km/h zone, however VicRoads indicated that the section of Burgundy Street between Upper Heidelberg Road and Studley Road would not be supported until infrastructure works were carried out to reduce the Burgundy Street carriageway width and make the road environment more pedestrian friendly. To implement a short term solution, consideration could be given to introducing the speed zone in two stages. The first stage would exclude the area of Burgundy Street (Upper Heidelberg Road to Studley Road) which requires significant infrastructure works before VicRoads would be prepared to approve a 40km/h speed limit. Stage 1 would include the area bounded by Upper Heidelberg Road, Lower Heidelberg Road, Bell Banksia Link and Darebin Street (including Darebin Street but excluding Burgundy Street between Upper Heidelberg Road and Studley Road), see Figure 2.

Figure 2 – 40km/h Area – Proposed Stages

Following implementation of the speed zone, an assessment would be made of the need for any additional traffic management treatments to manage traffic speeds and improve pedestrian safety. The measures could include kerb outstands at selected pedestrian crossing locations, formalised pedestrian crossings and road cushions to reinforce speed restrictions at appropriate locations.

STAGE 1

STAGE 2

6.1




Further work will be required to develop options for the treatment of Burgundy Street between Upper Heidelberg Road and Studley Road to meet VicRoads requirements (Stage 2). The works would need to make it more pedestrian friendly and achieve an environment consistent with the appearance of the section of Burgundy Street east of the Railway Bridge. The proposed works to this section of Burgundy Street will be subject to a further report to Council. Businesses and residents within the speed zone and surrounding streets would be informed of the introduction of the 40km/h zone.

TIMELINES

It is proposed that the 40km/h speed zone be introduced in two stages:

Stage 1 – immediately introduce the speed zone in the area bounded by Upper Heidelberg Road, Lower Heidelberg Road, Bell Banksia Link and Darebin Street (including Darebin Street but excluding Burgundy Street between Upper Heidelberg Road and Studley Road);

Stage 2 – extend the 40km/h speed zone to include Burgundy Street between Upper Heidelberg Road and Studley Road following implementation of suitable traffic management treatments to improve pedestrian safety in this section of Burgundy Street.

CONCLUSION

It is considered appropriate that Council pursue a staged approach to a permanent 40km/h precinct within the Heidelberg Activity Centre pedestrian precinct and initially seek VicRoads formal approval to the introduction of a permanent 40km/h zone excluding the section of Burgundy Street between Upper Heidelberg Road and Studley Road. This first stage of would be implemented in the area bounded by Upper Heidelberg Road, Lower Heidelberg Road, Bell Banksia Link and Darebin Street. Darebin Street would be included in the 40km/h zone but Burgundy Street between Upper Heidelberg Road and Studley Road would be excluded. The zone will be extended in the second stage to include the section of Burgundy Street between Upper Heidelberg Road and Studley Road following infrastructure works to meet VicRoads requirements for a 40km/h zone in this area. Funding for stage two will be the subject of a future report to Council and sought through the budget process.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Writes to VicRoads seeking formal approval to the introduction of permanent 40km/h zone within the Heidelberg Activity Centre pedestrian precinct (including Darebin Street but excluding Burgundy Street between Upper Heidelberg Road and Studley Road) – Stage 1;

2. Inform businesses and residents within the speed zone and surrounding streets of the introduction of the 40km/h zone;

3. Assesses the need for additional traffic management measures to improve

pedestrian safety and reinforce the 40km/h zone; and

6.1




4. Considers options to extend the zone to include the section of Burgundy Street between Upper Heidelberg Road and Studley Road – Stage 2.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

6.2



6.2 14 SCOTTS PARADE, IVANHOE - PROPOSED VESTING AND REMOVAL OF RESERVE STATUS FROM DRAINAGE RESERVE

Author: Lorraine James - Property Officer, City Development

Ward: Griffin

File: F2014/543

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The drainage reserve known as 14 Scotts Parade, Ivanhoe (the Land) is currently enclosed within the fence line of 12 Scotts Parade, Ivanhoe. There is no strategic or long term purpose to retain the reserve status on the Land, which has been enclosed within the fence line of 12 Scotts Parade, Ivanhoe, for some years. This report discusses the vesting and removal of the reserve status from the Land and seeks direction to proceed to commence the statutory procedures to vest the reserve in Council’s name and remove the reservation status. The sale of the resultant land to the abutting owners is also considered.



CITY PLAN

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

BACKGROUND

The drainage reserve known as 14 Scotts Parade, Ivanhoe (the Land) is located adjacent the north eastern boundary of 12 Scotts Parade and has an area of approximately 45m2. Title searches at Land Registry confirm the title to the Land as a drainage reserve forming part of the land in certificate of title volume 2864 folio 744 registered in the name of the original subdivider, Anthony Henry Scott, for whom the Street is named. The Land is currently included within the fenceline and appears to form part of that property. A request has been received from the owners of 12 Scotts Parade, Ivanhoe, for Council to consider a proposal to sell the drainage reserve land known as 14 Scotts Parade, Ivanhoe, shown on the plan in Figure 1 below (the Land).

6.2


14 SCOTTS PARADE, IVANHOE - PROPOSED VESTING AND REMOVAL OF RESERVE STATUS FROM DRAINAGE RESERVE cont’d


Figure 1: Drainage Reserve Land

The Land contains a 100mm diameter sewer, and Council’s engineers have also advised that the Land will be required for future drainage purposes. Therefore, the whole of the Land is or will be encumbered by easements in favour of Yarra Valley Water Ltd and Council.


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 land is conferred on Council pursuant to section 189 of the Local Government Act 1989 (the Act). A person may make a submission under section 223 of the Act with respect to such a proposal.

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

SUBDIVISION ACT 1988 AND PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT ACT 1987

The power to vest and remove the reserve status from Land is conferred on Council pursuant to section 24A of the Subdivision Act 1988. Before proceeding under section 24A of that Act an application for a planning permit must be made in accordance with Part 4 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, to authorise the vesting and removal of the reservation status.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1989

Prior to selling land, Council must carry out certain statutory procedures in accordance with the Local Government Act 1989, namely the giving of public notice of its intention to do so in accordance with Council’s Official Newspaper Policy and obtaining a valuation not more than six (6) months prior to the date of sale.

6.2




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


ENGINEERING CONSIDERATIONS

Council engineers advise that the 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 Yarra Valley Water Limited Easement rights will be saved in favour of Yarra Valley Water Ltd in the location shown as E1 on the plan in Figure 2. Banyule City Council Easement rights will be created in favour of Banyule City Council in the location shown as E1 on the plan in Figure 2. Such easements would permit either authority access to the 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 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. Consequently, it is proposed that the easement requirements of the service authority and Council be recorded on the Proposed Plan of Subdivision shown in Figure 2.

6.2




Figure 2: Proposed Easements and Location of Services

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.

6.2




LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

STATUTORY PROCEDURES

Subdivision Act 1988 and Planning and Environment Act 1987 The power to vest and remove the reserve status from land is conferred on Council pursuant to section 24A of the Subdivision Act 1988. Before proceeding under section 24A of that Act an application for a planning permit must be made in accordance with Part 4 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, to authorise the vesting of the reserve into Council’s name and removal of the reservation status from the Land. Local Government Act 1989 Prior to selling land, Council must carry out statutory procedures in accordance with 189 and 223 of the Local Government Act 1989, namely the giving of public notice of its intention to do so in accordance with Council’s Official Newspaper Policy and obtaining a valuation not more than six (6) months prior to the date of sale.

POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

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, is only one potential buyer, namely an abutting owner. 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. Even if the applicant is not prepared at this point in time to proceed with the purchase of the Land, consideration should be given to the carrying out of the necessary statutory procedures to obtain title to the Land; thereby protecting the land from any potential claims for adverse possession.

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 Ivanhoe area.

6.2




CONCLUSION

The relevant matters of Council’s policy for the sale of land have been considered and addressed in this report. It is now appropriate to proceed to a process to vest and remove the reserve status and ultimately consider whether or not to sell the Land. Service authorities and other areas of Council raise no impediments to proceeding with this proposal. There is no strategic or long term purpose to retain the reserve status on the land because the easement rights of both Yarra Valley Water and Banyule City Council can be created within the proposed plan of subdivision. It does not support “best practice” service delivery because the Land has been enclosed within the fence line of 12 Scotts Parade, Ivanhoe, for some time. Therefore, there appears to be no impediment to Council forming the view that the Land is surplus to Council’s and the community’s needs.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council: Being of the opinion that the drainage reserve known as 14 Scotts Parade, Ivanhoe (the Land) is surplus to Council’s and the community’s needs, now directs that:

(a) pursuant to pursuant to Part 4 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and Section 24A of the Subdivision Act 1988, the statutory procedures be commenced to vest in Council’s name and the remove the reservation status from the Land; and

(b) pursuant to Sections 189 and 223 of the Local Government Act 1989, the statutory procedures be commenced to give public notice, in the “Heidelberg Leader” of its intention to sell the Land; and

(c) following consideration of submissions, Council will decide whether or not to sell the Land to the owner of 12 Scotts Parade, Ivanhoe, or retain the Land for municipal purposes.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

6.3



6.3 PLANNING AND BUILDING ENFORCEMENT FRAMEWORK CONSULTATION OUTCOMES AND ADOPTION

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

File: F2014/709

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report considers and provides commentary on public consultation held in relation to the Draft Planning and Building Enforcement Framework and recommends adoption.



CITY PLAN

This report is in line with a number of the key directions of Council’s City Plan, including:

“maintain and improve Banyule as a great place to live”; “maintain and improve Banyule as a great place to live”; and “protect and enhance our natural environment”.

BACKGROUND

At an Ordinary Council Meeting on 5 May 2014, Council resolved that: 1. The Draft Planning and Building Enforcement Framework be placed on public

exhibition for consultation and comment between the period 26 May 2014 and 21 July 2014;

2. During the intervening period the Draft Framework be adopted for use; 3. A further report be submitted to Council for the purpose of reporting feedback

and adopting a final version of the Framework following conclusion of the public consultation period.

6.3


PLANNING AND BUILDING ENFORCEMENT FRAMEWORK CONSULTATION OUTCOMES AND ADOPTION 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. It is considered that the subject matter does not raise any human rights issues.

CONSULTATION

Consultation was conducted by means of:

Notices in the Heidelberg and Diamond Valley Leader Newspapers;

A notice in the Banyule Banner; and

Making the Framework available at Council’s Customer Service Centres, the Council website and at libraries.

Submissions were invited between 26 May 2014 and 21 July 2014. No submissions have been received as a result of this consultation. Discussions with key staff following use of the document following the adoption of the Draft indicate that continued adoption of the Framework with monitoring and review as specified in the document is appropriate.

CONCLUSION

It is considered that the Planning and Building Enforcement Framework is an appropriate mechanism to provide a framework for a risk-based assessment of enforcement priorities within the Building and Development Planning Units. Continued use of the document will assist Council to:

Carry out our statutory enforcement functions;

Minimise risk to ratepayers, residents, the environment and Council; and

Reduce the level of non-compliance over time.

Adoption of the Framework in its final (unchanged) form is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council adopt the Planning and Building Enforcement Framework August 2014.

ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 Planning and Building Enforcement Framework August 2014 195

6.4



6.4 ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS Author: Kellie O'Shea - Senior Governance Officer, City Development

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: 4 August 2014

Type of Meeting: Confidential Councillor Briefing

Matters Considered: Confidential Matters – Property and Proposed Developments

Councillors Present: Steven Briffa Craig Langdon Tom Melican Wayne Phillips

Staff Present: Scott Walker – Director City Development Daniel Kollmorgen - Manager Strategic Economic Development Michael Hutchison – City Development Projects Coordinator

Others Present: Nil

Conflict of Interest: Nil

2 Date of Assembly: 4 August 2014

Type of Meeting: Councillor Briefing

6.4


ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS cont’d


Matters Considered: Items on the Council Agenda for the Ordinary Meeting of 4 August 2014 (excluding confidential items) as listed below:

1.1 Proposed Lease of Chelsworth Park to Ivanhoe Grammar School

2.1 St Helena Secondary College - Sports Precinct Masterplan

4.1 Upper Heidelberg Road, Heidelberg - Paid Parking Meter Fees

4.2 Public Notice advertising period of the proposed Lease of Part of Chelsworth Park to Ivanhoe Grammar School

4.3 Proposed Apartment Building at 20 Morwell Avenue, Watsonia

4.4 Development Planning Activities Report 2013/2014

6.1 Engineering Services Activities Report 2014 6.2 Assembly of Councillors 6.3 Review and Update of Delegations 6.4 Councillor Report on Conferences Attendance 6.5 Proposed MAV WorkCare Insurance Scheme 8.1 Victorian Local Government Association (VLGA)

Forward Action Plan 8.2 Heidelberg Stars Soccer Club 8.3 Netball Courts at Seddon Reserve

General Business:

- John Harrison 50 Years’ Service - Main Street Awards

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

Staff Present: Simon McMillan – Chief Executive Officer Allison Beckwith - Community Programs Scott Walker – Director City Development Geoff Glynn – Director Assets and City Services Keith Yeo - Director Corporate Services Gina Burden – Manager Governance, Information & Laws Emily Outlaw - Governance Liaison Officer Joel Elbourne – Acting Manager Development Services David Bailey – Engineering Services Coordinator Darren Bennett – Manager Leisure, Recreation & Culture Tom Zappulla – Leisure Facilities, Place & Partnership Coordinator

Others Present: Nil

Conflict of Interest: Nil

6.4


ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS cont’d


RECOMMENDATION

That the Assembly of Councillors report be received.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

6.5



6.5 PROPOSED MAV WORKCARE INSURANCE SCHEME

Author: Angela Johnson - Manager Human Resources, Corporate Services

File: F2014/308

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) have provided all Victorian Councils with an invitation to express interest in, and commitment to, establishing a Local Government WorkCover Scheme, to be known as MAV WorkCare.

MAV extended their original request for interested parties to invest $5,000 as a commitment to proceed with the proposal, with the deadline now 22 August 2014.

This report updates the information provided in the report of 4th August (Item 6.5), based on additional information provided by the MAV.

This report recommends that Council declines the MAV’s invitation to join the proposed WorkCare Scheme.



CITY PLAN

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

BACKGROUND

Since the last report to Council, Mr Rob Spence, MAV CEO has provided further advice concerning the proposed WorkCare Scheme. This addressed some of the concerns raised by Banyule City Council officers, as well as those from other municipalities.

DISCUSSION

There are still many unknowns for the proposed Scheme, including:

- the possible premiums for Years 2 and 3 of the Scheme, - whether the Scheme will be licenced beyond Year 3 - impact on actuarial projections of actual claims histories of members Additionally, it was confirmed by the MAV that interest at 5th August (just prior to the original deadline for commitment) was only 30 of the required 50 Councils for the proposed Scheme and associated self-insurance licence application to be viable.

6.5


PROPOSED MAV WORKCARE INSURANCE SCHEME cont’d


From confidential information provided by the MAV, this group of 30 Councils is under-represented by the larger, metropolitan Councils, suggesting that the membership may not be sufficient in terms of collective size, nor represent enough good performers with respect to WorkCover claims to be a “better than average” or “average” performing group, potentially negatively affecting premiums. The MAV also do not yet have any details of which WorkCover Agent (if any) will be managing claims on behalf of the WorkCare Scheme. Claims management is critical in improving premium, and Banyule officers have forged a productive and effective relationship with our WorkCover agent. Based on current WorkCover performance, this investment is forecast to reduce premiums over the next three years.

OFFICER COMMENT

There are too many unknowns for Council officers to recommend a commitment to the proposed MAV WorkCare Scheme. If the Scheme is established and proves to be performing as projected, Council will have the chance to join from year 4 onwards.

CONCLUSION

Council officers see benefit in continuing with the current WorkCover insurance arrangements, and maintaining the partnership with our commercial WorkCover Agent.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council 1. Write to the MAV advising that it supports the establishment of a local

government WorkCare insurance scheme in principle, however 2. Declines the opportunity to join the scheme at this stage due to the unknowns,

as outlined above.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

7.1

Sealing of Documents


7.1 SEALING OF DOCUMENTS Authors: Andrea Turville - Property Officer, City Development; Jeanette Kringle - Property Co-ordinator, City Development; Ellen Kavanagh - Governance Officer, City Development; Jessica Milverton - Property Officer, City Development; Melinda Ramsay - Acting Team Leader Leisure Services, Community Programs

Wards: Bakewell, Griffin, Hawdon

Files: F2013/1354; F2013/994; BS040/010/002; F2013/1041 & F2013/9; F2014/308

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

.

PARTY\PARTIES: Greensborough Plaza TC Pty Limited (Lessor) and Banyule City Council (Lessee)

OFFICER: Andrea Turville FILE NUMBER: F2013/1354 DOCUMENT: Deed of Renewal and Variation of Lease ADDRESS: Shop 201, Greensborough Plaza, 25 Main Street,

Greensborough WARD: Bakewell BRIEF EXPLANATION: Council currently leases Shop 201, Greensborough

Plaza, 25 Main Street, Greensborough (the Premises) from Greensborough Plaza TC Pty Limited, previously Lend Lease Real Estate Investments Pty Ltd and Greensborough Pty Ltd. The original Lease, entered into in 1996, provided for a term of three (3) years with 26 further terms of three (3) years each and for the premises to be used as a community centre. Council currently licenses the Premises to Diamond Valley Community Support Inc to operate a community information, referral and support service. The current lease provides for 21 further options of three (3) years remaining. The current lease is due to be renewed on 14 November 2014 for a period of three (3) years. The renewed lease is on the same terms and conditions as the current lease, save that the number of further terms will be reduced to 20. Council should support the proposal to renew the current lease for the further term of three (3) years by resolving to affix its Common Seal to the Deed of Renewal and Variation of Lease.

2.

PARTY\PARTIES: Banyule City Council (Landlord) and Seacrest Pty Ltd (Tenant)

OFFICER: Jeanette Kringle FILE NUMBER: F2013/994 DOCUMENT: Deed of Variation of Lease ADDRESS: 14-18 Livingstone Street, Ivanhoe WARD: Griffin

7.1


SEALING OF DOCUMENTS cont’d


BRIEF EXPLANATION: Council is the owner of a two level car park located at 14-18 Livingstone Street, Ivanhoe. The car park is currently leased to the owners of Ivanhoe Plaza. The lease, which expired on 24 January 2013, was varied to extend the lease term for a period of 12 months. At its meeting of 16 December 2013 (Item CO2013/455) Council authorised a further extension of the lease for an additional period of six (6) months until 23 July 2014. Following protracted negotiations with the Tenant’s representative around the proposed commercial terms of the new lease it has become necessary to seek an extension to the expiry date of the lease until 23 January 2015. Council should support the proposal to vary the existing lease by extending the expiry date until 23 January 2015 by resolving to affix its Common Seal to the Deed of Variation of Lease.

3.

PARTY\PARTIES: Banyule City Council OFFICER: Ellen Kavanagh FILE NUMBER: BS040/010/002 DOCUMENT: Instrument of Authorisation BRIEF EXPLANATION: Pursuant to section 24 of the Local Government Act 1989 a

Council may appoint any person other than a Councillor to be an authorised officer for the purposes of the administration and enforcement of any Act, regulations or local laws which relate to the functions and powers of the Council.

Officers who undertake the Statutory role of Planner and Planning Enforcement Officers require Authorisation pursuant to the Local Government Act and Planning and Environment Act.

An authorised officer has the power to:

Demand the name and address of a person who has committed, or who the authorised officer reasonably suspects has committed or is about to commit, an offence against any Act, regulation or local law in respect of which he or she is appointed.

To enter land at any reasonable time and to enforce the Planning and Environment Act.

The Instrument of Authorisation requires the Council Seal for the following staff:

Kathy Aves, Kathryn Tucker, Andrea Meagher and Joshua Devitt.

4

.

PARTY\PARTIES: Banyule City Council (Landlord) and Ward Financial Group Pty Ltd (Tenant)

OFFICER: Jessica Milverton FILE NUMBER: F2013/1041 & F2013/979 DOCUMENT: Lease Agreement ADDRESS: Tenancy 1A, 9-13 Flintoff Street, Greensborough WARD: Bakewell Ward

7.1




BRIEF EXPLANATION: Council is the owner of the commercial building situated at 9-13 Flintoff Street, Greensborough. A two (2) year lease negotiated with Ward Financial Group Pty Ltd. The Lease provides for an initial term of two years commencing on 21 July 2014 and includes two (2) further terms of two (2) years. Council should resolve to formally ratify the lease by the affixing of its Common Seal.

5.

PARTY\PARTIES: Banyule City Council, Westpac Bank and Montmorency Junior Football Club

OFFICER: Melinda Ramsay FILE NUMBER: F2014/308 DOCUMENT: Loan Guarantee ADDRESS: PO Box 75, Lower Plenty WARD: Hawdon BRIEF EXPLANATION: The Montmorency Junior Football club has applied to

Council to act as a loan guarantor for a ten-year loan of $80,000 from the Westpac Bank. The funds will be used by the club to contribute towards the new pavilion being development at Simms Road.

The club has submitted prior year financial results for 2011, 2012 and 2013 in support of their application. An analysis of this data by Councils Finance Department reveals that the club does have the ability to repay a loan of this size over a ten year period.

The loan terms offered to the club by the Westpac Bank are considered favourable.

The loan guarantee between Council, the club and the Westpac bank requires Council’s approval by affixing of the Council Seal.

7.1




RECOMMENDATION

That the Common Seal of the Banyule City Council be affixed to the following documents: 1. Deed of Renewal and Variation of Lease between Greensborough Plaza TC

Pty Limited and Banyule City Council in respect of Shop 201, Greensborough Plaza, 25 Main Street, Greensborough for the period of three (3) years commencing on 14 November 2014.

2. Deed of Variation of Lease between Banyule City Council and Seacrest Pty Ltd in respect of the Council-owned car park at 14-18 Livingstone Street Ivanhoe to extend the expiry date of the lease until 23 January 2015.

3. Instrument of Authorisation for Planning Officers Kathy Aves, Kathryn Tucker,

Andrea Meagher and Joshua Devitt and they be appointed and authorised as set out in Instrument.

4. Lease Agreement for Tenancy 1A, 9-13 Flintoff Street, Greensborough

between Banyule City Council and Ward Financial Group Pty Ltd for an initial term of two (2) years with two (2) further terms of two (2) years.

5. Loan guarantee between Banyule City Council, Montmorency Junior Football

Club and the Westpac bank for $80,000 for the development of a new pavilion at Simms Road.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

8.1

Notice of Motion


8.1 REVIEW OF RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMITS Author: Cr Craig Langdon

Ward: Olympia

File: F2014/492

TAKE NOTICE that it is my intention to move:

“That a report be presented to Council which investigates and considers future options for the administration and allocation of parking permits through Banyule’s residential parking permit scheme. The report should consider:

The allocation of residential parking permits;

Options for waiving fees for Banyule residents, keeping the scheme as is, or increasing the fees;

Current indicative costs of administering the scheme;

Implications of changing the fee structure and allocation of permits through the scheme; and

Benchmarking the fees charged by comparative and neighbouring Councils.”

Explanation

Council has considered a number of reports on paid parking locations within Banyule as part of the development of parking plans for Council’s key activity centres. Funding for the installation of a number of these facilities has been approved and allocated in the current capital works budget, and will continue to be rollout in future years. Increasing the allocation of paid parking within the municipality will directly impact on-street parking opportunities in residential streets will result in the need to manage parking through the implementation of timed parking restrictions within those streets. This in turn is likely to lead to the need for a greater number of residential parking permits being issued. Currently, residents are charged a fee to obtain residential parking permits where restrictions apply in their street. With an increase in paid parking opportunities, consideration should be given to the effect this will have on residential parking and the options available to Council in administering the scheme, allocating permits and the fees that should be charged, including whether permits should be provided free of charge to residents.

CR CRAIG LANGDON Olympia Ward

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

8.2

Notice of Motion


8.2 REAL OPPORTUNITIES, REAL JOBS Author: Cr Rick Garotti

Ward: Grimshaw

File: F2014/492


“That Council:

1. Officers prepare a report for Council consideration on establishing a programme that would provide opportunities for TAFE and university students from Banyule’s Indigenous and migrant communities to gain practical skills and work experience:

The options explored should include the consideration of renumerated as well as voluntary placements and ensure the skills of individuals are not exploited.

2. Write to the Austin Hospital, Banyule Community Health Centre and Latrobe

University, which are major employers in and around Banyule, to seek their support in establishing similarly oriented internships programmes within their organisations.

3. Write to the Victorian State Government to seek their advice and support in

establishing internship programmes across these organisations. 4. Write to local community leaders to seek their feedback and input.”

Explanation The City of Banyule is blessed with a large and diverse multicultural community. For example we have large Indigenous Australian and Somali Australian communities who are making a tremendous contribution to the social and economic fabric of our city. Anecdotal feedback from community leaders indicates that TAFE and university students with a migrant or Indigenous background can experience challenges in accessing opportunities to gain practical, real world experience to help become ‘job ready’ once they complete their studies. I believe the major employers in our region have an important role in helping to create these opportunities and I believe Banyule City Council could help lead the way through the establishment of a suitably oriented internship programme.

CR RICK GAROTTI Grimshaw Ward

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

8.3

Notice of Motion


8.3 WATSONIA RSL - VOLUNTEER CAR PARKING Author: Cr Rick Garotti

Ward: Grimshaw

File: F2014/492


“That Council officers investigate and report on parking options for Watsonia RSL Committee Volunteers including consideration of a car parking permit scheme having regard to Council policy for activity centre car parking.”

Explanation The Watsonia RSL Committee has a number of volunteers who donate their time to work on projects and appeals for the RSL and at any one time there may be up to five volunteers attending the RSL. Volunteers have been fined in the past for overstaying parking restrictions in the public car park opposite the RSL as a consequence of these commitments. The RSL is seeking support from Council to obtain some parking permits that can be used by its volunteers to enable them to more easily access the RSL and to carry-out their valuable work in our community.

CR RICK GAROTTI Grimshaw Ward

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

8.4

Notice of Motion


8.4 BOLTON STREET, ELTHAM - PROPOSED UPGRADE

Author: Cr Wayne Phillips

Ward: Hawdon

File: F2014/492


“That Council: 1. Write to the State Opposition seeking further details on their proposal to

upgrade Bolton Street including an outline of the scope of works and explanation of what the $10.5 million commitment will be spent on

2. Invite representatives of the Victorian Labor Party to meet with Banyule to

upgrade Bolton Street, Eltham and; 3. Invite the Shire of Nillumbik Mayor, Shire of Nillumbik Wingrove Ward

Councillor and relevant Nillumbik Shire officers to participate in the discussion. 4. Is disappointed that they have not been consulted in the formation of the

Victorian Labor Party’s policy regarding this matter.”

Explanation The State Opposition has committed $10.5 million to upgrade Bolton Street in Eltham which includes the widening of the road and the construction of turning lanes although little other detail of the scope of works and what the money will be spent on has been provided. It is also noted that VicRoads will not take over responsibility for the road and that means Banyule and Nillumbik Council’s will remain responsible for future maintenance. The road already carries an average of 19,000 vehicles which will no doubt continue to increase significantly with an upgrade, yet would remain as a ‘local’ road.

CR WAYNE PHILLIPS Beale Ward

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

8.5

Notice of Motion


8.5 HISTORY OF THE OLYMPIC VILLAGE Author: Cr Craig Langdon

Ward: Olympia

File: F2014/492


“That Council officers investigate and report back to Council on how best to promote the history of the Olympic Village in West Heidelberg in the lead up to the XXXI Olympiad in Rio de Janeiro commencing on August 5th 2016. The investigations to include but not limited to:

Improving the entrance of the City of Banyule on Southern Road to reflect that the Olympic Village of the XVI Olympiad in Melbourne was situated at this location,

Seeking the appropriate approval to display the Olympic Rings and/or the Melbourne Olympic symbol and the words "Melbourne Olympic Village" on the street signs along with the Banyule Council name and symbol,

Creating billboards around the Olympic Village area to highlight the history of the Village and the Melbourne Games. These could be used to create a history trail throughout the village,

Installing additional banners around the Olympic Village Green and Shopping Centre; and

Options for a possible name change of the area to Olympic Village to give credence to its history.”

Explanation Council since its creation in 1994 has improved the entrance of the former Olympic Village firstly in 1996 and more recently by installing sports banners, new playground, artwork, BBQ facilities and painted the shops in Olympic colours to improve the image. Council is awaiting the lighting of the Olympic Rings above Alamein Road. The area has also been subject to improvements by past and present State Governments including Neighbourhood Renewal and the Olympia Housing Initiative. Council even named the Ward after the history of the area. Every Olympic Games there is a renewed interest in the history of the area. It should be noted Melbourne Olympic Village was the first athlete’s village given athletes were billeted out to hotels. Any possible funds required to be considered in the 2015/16 budget given the Games of the XXXI commence on August 5th 2016.

CR CRAIG LANGDON Olympia Ward

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

8.6

Notice of Motion


8.6 COMMUNITY GROUPS - FORMER BELLFIELD SCHOOL SITE

Author: Cr Wayne Phillips

Ward: Olympia

File: F2014/301

TAKE NOTICE that it is my intention to move: “That: 1. Council determines to retain the multipurpose building on the former Bellfield

Primary School site. 2. That appropriate officer report to Council on future demands to be considered in the

immediate area for childcare/other community uses or an amalgamation of uses that can be relocated within the building

3. Such report to include the feasibility of relocating the current “Hatch Contemporary

Arts Space: to the building as a permanent home. 4. The Mayor write to any community group organisation who have contacted Council

seeking to obtain permanent space and pursue under what terms and conditions they would be prepared to contriube. For example but not limited to Ivanhoe Basketball Netball Association, Somali Community.

5. Council authorise the Mayor, Councillors and appropriate Officers to meet with State

and Federal members seeking fudning once a use is confirmed.”

Explanation Council recently purchased three former school sites. The former Bellfield Primary School Site (Ivanhoe Site) contains an existing multi-purpose hall which has been retained as part of the preparation of the site for future development. The multi-purpose building referred to above would cost many, many millions of dollars to replace and although some theft and vandalism has taken place the building needs very little money spent in comparison to the cost of replacement. Community space is always at a premium giving Council a great opportunity to relocate and expand existing services in the area or find a new home for struggling community groups seeking their own premises.

CR WAYNE PHILLIPS Beale Ward

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

ATTACHMENTS

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 AUGUST 2014

4.1 Banyule Planning Scheme Amendment C93 - Consideration of Panel Recommendations

Attachment 1 Recommendations to Responses .................................................. 118

4.2 Review of planning controls for the Middle Yarra River corridor

Attachment 1 Middle Yarra River Study Area ...................................................... 133

Attachment 2 Banyule Submission to the Middle Yarra River draft Recommendations Report ............................................................. 135

4.6 Proposed apartment building at 20 Morwell Avenue, Watsonia

Attachment 1 Amended plans ............................................................................. 149

Attachment 2 Referral responses ....................................................................... 165

Attachment 3 Clause 55 assessment .................................................................. 166

Attachment 4 Neighbourhood Character Assessment ......................................... 170

5.2 Advocacy on Behalf of the Community - 1 January 2014-30 June 2014

Attachment 1 Advocacy Report 1 January 2014 to 30 June 2014 ....................... 174

6.3 Planning and Building Enforcement Framework consultation outcomes and adoption

Attachment 1 Planning and Building Enforcement Framework August 2014 ....... 195

Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1

Item: 4.1 Attachment 1: Recommendations to Responses


CATEGORISATION OF PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS

Panel Recommendation Comments from the Panel Council’s Response a) There should be a general review of the provisions of all precincts containing land to be included in the Mixed Use Zone.

The Panel is concerned that the Built Form Plan for Precinct 1 causes confusion as to the applicability of the upper level setback provisions. This is because the Key to the Precinct Built Form Plan DDO11-1 indicates a 9m mixed use podium height but a 7.5m street wall height in a residential zone. However, the Mixed Use Zone falls into the suite of Residential Zones.

PARTIALLY ACCEPT Discussion: It is not considered that a general review of the provisions of all precincts containing land to be included in the Mixed Use Zone is required. The proposed use of the Mixed Use Zone has been through a period of public exhibition and has not attracted any submissions or objections. What is required is a refinement of the language used to achieve the desired planning outcome. Rather than referring to ‘Diversity Areas – Residential Use’ and ‘Diversity Areas – Mixed Use’ it may be more appropriate to use the terms ‘Diversity Areas – General Residential Zone’ to apply to those properties that will retain their residential zoning and ‘Diversity Areas – All Other Zones’ for all other properties. This re-classification is aided by the fact that all residential zoned within the Activity Centre boundary is zoned General Residential Zone 1 (GRZ1). Action: Re-label the Key in the Built Form Plans to alleviate confusion in building heights. Amend the diagrams in the Structure Plan and the amendment documents to reflect this change.

Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



b) Council should consider the replacement of the expression ‘Activity Area’ with ‘Activity Centre’.

Reference is made in Clauses 21.08‐3 and DDO11 to the ‘Activity Area’. However, State Government documents, for example, Melbourne 2030, Practice Notes 58 and 60, refer to ‘Activity Centres’. Clause 21.04, Housing, and its sub‐clauses, also make reference to Activity Centres.

ACCEPT Action: Amend the Structure Plan and amendment documents to reflect this change

c) Council should consider whether the 12<15m preferred maximum height control within Built Form Plan DDO11‐5B should generally be replaced by a 15m preferred maximum height control.

The Panel notes that the site at 19-33 UHR lies within a designated Major Activity Centre and a proposed Commercial 1 Zone. The Panel are not convinced that either a variable preferred height of 12<15m or a mixed height provision of 12<15m and 12m across land in the same ownership would be appropriate. In a Statutory sense, given the heights are not mandatory but preferred, the specification of the height as 12<15m makes little sense.

ACCEPT Discussion: Given that the proposed building heights are preferred and not mandatory a height range is not considered necessary for these sites. Action: Revise the graphics for the Structure Plan and DDO11-5B to show the preferred building height as 15m. Revise the text in the Structure Plan and DDO to reflect the preferred 15 height.

Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



d) Council should consider including a standard relating to the height of buildings on sloping land and/or clarify that height measurement is to be taken at the street frontage at least for properties in Precinct 5.

The issue of sloping land was raised by a submitter and by VCAT in relation to 1065 Heidelberg Road. The DDO12, Clause 2.4 addresses the building height requirement but the DDO11 does not. Clause 2.4 of the DDO12 addresses the Building height requirement by stating: The preferred maximum height may be increased by 1m where the slope of the natural ground level at any cross section wider than 8m of the site of the building is 2.5 degrees or more. This standard is derived from ResCode. The Panel has suggested that a standard like this should be included for the DDO11 or at least provide clarification that the height measurement is to be taken at the street frontage at least for Precinct 5.

ACCEPT Discussion: It is considered appropriate to apply a standard in Precinct 1 that clarifies that the building height is measured from street level. However this standard is not appropriate for the entire Activity Centre. For example, 109 Waterdale Road is a sloping site with multiple street frontages. A more appropriate standard to apply to Precincts 2-5 would be the standard that is used in the DDO12 Action: Amend the Structure Plan and the Amendment documents to include a standard for Precinct 1 that states that the height measurement is taken from street level. For all other Diversity Precincts include the same standard that is used in the DDO12.

Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



e) Council should consider specifying preferred heights in metres only, and clarifying that any reference to levels is for guidance purposes.

The Built Form Plans in Precincts 1‐5 contain preferred heights both in metres and storeys (levels). It is possible, subject to minimum building requirements, that an additional storey might be ‘squeezed in’ and still meet the specified height limit in metres. The inclusion of levels in the Built Form Plans is intended to provide a guide as to the number of levels that can be provided within the maximum height in metres. The essential preferred height standard is that shown in metres. The Panel notes that building height in storeys is also included in Clause 21.08‐3 (Local Places – Ivanhoe Activity Centre). For example, a preferred maximum height of 4‐6 storeys is applied throughout the Diversity Areas, even though the number of levels in the Built Form Plans is up to eight levels for mixed use areas. The Panel considers that there is a degree of inconsistency in the Amendment in addressing storeys and heights in metres. Should Council wish to retain heights in storeys in Clause 21.08‐3, consideration should be given to also including the height in metres. Additionally, should Council wish to retain heights in levels in the Built Form Plans it should make it clear that they act as a guide only.

ACCEPT Discussion: Both metres and levels were shown to assist the community with interpreting how high a building might be. This is a transparent and useful approach that should be maintained somewhere within the SP and Amendment documents. Action: Amend the SP and all amendment documents to show preferred building heights in metres only. Develop a Table that can be included in the definitions to provide a ‘guide’ to heights in storeys.

Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



f) Council should consider the inclusion in the Definition Section of DDO11 and in DDO12, definitions for ‘Diversity Areas’ and the ‘Accessible Residential Area’.

Although reference is made throughout Clause 21.08‐3 and DDO11 and DDO12 to the Diversity Areas and the Accessible Residential Area, there is no definition of these in the clauses. The terms are not ones which have an immediately clear meaning or confined interpretation. It would be of benefit to readers, especially lay people, that definitions be included at least in DDO11 and DDO12.

ACCEPT Discussion: Consider using the definitions contained in the Glossary to Appendix 7: Reference Documents and Glossary in the Structure Plan, or a précised version of the explanation of the terms in Clause 21.06‐2 of the Planning Scheme. Action: Draft appropriate definitions for inclusion in the Amendment documents.

g) Council should consider removing the following agreed post‐exhibition change to the Amendment: Encourage higher density housing and activity generating uses within 800m of existing railway stations and 400m of bus routes to support better public transport services.

Public Transport Victoria (PTV) proposed a number of changes and additions to Clause 21.08‐3 and DDO11, which Council included in an amended version of those documents. The Panel supports the amendments with the exception of the following proposal by PTV: Encourage higher density housing and activity generating uses within 800m of existing railway stations and 400m of bus routes to support better public transport services. The whole of the Structure Plan area based on the proposed DDO11 and DDO12 Planning Scheme map lies within a distance of 800m from the Ivanhoe and Darebin Stations. Buses

ACCEPT Discussion: It is not considered appropriate or necessary to include the discussed requirement in Clause 21.08‐3. Action: Amend Clause 21.08-3 to remove the reference as described by the Panel.

Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



run along the main streets within the Structure Plan area. The significantly higher density housing will lie within the area covered by DDO11, which is generally closer to the railway stations and the bus routes along the major roads than the PTV proposed distances. Areas of predominantly residentially zoned land beyond the Diversity and Accessible Residential Areas, however, are also included within the 800m and 400m radii of public transport services. In those areas, the encouragement of higher density housing and activity generating uses may not be appropriate especially given the specific encouragement given to increased residential densities in the Structure Plan area.

h) Council should replace the numbered Setback standards in the Built Form Plans and Table 6 of DDO11, with Setback standards identified by letters.

Concern was expressed by certain submitters that the Built Form Plans illustrating the relevant type of Setback standards for a site in numbers was confusing as the number could be misinterpreted as the required setbacks from boundaries in metres. The Panel also held this concern.

ACCEPT Discussion: To reduce any complication the Built Form Plans should be amended to show the setbacks as letters rather than as numbers. Action: Amended the diagrams in the Structure Plan and DDO accordingly.

Particular properties

Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



2. The exhibited Amendment provisions for 1045‐1059 Heidelberg Road, should be adopted except that:

a) The preferred maximum built height control for the site should be revised from 12m to 15m; and

b) The conflicting effects of Setbacks 1 and 10 and their relationship to the 9m podium required in the Precinct Built Form Plan should be resolved before adoption. The parameters of Setback 1 should apply to the plaza abuttal rather than Setback 10.

a) The Panel believes that taking account of the site’s location within the Major Activity Centre, between the railway line and Heidelberg Road, its separation from sensitive residential uses and its Proximity to the Darebin Station, a Preferred maximum height control of 15m rather than 12m should be supported.

b) The Panel has highlighted that there is

inconsistency with the podium heights proposed. In Setbacks 1 and 2. Table 6 of the proposed DDO11 indicates that buildings should be constructed to the property boundary, and they should not exceed 7.5m above natural ground level in a residential zone and 9m in a non-residential zone. It is noted that the proposed MUZ which would replace the R1Z for this site is amongst the group of residential zones suggesting therefore that the maximum street wall height of 7.5m should apply. Inconsistently, the Built Form Plan shows a 9m podium affecting the site.

a) NOT ACCEPT Discussion: There may be merit in allowing a 15m preferred height on this site given its proximity to the station and the heights afforded to neighbouring properties. However these heights were arrived at through extensive consultation with the Ivanhoe community and Council should not change its adopted position in relation to these heights. It is important to note however that the adoption of the preferred rather than mandatory height limits does not preclude consideration of development with a greater height outcome.

b) ACCEPT Discussion: Some further analysis has been done in relation to Setback Standards 1 and 10 and how they relate to the properties at 1045-1059 Heidelberg Road. Setback Standard 10 – ‘Public Space and Landscape Setting’ is intended to protect existing trees in particular locations in the Activity Centre as listed in the Structure Plan and DDO11. The property at 1045-1059 Heidelberg Road is not included as one of these properties. Setback Standard 1 – ‘Laneway Setback’ provides for the construction of buildings on the property boundary and provides guidance in respect to upper level setbacks. This Setback Standard is confusing given the

Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



concerns highlighted by the Panel in Recommendation a). This confusion can be alleviated by re-labelling the Key in the Built Form Plans with (‘General Residential Zone’ and ‘All other Zones’) in the Structure Plan and the DDO11. The provisions of Setback Standard 1 and 10 are quite similar concerning the 3m setback for levels higher than 7.5m above ground level but they have different provisions relating to the ground setback level setback itself. The provisions of Setback Standard 1 are considered to be more appropriate adjacent to the plaza they allow for buildings to be constructed to the property boundary up to 9m in height. Action: Consider amending the Heights and Setbacks Standards Plan for Precinct 1 (Darebin Station Precinct) to apply the parameters of Setback 1 to the plaza abuttal rather than Setback 10.

3. The exhibited Amendment provisions for 1065 Heidelberg Road should be adopted except that:

a) The preferred maximum built height control for the site should be revised from 12m to 15m; and

b) Setback 4 should not apply to the property boundary with the railway land.

Building Height A VCAT determination for this site considered that a development of appropriate quality could sustain an outcome in excess of the preferred height nominated in the proposed Amendment. The Panel, for similar reasons as set out in relation to 1045-1059 Heidelberg Road, considers that a 15m rather than 12m maximum preferred height control is

a) NOT ACCEPT Discussion: It could be argued that a 15m preferred height would be appropriate on this site given its proximity to the station and the heights afforded to neighbouring properties. It is also important to note that the adoption of the preferred rather than mandatory height limits does not preclude consideration of development with a greater height outcome.

Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



appropriate. Landscape Setback Setback Standard 4 – Landscape Setback has been applied to the Diversity Precincts 1 and 5 where proposed buildings back onto the railway line. The Panel has given consideration to the VCAT determination in relation to this site and also taken into account the relatively narrow width between the railway line and the main road. Given these factors the Panel considers that application of Setback Standard 4 is inappropriate for this site.

However the heights along this section of Heidelberg Road have been through an extensive amount of public consultation and the community have told us that an increased building height in this area will have a substantial impact on the residents of Salisbury Avenue.

b) PARTIALLY ACCEPT Discussion: During consultation on the development of the ISP the community, particularly the residents of Salisbury Avenue, told Council that they were concerned about the appearance of the rear of the rear of any new development in Heidelberg Road. The eastern side of Salisbury Avenue south of Darebin Station has a generous amount of mature street trees that create a green buffer to the railway line. North of the station the number of street trees is reduced and the rear of properties in Heidelberg Road become more noticeable, due in part also to the topography of the land and the railway cutting. Although there is intermittent planting of vegetation in the railway reserve there is no assurance from VicTrack that this vegetation will be maintained. Setback Standard 4 was included in the Structure Plan and DDO11 in response to those concerns raised during the consultation sessions. Setback Standard 4 applies to the western boundary of all the properties in Precinct 1. Given the topography of the land, the grade of the railway corridor and the location of street trees in Salisbury Avenue, it may not

Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



be necessary to apply Setback Standard 4 to every property in Precinct 1. Action: Remove Setback Standard 4 from the following properties: 1075-1091 Heidelberg Road 1023-1041 Heidelberg Road 979-1011 Heidelberg Road

4. The exhibited Amendment provisions for 1031 Heidelberg Road should be adopted except that:

Setback 4 should not be applied to the rear of that property abutting the railway land.

Given the existing site conditions the Panel considers it unnecessary to require application of the 3m landscape setback to this property. The Panel asserts that this site is separated from the railway embankment by a 3m wide pedestrian footpath linking the railway pedestrian underpass and the steps leading to the station forecourt. The embankment currently contains a number of trees/plants, which partially screen the site from the railway line. A softening of the rear elevation of any proposed building or fencing similar to that as described by VCAT in connection with 1065 Heidelberg Road should be considered.

PARTIALLY ACCEPT Discussion: As provided for Recommendation 3B above. Action: Remove Setback Standard 4 from the following properties: 1075-1091 Heidelberg Road 1023-1041 Heidelberg Road 979-1011 Heidelberg Road

5. The exhibited Amendment provisions for 40 Upper Heidelberg Road should be adopted except that:

This was an error in drafting and should be corrected.

ACCEPT Action:

Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



In the 3rd dot point of the ‘Requirements for the Built Environment’ replace ‘western’ with ‘eastern’.

Corrections to be made to the SP and DDO11 to reflect the correct words.

6. The exhibited Amendment provisions for 19‐33 Upper Heidelberg Road should be adopted subject to the following changes:

The built form areas for 19‐23 and 33 Upper Heidelberg Road should be shown as consolidated on the Precinct Built Form Plan DDO11‐5B.

As identified and proposed by Council in the Panel Report

ACCEPT Discussion: The Precinct Built Form Plan DDO11‐5B should be amended to reflect a consolidated land holding. Action: Amend the maps and diagrams in the Structure Plan and the Amendment documents to reflect the consolidated land holdings.

An ‘H’ designation should be included on the Precinct Built Form Plan DDO11‐5B, to acknowledge the heritage status of the dwelling at 9 Upper Heidelberg Road (HO71).

As identified and proposed by Council in the Panel Report

ACCEPT Discussion: The Precinct Built Form Plan DDO11-5B should be amended to acknowledge the heritage status of the dwelling at 9 Heidelberg Road. Action: Amend the maps and diagrams in the Structure Plan and Amendment documents to reflect the heritage status.

Setback 11, Upper Level Setbacks, should be applied to the southern boundary of 19‐33 Upper Heidelberg Road where it adjoins 15 Upper Heidelberg Road in the Precinct Built

Setback Standard 11 is considered to be the most appropriate setback for the southern boundary of this site. This setback specifies upper level setbacks between buildings and

ACCEPT Action: Amend the maps and diagrams in the Structure Plan

Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



Form Plan DDO11‐5B. would allow for suitable outlook, amenity and privacy.

and Amendment documents to reflect this change.

Replace Setback 10, Public Space and Landscape Settings, with Setback 5, Urban Street, Urban Laneway and Side Interface, for this site in the Precinct Built Form Plan DDO11‐5B.

With regard to the front setback of the northern part of the site from Upper Heidelberg Road and Waverly Avenue, Precinct Plan 5B proposes Setback Standard 10. Council considers that the trees along the property interface with UHR and Waverly Avenue, together with the trees in the forecourt of the church, form an important landscape character element of the southern gateway to the Precinct and the town centre. Setback Standard 10 includes the requirement that building setbacks should be not less than existing conditions as at the date of Gazettal. Given the setbacks of the existing buildings approximately one third to half way into the site, the Panel considers that this requirement is excessive. Professor McGauran agreed with this. It is recommended that Building Setback 5 would allow protection of the existing trees and provide for additional landscaping as part of any future development.

ACCEPT Discussion: In Professor McGauran’s view the frontage of Upper Heidelberg Road and Waverly Avenue should be included within Building Setback 5 which provides that buildings should be set back 4m from the property boundary. This setback will allow for protection of existing trees and provide for additional landscaping as part of any future development. This will ensure that that the landscape element of the southern part of the activity centre is maintained and enhanced. Action: Amend the maps and diagrams for the Structure Plan and Amendment documents to reflect these changes.

Replace the 12<15m and 12m preferred building height designations for the site in the Precinct Built Form Plan DDO11‐5B with 15m.

The Panel notes that the site at 19-33 UHR lies within a designated Major Activity Centre and a proposed Commercial 1 Zone. The Panel are not convinced that either a variable preferred height of 12<15m or a mixed height provision of 12<15m and 12m across land in the same ownership would be

ACCEPT Discussion: Applying a 15m preferred height would be consistent with the built form proposed further north along Upper Heidelberg Road. A preferred height of 15m would allow development which would complement a taller gateway building on 40 Upper Heidelberg Road

Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



appropriate. In a Statutory sense, given the heights are not mandatory but preferred, the specification of the height as 12<15m makes little sense.

opposite. Action: Amend the maps and diagrams for the Structure Plan and Amendment documents to reflect these changes.

7. Council should consider whether the land at 1 Waverley Avenue was intended to be rezoned to C1Z as part of the White Way Nominees land.

The panel has suggested that if rezoning was intended and is to be pursued, a further rezoning amendment appears to be the prudent course.

NO FURTHER ACTION Discussion: There is no property known as number 1 Waverly Avenue. Because the lot forms part of the property known as 25-33 Upper Heidelberg Road. This lot will be rezoned to C1Z when 25-33 and 19 Upper Heidelberg Road are rezoned. No further action

8. Before the Amendment is adopted, Council, in consultation with the Church of Mary Immaculate, should consider modifying Setback 2 in Built Form Plan DDO11‐5B as it affects the frontage of that property, taking into account the desirability of conserving the existing copse of trees/vegetation on the Church site.

The Panel agreed with the Council’s submission and Professor McGauran’s evidence about the considerable streetscape value of the copse of trees in the forecourt of the Church of Mary Immaculate. The Panel recommends that this copse of trees should be retained. The panel considers that in achieving the retention of these trees the proposed zero lot setback should be altered.

ACCEPT Discussion: This change would ensure protection of the trees in the forecourt of the church that make a significant contribution to the streetscape. Action: Write to the church/Catholic Archdiocese advising of the proposed changes that will affect their property and request feedback by a set date.

9. Before adoption of the Amendment, Council should reassess delineation of the north‐western boundary of the Accessible Residential Precinct 7 (DDO12) and consider whether to exclude the

The properties proposed for removal from DDO12 contain single detached dwellings set in their own gardens similar to those in the vicinity. There is no apparent reason to

PARTIALLY ACCEPT Discussion:

Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



properties 34 and 36 Ivanhoe Parade, 144, 146, 149 and 151 Waterdale Road from the Major Activity Centre after consultation with the owners.

include these in DDO12, in which case the east‐west public footpath forms an appropriate boundary.

The boundary of the Activity Centre has been developed and reviewed through a community consultation process. To date, the owners of the mentioned properties have not raised written concerns about their properties being included or excluded from the Activity Centre boundary. Revising the structure plan boundary would affect the proposed planning scheme provisions for these properties. Whilst the delineation of the final boundary may be different from what was publically exhibited, no change should occur without affected landowners having an opportunity to comment on the proposed changes. The outcome of this consultation would determine the final boundary that Council considers. Action: Write to the affected property owners, to see if they want to be in the publically exhibited structure plan boundary.

10. Before the Amendment is adopted, Council should assess the correctness of the western boundary of Diversity Precinct 5, and the transfer of adjoining properties between Rocke Street and Kenilworth Parade to Accessible Residential Precinct 7 (DDO12) following consultation with the affected owners.

The Panel questioned whether the western boundary of the DDO11 has been incorrectly drawn and requires medication to accord with Precinct Plan 5B. The Panel is concerned that the western boundary of Precinct 5 had been accidently extended in the exhibited planning scheme map to include residential land that should lie within the DDO12 Accessible Residential Area. This essentially north-south oriented strip of land generally runs between Rocke Street in

ACCEPT Discussion

An assessment has been done of those properties described by the Panel. An error has been found in the exhibited DDO map with some properties inadvertently included in the DDO11 instead of the DDO12. Action: Write to the six affected property owners advising of the mapping error. Provide a timeframe for landowners

Att

ach

men

t 1

4.1



the south and Kenilworth Parade in the north. to contact Council to discuss the implications of being transferred to a DDO12.

11. Before the Amendment is adopted, Council should consider further the heritage value of the area bordered by Lower Heidelberg Road to the north, Waterdale Road to the west, The Ridgeway to the east and the lane north of Latham Street running between Waterdale Road and The Ridgeway and whether any values there are inconsistent with the inclusion of the area in Precinct 7 (DDO12).

The Panel considers that it is logical that the large properties in the area described with frontage to Lower Heidelberg Road should be included as part of the Accessible Residential Area given their proximity to the station and the Centre generally. The Panel also considers the delineation of the southern boundary of this area by the laneway between Waterdale Road and The Ridgeway is appropriate and the area identified does not extend unacceptably far into the Fairy Hills neighbourhood.

PARTIALLY ACCEPT Discussion: The Panel is satisfied that the subject properties should be included in the DDO12 and that the boundary of this area of the DDO12 is appropriate. Council may consider doing some future heritage work to determine whether any heritage protection is warranted. Action: Consider including this area for investigation in any future heritage work done by Council.

Att

ach

men

t 1

4.2

Item: 4.2 Attachment 1: Middle Yarra River Study Area


Att

ach

men

t 2

4.2

Item: 4.2

Attachment 2: Banyule Submission to the Middle Yarra River draft Recommendations Report


RESPONSE TO

MIDDLE YARRA RIVER

DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT

Submission by Banyule City Council

July 2014

Att

ach

men

t 2

4.2

Item: 4.2 Attachment 2: Banyule Submission to the Middle Yarra River draft

Recommendations Report


1. INTRODUCTION

Banyule City Council (BCC) welcomes this opportunity to give feedback on the

draft Recommendations Report of the Middle Yarra River Corridor Study. BCC has

been a regular participant in the project’s reference group and has provided input

to and supported the work that the Department for Transport, Planning and Local

Infrastructure (DTPLI) has been leading.

2. COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT

2.1 Purpose of the Study

BCC supports the purpose of the study and recognises that there is a need to

better understand the Middle Yarra River (MYR) and in response produce a more

consistent approach in the type and application of planning controls along its length

and interface areas.

Assets along the MYR are often shared between the three municipalities included

in this study and a whole landscape approach should be adopted. Assets can also

be located on the opposite side of the river, particularly in the case of views. In

these instances the planning control to recognise and protect this asset is

implemented in another municipal planning scheme. Therefore consistency in

strategically recognising the importance of the Yarra River and its corridor is

important for each Councils’ Municipal Strategic Statement.

Whilst the need for consistent strategic recognition is important, BCC believes

some flexibility is needed in planning scheme implementation. This is because

critical issues and opportunities vary along the length of the MYR. For example the

attributes in Ivanhoe near the river are very different to those further upstream,

past Warrandyte.

2.2. Study Approach

The approach that the project’s consultant team, Planisphere, has adopted is one

which is clear, logical and methodical. The underpinning design principles which

are regularly used in tribunal decision making are supported. The use of “River

Interface Character Types’ is also supported.

Att

ach

men

t 2

4.2

Item: 4.2 Attachment 2: Banyule Submission to the Middle Yarra River draft Recommendations Report


2.3 Vision and Statement of Significance

The Vison specified on page 15 is succinct and does well to encompass not only

the aesthetic strengths of the MYR but also the notion that the river provides for a

range of humanistic experiences also. Equally the Statement of Significance

detailed on page 16 articulates strongly just how much the MYR is valued by

communities for its range of significant assets. We support both these components

of the report.

Whilst the Vision is supported, BCC is of the view that the environmental and

heritage significance of the MYR may be understated. With this in mind it is

disappointing to note that the study has not initiated any new investigations into

these themes. If this work had of been prepared it’s possible that the patchwork of

heritage sites along the MYR would be further understood and viewed more clearly

through a wider heritage landscape for the corridor.

2.4 Classifications and Descriptions of the MYR Study Area

It is considered that the amount of classifications or descriptions detailed in the

report can be confusing to the reader. These classifications are used to describe

areas along the river and its interface. For example:

o The study area (primary and broader context) – described in Chapter 1.

o The 6 Middle Yarra River Interface Character Types - described in Chapter 3.

o The 9 Viewing Locations – described in Chapter 4.

o The 3 River Corridor Areas - described in Chapter 5.

o The 4 Sub-Areas - described in Chapter 6.

Whilst it is appreciated that this breakdown may have been necessary to analyse

the river and prepare the report, some refinement or stronger links and reference to

those classifications (and their analysis) throughout the report would assist the

reader. Some suggestions to improve this are provided below:

o The broad and primary focuses of the study area (defined on page 8) are

considered a good starting point but simplistic. They do not reflect the

various transitions of river corridor and interface areas. In Chapter 5 the

report defines three river corridor areas; ‘landscape setting’, ‘river corridor

Att

ach

men

t 2

4.2




experience’ and ‘waterway corridor’. These more accurately reflect the

changing nature and topography of the Middle Yarra River. It is considered

that the ‘river corridor experience’ and ‘waterway corridor’ areas should

define the primary focus area of this study and the ‘landscape setting’ should

provide the broader context setting of the study. This approach would also

provide stronger links to terminology within the document.

o Stronger links between the analysis and the potential threats detailed for

each of the 6 River Interface Character Types and each of the 9 View

Locations should be included in the Sub-Area analysis and

recommendations provided in Chapter 6.

The ‘landscape setting’, ‘river corridor experience’ and ‘waterway corridor’ all need

to be accurately mapped as they specifically relate to what should be the defined

study area and also the site specific application of the planning controls detailed in

Chapter 5 and 6 of the report.

There was an opportunity for the study to review and use the extent of past MYR

corridor mapping work prepared in the studies of the 1980’s. In the absence of

this, it is unclear if the review has effectively enabled the review of the previously

mapped corridor.

In Chapter 5, under the description of the “Landscape Setting Corridor” we support

the reference and weight given to the importance of tree cover in developed areas

on page 52.

2.5 Managing development and recommendations

The intent of the “Objectives and Guidelines for Development” and the “Options for

Planning Controls” described in Chapter 5 (page 53-56) is broadly supported. How

these translate across into existing planning scheme controls across three

municipalities is a task which must be carefully implemented so not to undermine

or conflict with any existing objectives and guidelines.

Before and over the life of the MYR study BCC has been working on two relevant

planning scheme amendments:

Att

ach

men

t 2

4.2



o C71 – a planning scheme “fix up” amendment (currently with DTPLI for

processing through a Ministerial Amendment).

o C100 – the amendment which implements the new residential zones (now

gazetted).

The outcomes of both of these amendments broadly implement the planning

control recommendations of this study in the same manner or through the use of

other planning tool/s. The specifics of which are discussed below.

2.5.1 General Comments

We note that much of the MYR corridor is affected by major riverine flooding. With

this in mind we seek some clarification on Melbourne Water’s role in regards to:

o Formally confirming that its flood mapping is up to date.

o Advise how climate change factors have been considered in any review of

MYR flood extents.

o Lead and prepare flood plans along the river.

In addition to these it’s not clear if Melbourne Water is prioritising any floodplain

management authority priorities for the Yarra River. Some feedback on this matter

would be appreciated.

The Sub-Areas defined in Chapter 6 should include more detailed maps which

clearly define the boundaries (ideally to the property level) of the map reference

areas.

It is strongly urged that properties which are likely to be affected from the

suggested controls of this study are mapped before a planning scheme

amendment is pursued. In the absence of such mapping land-owners and

occupiers may be unsure if their property is affected by this study

The links between the 6 River Interface Character areas defined in Chapter 3 is

articulated in the recommendations table of Chapter 6. However, it is not clear if

this table relates to any view analysis and its protection, detailed in Chapter 4?

Att

ach

men

t 2

4.2




In the recommendations table of Chapter 6 a suggested “Desired Outcome” for

Sub-Area 1, Map Ref 1 to be included is:

o “Buildings should be sensitively designed and sited to compliment the river

corridor’s green and tree lined identity.”

In the recommendations table of Chapter 6 an amendment to the suggested

“Desired Outcome” for Sub-Area 1, Map Ref 3 & 4 is:

o “Strong landscaped edge to river and open spaces to screen views to

buildings and to provide for an improved contiguous tree canopy.”

Outside of planning permits, these “Desired Outcomes” may have implications for

building permits. Further consideration should be given to how decision making in

the building permit process will help to promote and respond to the “Desired

Outcomes” specified in Chapter 6.

The recommendations tables specified for each Sub-Area in Chapter 6 should

have reference to or include the guidelines specified in Appendix C. The fourth

column of this table “Development Requirements & Guidelines” only presents

some of the requirements specified elsewhere in the report (Chapter 5 and in

Appendix C). This is a crucial table to understand what suggested implementation

will mean for the three planning schemes and the full package of

recommendations should be represented or at the very least referred to.

2.5.2 Comments on Specific Recommended Planning Scheme Controls

For the guidelines specified in Chapter 5 and in more detail in Appendix C it is

considered worthwhile for some attention to be given to the design and

development of sporting structures for example swimming pools and tennis courts.

These structures and their associated infrastructure, such as lighting, can visually

intrude upon the aesthetics of the MYR, particularly when they are located close to

property boundaries with the riverine environment.

The controls outlined for public land are not supported for Council managed land.

Public works and community priorities on Council land already progress through an

Att

ach

men

t 2

4.2



informed and collaborative process working within the existing provisions of the

planning scheme and with input from community and interest groups. The

proposed DPO and subsequent master plan approach is therefore too prescriptive

for Council owned and managed land but may be appropriate in other

circumstances.

A generic DPO for State owned land along the corridor could work if the

Government is prepared to progress detailed master planning for the public

waterway corridor. How this aligns to Initiative 4.5.1 of Plan Melbourne needs to

also be considered. Under this initiative a new Metropolitan Open Space Strategy

is proposed to be developed by the MPA. The Open Space Strategy will include

measures to protect open space. We consider that it is in this Strategy that the

DPO control on State managed land can be progressed.

The “Development Requirements & Guidelines” and the “Recommended Planning

Controls” in the recommendations table of Chapter 6 often state quite specific

quantitative requirements. More clarification and strategic justification is sought on

these in the document. For example:

o A minimum building setback from the river’s centreline has different

distances specified for Map Reference 3 (35m – 70m) and for Map

Reference 4 (60m-100m) in Sub-Area 1.

Clarification for the figures would also be supported through more detailed

mapping.

It’s not clear whether the River’s centreline is the most appropriate river feature in

which mandatory setbacks should be applied from? This feature is not a visible

feature in the corridor. Further consideration and discussion is needed on this

matter. Setbacks could be taken from the “top of the river bank” or alternatively a

setback plan could be included within the Study and enabled in the planning

scheme through a reference document . Clarification of this defining feature will

provide the strategic justification of future planning scheme amendments and

support future applicants and their consultants in the mapping and articulation of

the setback.

Att

ach

men

t 2

4.2




We also note that for many of the proposed DDOs in the “Recommended Planning

Controls” specified in the recommendations table, a mandatory setback from the

river has been noted but no distance specified. We seek further clarification on

what the setback should be or what analysis needs to be prepared to determine

this. We suggest that a setback plan is needed as part of the Final Study to

remove ambiguity on the location of the setback with respect to properties and

physical features along the corridor.

Under “Recommended Planning Controls” in the recommendations table, a

proposed modification to an SLO or new DDO has been recommended for private

property with an interface with riverine parkland system. In many cases a

specified setback (5m or 15m) has been determined with no explanation for this

distance. In most cases it can be presumed that a road would be between a

property frontage and the park system. This control would therefore be ineffective

in these locations. It is recognised that there may be some properties that have a

side or rear boundary to a parkland system, where this control may be useful.

Given that this 5m parameter is intended for an existing SLO, there would also be

a need to include a new Decision Guideline to inform decision-making at the

public/private interface. Further guidance on this would be supported.

In Sub-Area 1 - Map Ref 3, for those areas outside of the DDO5 control a new

DDO is proposed to provide for a mandatory setback from the river, a 9m height

control and a 5m setback from shared boundaries with parkland. We have the

following questions and considerations for this control:

o Does this map reference refer to land which is either zoned C1Z or UFZ and

not affected by DDO5? Clearer maps would benefit this determination.

o If this is the case clarification should be sought from Melbourne Water on the

extent of the 1% flood area and whether they would support “in-principle” new

buildings on affected LSIO or UFZ properties. The introduction of a mandatory

height of 9m might result in building floor levels below the flood level.

Consequently variations to the LSIO or a local flood management plan may be

a better solution for the planning scheme.

Att

ach

men

t 2

4.2



o Please clarify if this recommendation is intended to give a 10m height control

for sloping sites?

In Sub-Area 1, Map Ref 4 AND Sub-Area 2, Map Ref 2 a new schedule to the RCZ

which proposes a minimum 8ha lot size is detailed. We have the following

questions and considerations for this control:

o We seek clarification as to why 8ha has been recommended and what

analysis sits behind this recommendation?

o If this recommendation is to proceed, will it result in the creation of an

additional schedule to the RCZ in the Banyule Planning Scheme?

o We would recommend further assessment in regards to the topography of land

and other development requirements which may have implications on the

successful implementation of this minimum lot size.

2.5.3 Banyule Planning Scheme Amendments C71 and C100

C71 is a broad ranging ‘fix up’ amendment to the Banyule Planning Scheme. Of

relevance to the outcomes of MYR study are the policy neutral revisions C71

makes to Environmental Overlays in Banyule namely; the suite of ESOs, VPOs

and SLOs. These revisions included policy neutral fix ups to the content of permit

requirements, decision guidelines and reference documents. The amendment

improves consistency, clarity and ensures all schedules are up-to-date. BCC has

the strong view that if the MYR study does not recommend a new provision within

these Overlays then no further adjustments to these Overlays are required. We

believe that through the C71 review we have enacted several of the

recommendations of the MYR study.

Amendment C100 was gazetted on the 24th July 2014. This amendment primarily

introduced the new suite of planning zones into the Banyule Planning Scheme.

This has enabled the NRZ to be established in many residential areas of the

municipality including areas which are in proximity to the MYR. The boundaries of

the NRZ have been informed by the strategic work Council has prepared in its

Housing Strategy, implemented through Clause 21.04 and 21.06 of the MSS.

Underlying some of this strategic work was the 1992 Middle Yarra River Concept

Att

ach

men

t 2

4.2




Plan and the subsequent application of SLOs into Banyule’s planning scheme.

The extent of the proposed schedule 2 to the NRZ broadly followed the extent of

these SLOs.

The introduction of the NRZ now confirms for these areas a maximum building

height of 8m (9m on a sloping site) and the limitation of only two dwellings being

allowed on a single lot.

In the approval of C100 the Minister for Planning applied the generic schedule to

the NRZ and referred the proposed schedules 1 and 2 of the NRZ to the

Residential Zones Standing Advisory Committee for further consideration. The

MYR study supported the proposed schedule 2 to the NRZ as part of C100:

“Maintain…proposed NRZ schedule to protect vegetation and manage

development relating to the broader landscape setting”

In essence, priority recommendations for residential land within the MYR study

area have been achieved through the introduction of the NRZ. BCC will continue

to consider the schedules of the NRZ and anticipates future planning work to

resolve priorities for the schedules. We also request continued and more detailed

and justified support for the application of schedule 2 to the NRZ as part of the

MYR study with a focus on ResCode variations for site coverage and landscaping

as a priority.

BCC has the view that no further priority planning scheme changes are required

for those areas affected by the NRZ. For example the introduction of a new DDO

is not required as the NRZ and its final schedules will achieve most of the design

outcomes proposed by the new DDO.

BCC is also of the view that where a design outcome cannot be achieved through

the zoning provisions of the NRZ then minor changes to other existing controls

may be appropriate. We touched on this earlier in regards to the management of

the public private interface being a consideration in decision guidelines of the

SLO.

Att

ach

men

t 2

4.2



Finally in regard to the outcomes of C100, the LDRZ schedule was amended to

maintain the 0.4ha minimum subdivision size. This can now be omitted as a

recommendation as part of this study.

2.6 Further Work, Implementation and Responsibilities

Our submission has highlighted further refinement and clarity on several matters.

Particularly those that relate to the reasoning behind specific planning scheme

controls e.g. a 5m setback on public/private interfaces or a minimum subdivision

size of 8ha in the RCZ. Can it be confirmed if further and detailed work (a bridging

study of some kind) will be prepared on these types of planning scheme control

parametres? Or is this, the MYR corridor study, as it currently stands be the

document that provides the strategic justification for future planning scheme

amendments. If the latter is the case then the document needs to provide

stronger justification for the parametres it has specified.

We touched on this earlier in this submission and would like to reiterate that

Council respectfully requests a degree of flexibility in what is proposed to be

changed in its planning scheme as a result of this study.

We seek clarification on the roll out of the planning scheme controls specified in

this report. It is stated that the final part of the MYR study will be the provision of

Municipal Toolkits to each of the three Councils with a suite of recommendations

and draft ordinance for planning scheme provisions, overlay schedules and maps.

Can it therefore be assumed that much of the drafting work will be the role of the

consultant team appointed by DTPLI? Will this drafting work reflect the content

and direction of this BCC submission? Please note that Banyule’s priorities for the

river corridor have already been achieved through C100 or are in progress through

C71.

Once drafted the next step in the process will be to proceed through a planning

scheme amendment (PSA) process. This could be one large or several separate

PSAs. The tone of the document indicates that it will be Councils who will run the

Att

ach

men

t 2

4.2




PSAs given that the Municipal Toolkits will be provided as the final part of this

project and that “standard planning scheme amendment process prescribed under

the Planning and Environment Act 1987 post completion of this study” is stated on

page 11 of the report.

These are likely to be complicated and resource intensive PSAs. Appropriate

public consultation will form a large component of the amendments. We therefore

respectfully seek that the DTPLI continue to lead this project and therefore its

implementation through the PSA process with Council in a supporting role. Please

note that Banyule is not prioritising further planning scheme amendment work in its

own work program, as this work has been done in C100 and C71.

The responsibility for considering and progressing the proposed DPO on State

owned public land is that of MPA in their work on the Metropolitan Open Space

Strategy.

3. CONCLUSION

The MYR Corridor Recommendations Report is a sound and analytical report

which provides a good basis to further discuss, refine and inform potential future

changes to the planning schemes of Nillumbik, Manningham and Banyule. These

changes will assist in more consistent approaches to design and development

considerations on proposals in the riverine interface and broader landscape areas.

Broadly speaking most of the report’s intent and recommendations are supported.

However BCC considers that through its recent planning scheme amendments

much of the recommendations proposed have been already been achieved.

Regardless, further refinement and clarification on certain matters outlined in this

submission are sought. This includes the strategic justification for planning control

parametres and a detailed mapping exercise which will support the understanding

and implementation of this study.

Att

ach

men

t 2

4.2



4. RECOMMENDATIONS

BCC requests flexibility on what planning scheme changes will be pursued

through the planning scheme amendment process as an outcome of this study.

Please note that Banyule is not prioritising further planning scheme amendment

work in its own work program, as this work has been done in C100 and C71.

The MYR study to provide continued and stronger support for the implementation

of the NRZ (particularly the intent of C100’s proposed schedule 2) as the primary

tool for managing appropriate design and development on residential land within

the study area.

The MYR study to prescribe only appropriate minor additions to the schedules of

Banyule’s environmental Overlays. General refinements are not required and

have been addressed through C71.

Clarity is sought on future ‘bridging work’ that will be prepared to respond to the

concerns raised in this submission. Particularly in regard to providing the strategic

justification for planning control parametres and the preparation of more detailed

maps.

BCC requests that the DTPLI be the lead partner in the preparation and roll out of

each planning scheme amendment.

Confirm the MPA will lead consideration and progression of any DPOs on public

land through the preparation of a Metropolitan open Space Strategy.

Confirm the role of Melbourne Water and its potential influence on this report.

Att

ach

men

t 2

4.2




5. TYPOGRAPHICAL AMENDMENTS

Page 10 – first column, under stage 2 heading, second sentence. An “and” should

be included between the words “issues” and “opportunities.

Page 52 – penultimate paragraph. “Landscape” needs to be inserted between

“Significant” and “Overlay”.

Page 53 – fourth column, under River Health and Conservation heading,

penultimate dot point. Should read ‘instability” not “stability”.

Page 67 – second column, second row of table. Should read “Low density, bush

quality maintained”.

Att

ach

men

t 1

4.6

Item: 4.6 Attachment 1: Amended plans


Att

ach

men

t 2

4.6

Item: 4.6 Attachment 2: Referral responses


Att

ach

men

t 3

4.6

Item: 4.6 Attachment 3: Clause 55 assessment


Att

ach

men

t 4

4.6

Item: 4.6 Attachment 4: Neighbourhood Character Assessment


Att

ach

men

t 1

5.2

Item: 5.2 Attachment 1: Advocacy Report 1 January 2014 to 30 June 2014


Att

ach

men

t 1

6.3

Item: 6.3 Attachment 1: Planning and Building Enforcement Framework August 2014


Planning and Building

Enforcement Framework

AUGUST 2014

Att

ach

men

t 1

6.3



Att

ach

men

t 1

6.3



1 Introduction

This Framework is used by Council to determine priorities for the enforcement of the Building

Code of Australia, Planning and Environment Act 1987 and the Banyule Planning Scheme. It will

guide:

The priority given to the investigation of complaints to the Development Planning Unit and the

Municipal Building Surveyor;

Changes to policies and procedures with respect to the granting of Planning Permits and the

conditions attached to them; and

The proactive investigation of particular sites where a Building Permit and/or Planning Permit has

been issued.

1.1 City Plan Reference

Council’s City Plan identifies that the vision of the Banyule City Council is

Banyule, a green, liveable and prosperous city, sustaining a healthy and engaged

community.

The core principles that help us achieve our Vision are:

• Sustainability for our future

• Community wellbeing

• Community participation

• Fairness in all we do

• Maintaining our community’s trust

A number of objectives and key initiatives outlined in the City Plan relate directly to the functions of

the Development Planning Unit and the Municipal Building Surveyor.

Enforcement of the Acts and the BPS is an essential component in ensuring that Council fulfils its

statutory obligations and that the safety and wellbeing of our community is maintained.

Relevant key initiatives from the City Plan include that we will:

• Work with the Banyule community to broaden our understanding of the benefits and importance of

our urban forest, and increase our connection to them.

• Continue the work of our arborists and Council’s planning enforcement area to protect our treed

environment in private places

• Develop communication and promotion strategies for specific services, including … Development

Planning.

• Develop neighbourhood based communication methods to better explain, promote, listen and consult

on our services.

• Create corporate planning and reporting processes that show what we are doing and how we are

performing

• Deliver responsive, accessible customer service in a manner that exceeds community expectations

and meets industry best practice

Att

ach

men

t 1

6.3



In addition, the City Plan identifies that:

We will continue to ensure we comply with the requirements of the Local Government Act and other

relevant legislation and regulations, and fulfil the duties, powers and functions of a Council. This

involves reviewing and developing support mechanisms, structures, policies and processes relating to

our good governance practices, including making and enforcing local laws.

We are committed to applying sound risk management principles and practices to protect our staff,

contractors, volunteers, community, assets and the environment. We recognise risk management as

an integral process in the planning, prioritisation and delivery of services, activities and objectives.

Council has an obligation to ensure compliance with the Building Code of Australia, the Banyule

Planning Scheme, and permits issued pursuant to them.

We will:

Proactively enforce the Building Code of Australia, the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and

the Banyule Planning Scheme;

Investigate complaints made with respect to land use and development;

Prioritise our work to ensure that more significant breaches are given higher priority (good

value for money, safety); and

Be clear with customers when their complaint is outside of the scope of our powers.

1.2 Policy objective

It is the purpose of this document to provide a framework for a risk-based assessment of

enforcement priorities, in order to:

Carry out our statutory enforcement functions;

Minimise risk to ratepayers, residents, the environment and Council; and

Reduce the level of non-compliance over time.

2 Terms

BA Building Act 1993

BCIFC Building Control Intervention Filter Criteria

BPS Banyule Planning Scheme

NCC National Construction Code

PBS Private Building Surveyor

PEA Planning and Environment Act 1987

S.173 Agreement Agreement entered into between Council and a land owner pursuant

to Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Ordinarily

registered on the title of the affected land.

VAGO Office of the Victorian Auditor-General

Att

ach

men

t 1

6.3



3 Background

In November 2008 the Victorian Auditor General’s Office (VAGO) tabled a report in Parliament

titled “Enforcement of Planning Permits”. The report discussed the differing planning enforcement

regimes at the City of Hume and the City of Ballarat. Recommendations included:

Recommendation 3.1 – Hume and Ballarat should develop a documented framework for

enforcement action that sets out the enforcement rationale, objectives, priorities and intended

outcomes. This framework should indicate how it contributes to achieving the councils’ strategic

objectives.

Recommendation 3.2 – Hume and Ballarat should conduct an across-the-board risk assessment

of all permit categories to set enforcement priorities and resource allocation and to better address

their legal obligations to administer and enforce the planning scheme under the Planning and

Environment Act 1987.

Additional recommendations related to the resourcing of enforcement activities, establishing

enforcement guidelines and a complaints-handling system, as well as reviews of the enforcement area

to ensure that guidelines are being followed.

In December 2011 VAGO tabled the report “Compliance with Building Permits” in Parliament. Its

recommendations included:

Recommendation 1.6 – The Building Commission should develop and implement a strategy, in

consultation with the local government sector, to enable more effective coordination with Councils to

monitor the performance of the building permit system and of building surveyors.

Recommendation 1.7 – The Building Commission should clarify Councils’ responsibilities for

monitoring and enforcing the Building Act 1993 relating to private building surveyors in consultation

with the Department of Planning and Community Development (PDCD) and relevant stakeholders.

A Working Group was established including representation from the Building Commission, the

Department of Planning and Community Development, the Municipal Association of Victoria and the

Victorian Municipal Building Surveyors Group and a draft strategy and implementation plan prepared

to address these recommendations. This Strategy, the Building Control Intervention Filter Criteria

(BCIFC), was officially adopted by Council on 29 July 2013.

The draft strategy recommends that a Building Control Plan or enforcement policy also be

developed and adopted by Council.

This policy has been developed in direct response to the VAGO reports and the BCIFC.

3.1 Roles and functions

3.1.1 Municipal Building Surveyor

Council is required by section 212 of the Building Act 1993 (BA) to administer and enforce specified

parts of that Act and the whole of the Building Regulations ('the Regulations') within its municipal

boundaries. As with many other responsibilities, Council has the ability to determine how it will

carry out these functions having regard to competing obligations and limited resources.

The privatisation of the issue of building permits means that in practice this administration and

enforcement role encompasses:

Att

ach

men

t 1

6.3



The issue of building permits where Council is the relevant building surveyor;

Inspecting building works where Council is the relevant building surveyor, and carrying out

necessary action where non-compliance is identified;

Enforcement action where works are undertaken without a building permit. This may include

action with respect to the change of use of a property where the new use has different

requirements under the BA or the Regulations compared with earlier land uses.

Referral of enforcement matters to the relevant building surveyor for attention where this is a

Private Building Surveyor (PBS).

The issue of emergency orders if the Municipal Building Surveyor is of the opinion that an order

is necessary because of a danger to life or property due to the condition or use or proposed use

of a building or land.

Referring a PBS to the Building Practitioners Board where appropriate.

Volume of building permits and complaints

Council issues in the order of 540 building permits within the municipality each year, with a total of

approximately 1750 building permits issued across the whole municipality each year.

The most common permit types for the 2012 calendar year were:

1. Alterations and additions to dwellings (excluding apartments),

including associated outbuildings and garages

653 permits

2. New dwellings (excluding apartments) 189 permits

3. Demolition 173 permits

4. Reblock/Underpin 163 permits

5. Commercial Buildings/Offices 114 permits

Att

ach

men

t 1

6.3



Some types of permit are more heavily privatised than others, and the most common types of

permit issued by Council within the Banyule area for the same time period were:

1. Alterations and additions to dwellings (excluding apartments),

including associated outbuildings and garages

306 permits

2. Swimming Pool 42 permits

3. New Class 1 dwellings 33 permits

4. Commercial Buildings/Offices 22 permits

5. Demolition 20 permits

As part of its role in enforcing the Building Act Council receives approximately 19 complaints a

month to the Municipal Building Surveyor.

By comparison, the ‘top 10’ complaints/identified breaches are:

1. Construction without a permit 62 complaints

2. Drainage 43 complaints

3. Structural safety 24 complaints

4. Swimming pool 21 complaints

5. Use of land 21 complaints

6. Compliance with a permit issued by a PBS 15 complaints

7. Other 12 complaints

8. Amenity 4 complaints

9. Build over easement 4 complaints

10. Fencing 3 complaints

Att

ach

men

t 1

6.3



Whilst these breaches were significant in number, Council investigates a smaller number of more

significant breaches in the course of its enforcement action. These breaches can be significant in

terms of their potential consequences, and for the last 12 months the most significant breaches in

terms of potential consequences or officer time are as follows:

1. Structural damage by fire: 2 instances

2. Structural damage by a vehicle: 1 instance

3. Other structural damage: 1 instance

3.1.2 Development Planning Unit

Council’s Development Planning Unit is the responsible authority for the administration and

enforcement of the Banyule Planning Scheme and the provisions of the Planning and Environment

Act 1987 within the municipality. As part of this role, the Unit:

Provides advice with respect to the provisions of the Scheme and the Act;

Assesses applications for planning permit;

Has an obligation to enforce the Banyule Planning Scheme, including permits issued pursuant to

it.

Volume of planning permits and complaints

Council receives in the order of 1400 applications for planning permit a year, with a total of

approximately 1050 planning permits issued by Council each year. As part of its role in enforcing

the PEA and BPS, Council receives approximately 30 complaints a month to the Development

Planning Unit.

The most common permit types for the 2012 calendar year were:

1. Removal of non-native vegetation 297 permits

2. Subdivision creating additional lots 145 permits

3. Multi dwellings (up to 10) 134 permits

4. Extension to dwelling 111 permits

5. Native vegetation removal 61 permits

6. Tree pruning 44 permits

7. Change or extension of use 22 permits

8. Other Buildings & works 18 permits

9. One new dwelling 16 permits

10. Extension to a building (not a dwelling) 15 permits

Att

ach

men

t 1

6.3



By comparison, the most common planning investigations are with respect to:

1. Non-native vegetation removal 75 investigations

2. Change of use 64 investigations

3. Signage 53 investigations

4. Construction of between 2 and 10 new dwellings 48 investigations

5. Native vegetation removal 42 investigations

6. Other 19 investigations

7. Construction of one new dwelling 17 investigations

8. Minor buildings and works 14 investigations

9. Tree pruning 13 investigations

10. Construction of more than 10 new dwellings 8 investigations

Att

ach

men

t 1

6.3



Whilst these breaches were significant in number, Council investigates a smaller number of more

significant breaches in the course of its enforcement action. These breaches can be significant in

terms of their potential consequences, and for the last 12 months the most significant breaches in

terms of potential consequences/officer time is as follows:

1. Motor vehicle storage resulting in the lodgement of an

Enforcement Order application

2 instances

2. Failure to install required landscaping, resulting in the

lodgement of an Enforcement Order application

2 instances

Implications

There are a large number of tree-related investigations, representing approximately 34% of

all planning investigations, compared with approximately 43% of all planning permits issued in

2012 relating to tree removal or pruning. This indicates that the number of investigations is

not disproportionately high.

The number of complaints received/investigations initiated in 2012 as a proportion of

planning permits given would indicate that the following are over-represented in terms of

Council’s current investigation regime:

1. Miscellaneous matters

2. The construction of one or more buildings

3. Signage

4. Change or extension of use

5. The construction of more than 10 new dwellings

The subdivision of land and construction of additions to single dwellings would appear to be

under-represented in terms of Council’s current investigation regime. Further analysis is

required to determine whether this represents a lower rate of non-compliance with respect

to this type of development or lower levels of complaints.

Att

ach

men

t 1

6.3



This may be as a result of more significant numbers of breaches in these areas, a potential

for them to be subject of greater numbers of complaints, or through a higher level of

proactive enforcement in these areas at present.

3.1.3 Overlapping roles

Due to the nature of the building and planning regulations, there is overlap between the

enforcement sections of the Units. For example, construction conducted contrary to plans

approved by a Planning Permit would ordinarily be expected to also be contrary to the Building

Permit for the property. In the 2012 calendar year there were 33 properties which had complaints

lodged or investigations instigated through both the Development Planning Unit and the Municipal

Building Surveyor’s staff. In the majority of instances (although not in every case) the same matter

was investigated by both sections of Council. There is also overlap between the roles of the

Development Planning Unit, the Municipal Building Surveyor and Council’s Environmental Health and

Local Laws Units. This Framework will identify what is to occur when a breach is relevant to more

than one Council service unit.

4 Enforcement: A risk-based approach

Council’s Risk Management Guidelines are based on Australian Standard AS/NZS 4360:2004, and will

be used by Council to prioritise the workload of its Planning Investigations and Building Enforcement

staff. There are four steps to assess and mitigate risk, with the process to be undertaken twice

(once at the commencement of investigation and once at its conclusion). It is considered that a

residual ‘medium’ risk will be considered to be acceptable in most instances.

4.1 Step 1: Consequence

A consequence is an outcome or impact of an event, which results from the identified hazard or

potential breach.

Using the table below, we will identify the consequence/s that may reasonably be expected to occur

from an event involving the hazard identified. If we identify more than one consequence, we will use

the consequence with the greatest severity.

Att

ach

men

t 1

6.3



TABLE 1: Risk Consequence

Consequence types

Profit Reduction

Cost to rectify Health and Safety Natural Environment

Social, Cultural &

Heritage

Community,

Reputation, Media,

Gov’t

Legal

Seve

rity

Leve

l

Cat

astr

ophic

$10m –$100m Multiple fatalities, or

significant irreversible

effects to >50

persons

Very serious, long-

term environmental

impairment of

ecosystem functions

Destruction of

structures/items of

cultural significance

- Significant

prosecution and fines.

Very serious litigation

including class

actions.

Maj

or

$1m – $10m Single fatality and/or

severe irreversible

disability (>30%) to

one or more persons

On-going serious

social issues.

Significant damage to

structures/ items of


Serious public or

media outcry

(international

coverage)

Major breach of

regulation. Minor

litigation.

Modera

te

$100,000 – $1m Moderate irreversible

disability or

impairment (<30%) to

one or more persons

Serious medium term

environmental effects

Significant adverse

national media/

public/ NGO

attention

Serious breach of

regulation with

investigation or

report to authority

with prosecution

and/or moderate fine

possible.

Min

or

$10,000 – $100,000 Objective but

reversible

injury/illness requiring

medical treatment

Moderate, short-term

effects but not

affecting the

ecosystem functions

On-going social

issues. Permanent

damage to items of


Attention from

media. Heightened

concern by local

community. Criticism

by NGOs

Minor legal issues,

non-compliances and

breaches of

regulation.

Insi

gnific

ant

Less than $10,000 First Aid only, no

medical treatment

required

Minor effects on

biological or physical

environment

Minor medium-term

social impacts on

local population.

Mostly repairable

Minor, adverse local

public or media

attention or

complaints

Att

ach

me

nt

1

6.3



4.2 Step 2: Likelihood

The Likelihood is the description of how frequently an event and resulting consequence/s are

expected to occur or may occur.

Using the table below, we will identify the highest frequency that an event may reasonably be

expected to occur.

TABLE 2: Risk Likelihood

Descriptor Description

Almost

certain

Event expected to occur in most circumstances (including most instances

where a complaint has been received).

Likely Event will probably occur in most circumstances (includes proposals that

have been identified as being within the ‘top 10’ enforcement issues for the

preceding year).

Possible Event should occur at some time (including where a complaint is received

with respect to a breach which is likely to be transitory, such as the display

of a real estate agent’s for sale sign for more than a week following sale of

a property)

Unlikely Event could occur at sometime

Rare Event may occur but only in exceptional circumstances

4.3 Step 3: Level of risk

We will use the table below to determine the Level of Risk and therefore priority for action:

TABLE 3: Level of Risk

Likelihood

Level

Consequence Severity Level

Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic

Almost

certain Medium High High Very High Very High

Likely Medium Medium High High Very High

Possible Low Medium High High High

Unlikely Low Low Medium Medium High

Rare Low Low Medium Medium High

Where a potential or actual breach is identified that has implications for more than one

Business Unit, the Unit which has responsibility for the highest level of risk as determined by

Step 3 is to coordinate the investigation and enforcement action. This may include:

Taking immediate steps to address issues of Very High risk;

Seeking input from the Municipal Building Surveyor, Coordinator Development Planning,

Health Services Coordinator or other appropriate Senior Officers or their delegate as

to matters which require addressing and their risk ranking; and

Advising offender of the requirements of other Council departments.

4.4 Step 4: Action and review required

Following completion of action associated with an identified breach, we will review the

matter to ensure that risk is appropriately managed. Timeframes for review are as follows:

Att

ach

me

nt

1

6.3



TABLE 4: Review timeframes

Risk Level Minimum Action Required Review

Low Implementation of simple and cost effective controls if

required to maintain low level of risk

1 Year

Medium Implementation of effective controls as required to manage

risk

1 Year

High Rigorous Management attention required. Implementation

of controls to reduce the level of risk to as low as possible.

6 Months

Very High Senior Management attention required. Risk must be

eliminated or controlled to reduce level of risk.

3 Months

We recognise the need to maintain balance between time spent in review of previous

enforcement issues and investigation of current issues, however, and priority is to be given

to the investigation of new complaints where necessary.

5 Priorities for action

5.1 Identifying issues

Initial identification of a potential breach of planning or building controls may be as a result

of inspection by Council staff or of complaints received from members of the public.

Currently:

Matters potentially requiring enforcement by the Building Enforcement Officer are

identified through the receipt of written complaints from the public or advice from

other Council departments.

Building inspectors carry out mandatory inspections of building works during

construction. Inspections are conducted by Council building inspectors where Council

has issued the building permit, and by the inspectors of the relevant building surveyor

where the building permit has been issued by another party.

Matters potentially requiring enforcement by the Development Planning Section are

identified through the receipt of verbal/written complaints from the public, advice from

other Council departments or proactive inspection of sites.

Council development planning staff inspect multi-dwelling developments at completion

when:

o Requested by the developer;

o There is a history of non-compliance or complaints during the construction phase;

or

o Four or more dwellings have been constructed.

Council seeks to minimise non-compliance with the Building Code and Planning Scheme

through the provision of advice and inclusion of appropriate conditions and notes on

Planning Permits issued.

5.2 Assessing risk

Council acknowledges the importance of each potential breach of planning or building

controls brought to its attention to the member/s of the public who take the time to

contact Council to report them. However, breaches vary significantly in terms of their

urgency and impact upon people and the environment.

Att

ach

me

nt

1

6.3



Council has conducted a risk assessment of the potential breaches in planning and building

controls, having regard to the number of permits issued for various activities, the impact of

any breach, and existing measures utilised to mitigate risk. These are contained in Appendix

1 and Appendix 2 to this document.

In order to ensure that the most significant and urgent matters are afforded appropriate

attention, to provide good value for money for ratepayers, and to recognise staffing and

budgetary limitations it is necessary to prioritise enforcement tasks.

Accordingly, all complaints received and potential breaches identified will be assessed

according to the Four-Step risk-based assessment outlined in Section 4 of this Framework

prior to action by Council investigation staff. Action will then be taken in priority order as

follows:

1. Very high priority (with focus on matters with a Catastrophic severity level prior to

those of a Major severity level);

2. High priority (with focus on matters with Catastrophic and Major severity levels prior to

those with Moderate and Minor severity levels);

3. Medium priority (with focus on matters with Major and Moderate severity levels prior

to those with Minor and Insignificant priority levels);

4. Low priority issues to be dealt with as time permits.

If initial investigation to identify the risk associated with the alleged breach determines that

either there is no case to answer, or the matter is a civil dispute, Council will advise the

complainant of this fact within 7 days of receipt of the complaint.

5.3 Proactive enforcement

Based on the number of Permits issued and complaints received, Appendix 1 identifies the

following issues currently present High or Very High risk, whether or not a complaint has

been received:

TABLE 5: Residual higher risk issues

Very High Nil identified

High Construction of a:

o Commercial or industrial building; or

o Fence

without the necessary Building Permit;

Destruction or removal of:

o A tree protected by the Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule

4 or Heritage Overlay; or

o More than one tree affected by Planning Scheme controls other than

the Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 4 (ESO4) or

specifically protected by the Heritage Overlay (HO)

Storage of goods or conduct of works within specified Tree Protection

Zone

Failure to provide required Tree Protection Fencing

Use of land:

Att

ach

me

nt

1

6.3



o For a purpose prohibited by the Planning Scheme;

o For a purpose permitted by the Planning Scheme without the requisite

Planning Permit for the use; or

o Contrary to the provisions of Clause 52.06 (Car Parking) of the

Banyule Planning Scheme.

Failure to comply with a Planning Permit for use of the premises, including

with respect to:

o Hours or patron numbers for premises in a residential area

o The provision of on-site parking

Demolition of an A or B graded building affected by a Heritage Overlay

without the requisite Planning Permit

Catastrophic breach of Building Regulations by accident or design,

including:

o Failure to comply with emergency egress requirements for a public

building

o Failure to install or maintain an appropriate pool barrier

o Structural failure of a commercial or industrial building (Including

Shop, Office and Factory)

o Structural failure to a Boarding House / Motel

o Structural failure to an apartment or associated building

Keeping of bees in a manner which does not comply with the Apiary

Code of Practice 2011 or any relevant Planning Permit

Failure to comply with building regulations for subdivided buildings

5.3.1 Current proactive measures

In an effort to reduce the number of instances where non-compliances occur, Council

currently:

Employs appropriately qualified and experienced staff to provide advice to the public,

including:

o Advising potential purchasers to review all title restrictions prior to the purchase of

a property.

o Advice as to the implications of Agreements on the use and development of

property.

o Conducts periodic information / education campaign in the Banyule Banner, outlining

the benefits of trees and providing advice about tree protection controls.

o Providing advice on the planning and building controls and permit requirements

verbally and in writing as requested.

o Provide advice with respect to the requirements of the Apiary Code and need for

bee keepers to be registered with the Department of Environment and Primary

Industries.

o Provide information, including brochures and information on Council’s website with

respect to the pool enclosure requirements.

Includes annotations on permits as relevant outlining:

o That Council’s Development Planning Arborist is to be contacted to inspect tree

protection fencing prior to the commencement of works;

Att

ach

me

nt

1

6.3



o That building approval is required for construction;

o That Health Services approval is required under the Food Act or the Health Act;

o The need to obtain approval to construct over an easement;

o That additional signage is not to be displayed;

o The need to provide an appropriate trade waste area

o The need to ensure that the proposal complies with the Building Regulations with

respect to fire rating, and with the Tobacco Act.

Seeks to inform and educate members of the public with regular interaction with the

Development Services Unit through periodic information seminars.

Utilises Planning Permit conditions which seek to be readily understood and enforced.

Inspects tree protection fencing in a timely manner when requested.

Actively encourages bee keepers to meet the requirements of the Apiary Code of

Practice.

Utilises due diligence in assessing building permit applications and conduct of mandatory

inspections during construction.

Requires the provision of certificates with respect to electrical safety, plumbing and

insulation installation prior to the issue of an occupancy permit or approval of a final inspection for works.

5.3.2 Additional proactive measures identified

Development Planning Unit

Inspections

Expand the existing inspection regime to include inspection of:

o The inspection of all sites where three or more dwellings have been constructed

prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance for subdivision.

o Selected sites with a planning permit for alterations and additions to a single

dwelling;

o Selected sites with a planning permit for use of land within 6 months of the issue of a

planning permit.

o Selected of sites issued with a planning permit for the display of business

identification signage for a new occupier or use of land within 6 months of the issue

of a planning permit.

o The health of trees protected by the ESO4 and specific controls under the HO on a

periodic basis.

Education

Provide readily accessible links on Council’s website to:

o Council’s Building Site Code of Practice

o The Apiary Code of Practice

o The Tennis Court Code of Practice

Include advice with respect to the need to provide appropriate emergency exits and

other facilities and seek the advice of a suitably qualified and experienced building

surveyor in the covering letter sent with any Planning Permit for a change of use of a

premises.

Att

ach

me

nt

1

6.3



Conduct periodic information / education campaigns as follows:

o For owners and occupiers of properties affected by the Environmental Significance

Overlay Schedule 4, outlining the benefits of such trees and providing advice about

their management.

o In the Banyule Banner, outlining the benefits of trees and providing advice about tree

protection controls.

Consider writing to new owners of properties affected by the Heritage Overlay advising

them of the need to obtain a planning permit for buildings and works, including

demolition.

Provide training to Economic Development, Environmental Health, Asset Protection and

Building staff with respect to Planning Scheme requirements

Internal processes

Review register of Building Permits issued to identify sensitive sites where work is likely

to commence. Identify specific sites to review and inspect.

Identify ‘serial’ offenders and target for more regular monitoring.

Planning Technical Officers to assume responsibility for monitoring and enforcement

with respect to real estate signage.

Conduct a review of standard permit conditions and notes to ensure clarity and

enforceability.

Ensure that Development Planners seek the advice of the Municipal Building Surveyor

with respect to planning applications incorporating the subdivision of buildings and the

change of use of a property to a Boarding House or Place of Assembly.

Municipal Building Surveyor

Identify ‘serial’ offenders and target for more regular monitoring

Provide training to Development Planning staff with respect to:

o The implications of subdivision on BCA requirements in relation to fire rating;

o The requirement for emergency exits in certain classes of building;

o Understanding when a building permit would be required for signage and fencing.

5.4 Reactive enforcement

In addition, Appendix 2 identifies that where a complaint is received the following are

considered to be of High or Very High risk:

TABLE 6: Residual higher risk issues where complaints received

Very High Construction of a dwelling, dwelling addition or associated structure;

without the requisite building permit;

Conduct of significant site works without the requisite Planning Permit in

an area:

o where a Cultural Heritage Management Plan is required pursuant to

the Aboriginal Heritage Act; or

o affected by an Environmental Significance Overlay, Land Subject to

Inundation Overlay, Significant Landscape Overlay or Land Subject to

Att

ach

me

nt

1

6.3



Inundation Overlay

Significant breach of Planning or Building Permit with respect to

construction. For example:

o Significant increase in height;

o Significant modification of built form;

o Failure to comply with the structural requirements of a Building

Permit;

o Occupation of a premises prior to the issue of an Occupancy Permit

Objective breach of Planning or Building Permit with respect to


o Construction of a dwelling, dwelling addition or associated structure

contrary to the siting requirements of the Planning or Building Permit

Significant breach of Planning Scheme provisions or permit requirements

with respect to tree removal and lopping. For example:

o Destruction or removal of a tree protected by the Environmental

Significance Overlay Schedule 4 or Heritage Overlay

o Storage of goods or conduct of works within specified Tree

Protection Zone surrounding a tree protected by the Environmental

Significance Overlay Schedule 4 (ESO4) or Heritage Overlay (HO)

o Removal of a significant amount of vegetation not specifically approved

by a Planning Permit

o Removal of a tree previously identified as having specific aboriginal

cultural significance.

Objective breach of Planning Scheme provisions or permit requirements

with respect to tree removal and lopping. For example:

o Removal of more than one tree affected by Planning Scheme controls

other than the Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 4 (ESO4)

or specifically protected by the Heritage Overlay (HO)

Use of land for a purpose prohibited by the Planning Scheme

Use of land for Earth and Energy Resources Industry, Stone Extraction or

Extractive Industry without the requisite planning permit

Demolition of an A or B graded building affected by a Heritage Overlay

without the requisite Planning Permit

Catastrophic breach of Building Regulations by accident or design,

including:

o Failure to comply with emergency egress requirements for a public

building

o Failure to install or maintain an appropriate pool barrier

o Structural failure of a commercial or industrial building (Including

Shop, Office and Factory)

o Structural failure to a Boarding House / Motel

o Structural failure to an apartment or associated building

o Destruction of a building by fire

o Structural failure to a dwelling or associated structure

Keeping of bees in a manner which does not comply with the Apiary

Att

ach

me

nt

1

6.3



Code of Practice 2011 or any relevant Planning Permit


Att

ach

me

nt

1

6.3



High Construction of a signage without the requisite building permit

Construction of minor building and works in an area where a Cultural

Heritage Management Plan is required pursuant to the Aboriginal Heritage

Act without the necessary Planning Permit

Objective breach of Planning or Building Permit with respect to


o Failure to provide or maintain screening as required by a Permit

o Landscaping not installed in accordance with approved plans for a

planning permit for use or development of land

Objective breach of Planning Scheme provisions or permit requirements.

For example:

o Unauthorised pruning of a tree affected by the Environmental

Significance Overlay Schedule 4 (ESO4) or specifically protected by

the Heritage Overlay (HO)

o Storage of goods or conduct of works within specified Tree

Protection Zone

o Failure to provide required Tree Protection Fencing

o Lopping carried out contrary to a Planning Permit or without the

requisite planning permit

o Replacement planting not installed in accordance with a planning

permit for vegetation removal

Subjective breach of Planning Scheme provisions or permit requirements.

For example:

o Landscaping not maintained in accordance with endorsed plans

o Removal of a minor amount of vegetation not specifically approved by

a Planning Permit

Use of land contrary to the specific provisions of the Banyule Planning

Scheme, including:

o Home occupation (Clause 52.11)

o Use of land for a nominated use with Adverse Amenity Potential as

detailed in Clause 52.10 of the BPS without the requisite planning

permit

o Use of the land for a Service Station contrary to Clause 52.11 of the

BPS

o Use of the land for a Car Wash contrary to Clause 52.12 of the BPS

o Use of the land for a Motor Vehicle or Caravan Sales contrary to

Clause 52.13 of the BPS

Failure to comply with a Planning Permit for use of the premises, including

with respect to hours or patron numbers for other premises in a

commercial or industrial area.

Demolition or relocation of a C or lower graded building affected by a

Heritage Overlay without the requisite Planning Permit

Display of signage contrary to planning permit/scheme within a Heritage

Overlay or Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 1 (ESO1)

Unauthorised construction over an easement

Att

ach

me

nt

1

6.3



Unauthorised construction within the road reservation

Once an issue has been identified, means to reduce the risk of the breach include:

Seeking to reduce the impact of the breach, either by reverting to the previous (or

previously approved) use or development, or by seeking approval for the use or

development. Means of achieving this include:

o Issue of verbal or written advice of the breach and measures to be undertaken to

rectify matters;

o The issue of an Official Warning, including a requirement for specific matters to be

done to address the issue;

o The issue of a Building Infringement Notice or a Planning Infringement Notice,

including a requirement for specific matters to be done to expiate the offence;

o The issue of an Emergency Order

o The issue of a Building Order;

o Seeking an Enforcement Order or Interim Enforcement Order; and

o Seeking to have a planning permit cancelled or amended by the Victorian Civil and

Administrative Tribunal;

o Council conducting modifications to a site to rectify the matter and seeking to

recover the cost from the offender.

Reducing the likelihood of the issue recurring. Means of achieving this include those

measures outlined above, plus:

o Charge and Summons to the Magistrate’s Court;

o Referral of PBS to the Victorian Building Authority;

o Seeking an injunction to restrain a party from contravening an Enforcement Order

or Interim Enforcement order.

In undertaking enforcement action Council will have regard to the nature of the issue, the

primary objective of the action, and previous action in relation to the site or party involved.

This will include having regard to the need to escalate a matter where non-compliance is

ongoing.

Appropriate action may include:

TABLE 7: Enforcement action and escalation

Risk

Level

Very

High Timeframe for initial inspection: 24 hours

Timeframe for initial action: 7 days

Initial action:

Refer matters directly to the Relevant Building Surveyor verbally within 24

hours of being made aware of the issue where any relevant building

permit has been issued by a private building surveyor.

Where possible two officers are to inspect site.

Att

ach

me

nt

1

6.3



Verbal advice of permit requirements and works to be undertaken to rectify matters.

Written advice of permit requirements and works to be undertaken to

rectify matters. Advice to ordinarily be sent within 7 days of being made aware of issue, and giving 1 month for compliance.

Emergency Order (to be issued within 24 hours if required)

Interim Enforcement Order

Building Notice

Planning Infringement Notice

Referral of matter to Aboriginal Affairs Victoria, Heritage Victoria or the relevant land manager where appropriate

Escalated action if compliance not achieved/repeat offence:

Application for Enforcement Order

Building Order to demolish or bring works into compliance within 30 days

Further escalation if required:


Charge and Summons in Magistrates’ Court

Council to conduct modifications to the site to rectify the matter and

seeking to recover the cost from the offender with respect to Planning Scheme breaches

High Timeframe for initial inspection: 7 days


Initial action:


days of being made aware of the issue where any relevant building permit has been issued by a private building surveyor.



rectify matters. Advice to ordinarily be sent within 7 days of being made aware of issue, and giving 1 month for compliance.

Official Warning


Building Notice




Building Order to demolish or bring works into compliance within 30 or 60 days



Att

ach

me

nt

1

6.3




Att

ach

me

nt

1

6.3



Medium Timeframe for initial inspection: 7 days


Initial action:


days of being made aware of the issue where any relevant building permit

has been issued by a private building surveyor.



rectify matters. Advice to ordinarily be sent within 14 days of being made

aware of issue, and giving 2 months for compliance or satisfactory response.

Official Warning

Building Notice


Planning Infringement Notice/s

Building Order to demolish or bring works into compliance within 30 or 60 days




Low Timeframe for initial inspection: 14 days


Initial action:


days of being made aware of the issue where any relevant building permit

has been issued by a private building surveyor.

Verbal and/or written advice of permit requirements and works to be

undertaken to rectify matters. Advice to ordinarily be given within 14

days of being made aware of issue, and giving 2 months for compliance or

satisfactory response.

Building Notice


Official Warning


Building Order to demolish or bring works into compliance within 30, 60 or 90 days




Att

ach

me

nt

1

6.3



6 Resourcing

6.1 Development planning unit

In assessing the performance of the Enforcement of Planning Permits at the City of Ballarat

and the Hume City Council, the Victorian Auditor General highlighted the importance of

strategically considering the resources devoted to the enforcement function and the training

of enforcement staff.

At present, Council employs one dedicated Planning Investigations Officer, with one

Development Planning Arborist having relatively significant enforcement component to their

role. The Development Planning Section initiates on average 28 investigations per month

inclusive of complaints received, with 18 investigations being closed off each month.

Potential measures to redress the imbalance may include:

Use of this document to prioritise work, with emphasis to be given to matters which

have a Medium-Very High level of risk.

Use of proactive measures to avoid non-compliance, for example identifying sites which

represent a high or very high risk and proactively contacting relevant parties early in

their occupation of the premises / construction process.

Looking closely at when an investigation is considered to be closed.

Consideration of staffing levels, and allocation of work, including:

o ‘Triaging’ of complaints received from the public by Development Planners and

Planning Technical Officers prior to referral to the Planning Investigations staff. This

would incorporate a full investigation of the background, retrieval of permit file if

applicable, determination if there is likely to be a case to answer and electronic

lodgement of the complaint.

o Consideration of outsourcing some enforcement issues (eg. Preparation for and

attendance at VCAT and Court)

o Reassessing the number of staff dedicated to enforcement;

o The potential to provide administrative support to existing enforcement staff; and

o Greater involvement of Development Planners in enforcement matters with respect

to breaches of planning permit conditions.

6.2 Municipal Building Surveyor

At present Council employs one dedicated Enforcement Officer. Council receives in the

order of 19 complaints to the Municipal Building Surveyor on a monthly basis, and 16

investigations are closed off each month. These figures would indicate that the area is

currently appropriately resourced, although this should be monitored and this document

utilised to prioritise work.

7 Evaluation and review

The effectiveness of this Framework is to be evaluated on a triennial basis, as follows:

Proportion of Permits issued where a complaint is received

Resolution of Very High importance risks/issues within 3 months (%)

Att

ach

me

nt

1

6.3



Resolution of High importance risks/issues within 6 months (%)

Resolution of Medium and Low importance risks/issues within 12 months (%)

Measure feedback from complainants regarding their level of satisfaction about key

aspects of the enforcement process, including reasons for any perceived low levels of

performance.

Proactive enforcement priorities are to be reviewed on a triennial basis, having regard to an

identification of the ‘top 10’ application types and investigation types for the preceding 3

years.

8 References

Banyule City Council, June 2013. City Plan 2013-17.

Victorian Auditor-General, November 2008. Enforcement of Planning Permits.

http://www.audit.vic.gov.au/publications/2008-09/20081113-Enforcement-of-Planning-

Permits.pdf

Victorian Auditor-General, December 2011. Compliance with Building Permits.

http://www.audit.vic.gov.au/publications/2011-12/20111207-Building-Permits/20111207-

Building-Permits.pdf

Victorian Municipal Building Surveyors Group and Hoeys Lawyers, April 2004. Municipal

Building Control Intervention Filter Criteria Guideline for Council’s Administration and

Enforcement of Parts 3,4,5,7 & 8 of the Building Act 1993 and Building Regulations 1994 in

circumstances where a private building surveyor has been appointed to carry out functions.

Victorian Obudsman, November 2007. Good Practice Guide: Guide to complaint handling

for Victorian Public Sector Agencies.

http://www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au/resources/documents/2012_microsoft_word_-

_complaint_handling_good_practice_guide_dec_2012.pdf

Att

ach

men

t 1

6.3



9 Risk assessment with respect to sites generally

Potential consequence (enforcement-related)

Risk assessment with respect to sites generally

Proactive means of mitigating risk

Severity level

Likelihood Risk

9.1 Construction without a permit

Construction of: Continue to provide advice as to the relevant building controls and permit requirements.

Train planning staff to understand when a building permit would be required for signage or fencing, and include advice in covering letter.

A commercial or industrial building;

Catastrophic Rare High

A dwelling, dwelling addition or associated structure;

Major Rare Medium

A fence without the necessary Building Permit;

Major Unlikely Medium

Signage; or Moderate Rare Medium

Conduct of reblocking or underpinning works

Minor Rare Low

without the requisite building permit

Conduct of significant site works without the requisite Planning Permit in an area:

Continue to provide advice as to the relevant planning controls and permit requirements.

Train staff to ask questions with respect to any site works to be conducted when answering queries with respect to planning controls.

where a Cultural Heritage Management Plan is required pursuant to the Aboriginal Heritage Act; or

Major Rare Medium

affected by an Environmental Significance Overlay, Land Subject to Inundation Overlay, Significant Landscape Overlay or Land Subject to Inundation Overlay

Major Rare Medium

Construction of: Continue to:

o Provide advice as to the relevant planning controls and permit requirements;

o Ensure that all applications for new vehicular crossings on land abutting a main road or main road reservation are refused unless a planning permit has been obtained.

Make the Tennis Court Code of practice available on Council’s website

Ensure staff have regard to the Particular Provisions of the BPS when assessing applications for buildings and works.

A vehicular crossing or modification to a crossing on land adjacent to a Road Zone Category 1;

Moderate Unlikely Medium

A telecommunications facility Moderate Rare Medium

Minor building and works in an area where a Cultural Heritage Management Plan is required pursuant to the Aboriginal Heritage Act;

Moderate Rare Medium

A private tennis court and/or associated illumination


Buildings and works without provision of a loading bay


A fence; Insignificant Unlikely Low

A satellite dish Insignificant Rare Low

without the necessary Planning Permit

Conduct of minor site works without the requisite Planning Permit in an area where a Cultural Heritage Management Plan is not required pursuant to the Aboriginal Heritage Act.

Insignificant Rare Low Continue to provide advice as to the relevant planning controls and permit requirements.

Train staff to ask questions with respect to any site works to be conducted when answering queries with respect to planning controls.

Att

ach

men

t 1

6.3



9.2 Failure to comply with a permit for construction

Significant breach of Planning Permit, Building Permit, Development Plan Approval or Section 173 Agreement with respect to construction. For example:

Continue to:

Require the submission of landscape and engineering plans prior to the endorsement of architectural plans and elevations under a Planning Permit;

Exercise due diligence in ensuring that plans approved with respect to a Building Permit correspond to those approved with respect to any relevant Planning Permit;

Exercise due diligence in ensuring that appropriate levels of information are provided on plans approved with respect to Planning and Building Permits; and

Conduct mandatory inspections as required by the Building Act with due diligence.

Require the provision of certificates with respect to electrical safety, plumbing and insulation installation prior to the issue of an occupancy permit or approval of a final inspection for works.

Inspect selected sites prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance for subdivision.

Require the owner of land to enter into a Section 173 Agreement with Council if subdividing prior to construction.

Significant increase in height; Major Unlikely Medium

Significant modification of built form;

Major Unlikely Medium

Failure to comply with the structural requirements of a Building Permit;

Major Rare Medium

Occupation of a premises prior to the issue of an Occupancy Permit

Major Rare Medium

Objective breach of Planning Permit, Building Permit, Development Plan Approval or Section 173 Agreement with respect to construction. For example:

Continue to:

Require the submission of landscape and engineering plans prior to the endorsement of building plans and elevations under a Planning Permit;

Inspect selected sites prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance for subdivision.

Require the owner of land to enter into a Section 173 Agreement with Council if subdividing prior to construction.

Conduct mandatory building inspections with due diligence.

Require the provision of certificates with respect to electrical safety, plumbing and insulation installation prior to the issue of an occupancy permit or approval of a final inspection for works.

Require the submission of landscape plans for approval along with other requirements prior to the commencement of development;

Seek to ensure that the need for ‘add-on’ screening measures is restricted by the use of dwelling design to restrict overlooking.

Construction of a dwelling,

dwelling addition or associated

structure contrary to the siting

requirements of the Planning or

Building Permit


Failure to provide or maintain screening as required by a Permit

Minor Possible Medium

Landscaping not installed in accordance with approved plans

for a planning permit for use or

development of land

Minor Likely Medium

Failure to provide or maintain specific Environmentally

Sustainable Design or Liveability

measures

Minor Likely Medium

Att

ach

men

t 1

6.3



Subjective breach of Planning Permit, Building Permit, Development Plan

Approval or Section 173 Agreement

with respect to construction. For

example:

Continue to:

Require the submission of landscape and

engineering plans prior to the

endorsement of building plans and

elevations under a Planning Permit;

Inspect selected sites prior to the issue of

a Statement of Compliance for

subdivision;

Require the owner of land to enter into a Section 173 Agreement with Council if

subdividing prior to construction.

Conduct mandatory inspections with due

diligence

Require the provision of certificates with

respect to electrical safety, plumbing and

insulation installation prior to the issue of

an occupancy permit or approval of a final

inspection for works.

Variation to approved colours or minor variation to approved

materials other than within a

heritage area

Insignificant Possible Low

Construction contrary to the

aesthetic requirements of the

Building Permit

Insignificant Rare Low

9.3 Tree-related

Significant breach of Planning Scheme provisions or permit requirements.

For example:

Continue to conduct periodic information / education campaign in the

Banyule Banner, outlining the benefits of

trees, providing advice about tree

protection controls and the importance

of utilising the services of qualified

arborists.

Continue to emphasise the importance of using an appropriately qualified arborist

to conduct tree pruning and removal.

Request advice of when works are to

occur when issuing Planning Permits for works on lots containing trees identified

as being individually significant by the

ESO4, HO, or as a result of having

specific aboriginal cultural significance.

Conduct periodic inspections of sites

greater than 0.4ha and known to contain

significant amounts of native vegetation

protected by Clause 52.17 of the Banyule

Planning Scheme where works are known

to be planned.

Conduct periodic inspections of sites

affected by the ESO4, HO, or containing

culturally significant trees where works

are known to be planned.

Continue to require applicants to seek inspection of required Tree Protection

Fencing prior to the commencement of

works.

Destruction or removal of a tree protected by the Environmental

Significance Overlay Schedule 4

(ESO4) or Heritage Overlay (HO)

Catastrophic Possible High

Storage of goods or conduct of

works within specified Tree

Protection Zone surrounding a tree protected by the

Environmental Significance

Overlay Schedule 4 (ESO4) or

Heritage Overlay (HO)

Major Possible High

Storage of goods or conduct of

works within specified Tree

Protection Zone

Moderate Likely High

Failure to provide required Tree

Protection Fencing


Removal of a significant amount of vegetation not specifically

approved by a Planning Permit

Major Rare Medium

Removal of a tree previously identified as having specific

aboriginal cultural significance.

Major Rare Medium

Att

ach

men

t 1

6.3



Objective breach of Planning Scheme provisions or permit requirements. For example:

Continue to conduct periodic

information / education campaign in the Banyule Banner, outlining the benefits of trees, providing advice about tree protection controls and the importance of utilising the services of qualified arborists.

Continue to emphasise the importance of using an appropriately qualified arborist to conduct tree pruning and removal.

Institute an inspection regime to ensure replacement planting is installed.

Removal of more than one tree affected by Planning Scheme controls other than the ESO4 or specifically protected by the HO


Unauthorised pruning of a tree affected by the ESO4 or specifically protected by the HO

Major Rare Medium

Lopping carried out contrary to a Planning Permit or without the requisite planning permit

Moderate Unlikely Medium

Replacement planting not installed in accordance with a planning permit for vegetation removal


Subjective breach of Planning Scheme provisions or permit requirements. For example:

No proactive action required

Landscaping not maintained in accordance with endorsed plans


Removal of a minor amount of vegetation not specifically approved by a Planning Permit


Minor pruning carried out contrary to a Planning Permit or without the requisite planning permit


9.4 Use-related


Major Possible High Continue to:

o Make qualified and experienced Development Planning staff available to answer queries as required;

o Provide advice on permit requirements verbally and in writing as requested.

Review the stated existing use of the land on planning permit applications for Buildings and Works.

Use of land for a purpose permitted by the Planning Scheme without the requisite Planning Permit for the use

Moderate Possible High Continue to:

o Make qualified and experienced Development Planning staff available to answer queries as required;

o Provide advice on permit requirements verbally and in writing as requested.

Review the stated existing use of the land on planning permit applications for Buildings and Works.

Provide training to Economic Development, Environmental Health and Building staff with respect to Planning Scheme requirements

Att

ach

men

t 1

6.3



Use of land contrary to the specific

provisions of the Banyule Planning

Scheme, including:

Continue to:

o Make qualified and experienced Development Planning staff available

to answer queries as required;

o Provide advice on permit requirements verbally and in writing

as requested.

Provide information with respect to the home occupation requirements on

Council’s website, with a link from the

Banyule Business website.

Provide training to Economic

Development, Health and Building staff

with respect to Planning Scheme requirements

Clause 52.06: Car parking Moderate Possible High

Clause 52.11: Home occupation Minor Unlikely Low

Clause 52.27: Consumption of liquor

Minor Unlikely Low

Clause 52.28: Gaming Minor Unlikely Low

Clause 52.34: Bicycle parking and

associated facilities


Clause 52.30: Freeway service

centre


Failure to comply with a Planning Permit for use of the premises,

including with respect to:

Continue to:

o Make qualified and experienced Development Planning staff available

to answer queries as required;

o Provide advice on permit

requirements verbally and in writing

as requested.

Provide information with respect to the

home occupation requirements on

Council’s website, with a link from the

Banyule Business website.

Provide training to Economic Development, Health and Building staff

with respect to Planning Scheme

requirements

Hours or patron numbers for premises in a residential area

Moderate Possible High

The provision of on-site parking Moderate Unlikely High

Hours or patron numbers for

other premises in a commercial

or industrial area


9.5 Demolition-related

Demolition, relocation or removal of

an A or B graded building affected by a

Heritage Overlay without the requisite

Planning Permit

Catastrophic Rare High Continue to provide advice as to the

relevant planning controls and their

implications for demolition.

Consider writing to new owners of

properties affected by the Heritage

Overlay advising them of the need to

obtain a planning permit for buildings and

works, including demolition.

Demolition, relocation or removal of a C or lower graded building affected by

a Heritage Overlay without the

requisite Planning Permit.

Moderate Rare Medium Continue to provide advice as to the relevant planning controls and their

implications for demolition.

Consider writing to new owners of properties affected by the Heritage

Overlay advising them of the need to

obtain a planning permit for buildings and

works, including demolition.

Demolition, relocation or removal of a

post box constructed before 1930

Moderate Rare Medium No proactive action required – Council is not

aware of any post boxes constructed before

1930 within the Municipal area.

Att

ach

men

t 1

6.3



Demolition, relocation or removal of a fence affected by a Heritage Overlay without the requisite Planning Permit

Minor Rare Low Continue to provide advice as to the relevant planning controls and their implications for demolition.

Consider writing to new owners of properties affected by the Heritage Overlay advising them of the need to obtain a planning permit for buildings and works, including demolition.

Demolition, relocation or removal of an unlisted building affected by a Heritage Overlay without the requisite Planning Permit

Minor Rare Low Continue to provide advice as to the relevant planning controls and their implications for demolition.

Consider writing to new owners of properties affected by the Heritage Overlay advising them of the need to obtain a planning permit for buildings and works, including demolition.

Demolition, relocation or removal of a building without the requisite Building Permit

Insignificant Rare Low Continue to provide advice as to the relevant building controls and permit requirements.

9.6 Safety-related

Catastrophic breach of Building Regulations, including:

Provide training to Development Planning staff on the requirement for emergency exits in certain classes of building.

Include annotations on permits for use of the land highlighting that the plans have not been assessed against the provisions of the Building Code and additional works or modifications may be required to achieve compliance with the Code.

Continue to:

o Provide information, including brochures and information on Council’s website with respect to the pool enclosure requirements

o Utilise due diligence in assessing building permit applications and conduct of mandatory inspections during construction.

Failure to comply with emergency egress requirements for a public building

Catastrophic Unlikely High

Structural failure of a commercial or industrial building (eg. Shop, Office and Factory), including failure resulting from fire or impact


Structural failure to a Boarding House / Motel, including failure resulting from fire or impact


Structural failure to an apartment or associated building, including failure resulting from fire or impact


Failure to install or maintain an appropriate pool barrier

Major Possible High

Structural failure to a dwelling or associated structure, including failure resulting from fire or impact

Major Rare Medium

Keeping of bees in a manner which does not comply with the Apiary Code of Practice 2011 or any relevant Planning Permit

Catastrophic Possible High Continue to:

o Provide advice with respect to the requirements of the Code and need for bee keepers to be registered with the Department of Primary Industries.

o Actively encourage bee keepers to meet the requirements of the Code of Practice.

Make the Apiary Code of practice available on Council’s website

Att

ach

men

t 1

6.3



9.7 Signage-related

Display of signage contrary to planning permit/Scheme within a Heritage Overlay (HO) or Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 1 (ESO1)

Minor Possible Medium Continue to provide advice as to the relevant planning controls and permit requirements.

Display of signage contrary to planning permit/Scheme on land not affected by the HO or ESO1

Insignificant Possible Low Continue to provide advice as to the relevant planning controls and permit requirements.

Display of specific temporary signage without a planning permit in excess of the time specified in Clause 52.06 (includes the display of real estate signage more than one week following sale of property)

Insignificant Likely Low Continue to provide advice as to the relevant planning controls and permit requirements.

9.8 Subdivision/restriction-related


Catastrophic Possible High Provide planning staff with training with respect to the implications of subdivision on BCA requirements in relation to fire rating.

Advice of the Municipal Building Surveyor to be sought with respect to planning applications incorporating the subdivision of buildings.

Advice with respect to the need to provide appropriate fire rating and seek the advice of a suitably qualified and experienced building surveyor to be contained in the covering letter sent with any Planning Permit for subdivision where the proposed boundaries may result in non-compliance with the BCA fire rating requirements.

Failure to comply with Section 173 Agreement requirements

Moderate Likely High Continue to:

Advise potential purchasers to review all title restrictions prior to the purchase of a property.

Provide advice as to the implications of Agreements on the use and development of property.

Unauthorised construction over an easement

Minor Unlikely Low Continue to:

Advise customers of the need to obtain separate approval from both Council and any other relevant authority for construction over an easement.

Refer applications for planning permit incorporating construction over an easement to Council’s Developments Engineers;

Include notes on Planning Permits outlining the requirement to obtain separate approval for construction over any easement;

Exercise due diligence in the issue of Building Permits

Att

ach

men

t 1

6.3



Unauthorised construction requiring a

building permit within the road

reservation

Minor Rare Low Continue to exercise due diligence in ensuring

that plans submitted for Building or Planning

approval do not incorporate construction external to the site.

Unauthorised construction not

requiring a building permit within the

road reservation

Minor Rare Low This matter is addressed by Council’s Asset

Protection Supervisor.

Easement variation Minor Rare Low Continue to use due diligence in comparing

plans submitted for Certification with existing

Title requirements and plans approved pursuant to Planning Permits.

Failure to comply with approved

subdivision layout plans

Minor Rare Low No proactive action required

Att

ach

men

t 1

6.3



10 Risk assessment with respect to sites where a complaint has been received

Potential consequence (enforcement-related)

Risk assessment where a complaint has been received Initial reactive enforcement measures

where breach identified* Severity level

Likelihood Risk

10.1 Construction without a permit

Construction of: Refer to Table 7 for general measures and escalation.

Council Building Inspector to inspect site within 7 days of being made aware of issue.

Issue a Building Notice within 14 days of being made aware of issue, requiring 1 month for lodgement of specified information.

A commercial or industrial building;

Catastrophic Almost certain

Very high

A dwelling, dwelling addition or associated structure;

Major Almost certain

Very high

A fence without the necessary Building Permit;

Moderate Almost certain

High

Signage; or Moderate Possible High

Conduct of reblocking or underpinning works

Minor Likely Medium

without the requisite building permit

Conduct of significant site works without the requisite Planning Permit in an area:

Refer to Table 7 for general measures and escalation.

where a Cultural Heritage Management Plan is required pursuant to the Aboriginal Heritage Act; or


Very high

affected by a Design and Development Overlay, Environmental Significance Overlay, Land Subject to Inundation Overlay, Significant Landscape Overlay or Land Subject to Inundation Overlay


Very high

Construction of: Refer to Table 7 for general measures and escalation.

A vehicular crossing or

modification to a crossing on land adjacent to a Road Zone Category 1


High

A telecommunications facility Moderate Almost certain

High

Minor building and works in an area where a Cultural Heritage Management Plan is required pursuant to the Aboriginal Heritage Act;


High

A private tennis court and/or associated illumination;


High

Buildings and works without provision of a loading bay


High

A fence; Insignificant Almost certain

Medium

A satellite dish Insignificant Almost certain

Medium

without the necessary Planning Permit

Att

ach

men

t 1

6.3



Conduct of minor site works without the requisite Planning Permit in an area where a Cultural Heritage Management Plan is not required pursuant to the Aboriginal Heritage Act.

Insignificant Almost certain

Medium Refer to Table 7 for general measures and escalation.

10.2 Failure to comply with a permit for construction

Significant breach of Planning Permit, Building Permit, Development Plan approval or Section 173 Agreement with respect to construction. For example:


Specific measures:

Refer matters directly to the Relevant Building Surveyor in writing within 24 hours of being made aware of the issue where the building permit has been issued by a private building surveyor.

Planning Investigations Officer to attend sites within 24 hours where a complaint is made with respect to the height or layout of building works where Council is not the relevant building surveyor and a planning permit is required.

Council Building Inspector to inspect site within 24 hours where Council is the relevant building surveyor.

Significant increase in height; Major Almost certain

Very high

Significant modification of built form;


Very high

Failure to comply with the structural requirements of a Building Permit;


Very high

Occupation of a premises prior to the issue of an Occupancy Permit


Very high

Objective breach of Planning Permit, Building Permit, Development Plan approval or Section 173 Agreement with respect to construction. For example:


Specific measures:

Refer matters directly to the Relevant Building Surveyor in writing within 7 days of being made aware of the issue where the building permit has been issued by a private building surveyor.

Planning Investigations Officer to attend sites within 7 days where a complaint is made with respect to the height or layout of building works where Council is not the relevant building surveyor and a planning permit is required.

Council Building Inspector to inspect site within 7 days where Council is the relevant building surveyor.

Construction of a dwelling, dwelling addition or associated structure contrary to the siting requirements of the Planning or Building Permit


Very high

Failure to provide or maintain screening as required by a Permit

Minor Almost certain

High

Landscaping not installed in accordance with approved plans for a planning permit for use or development of land


High

Subjective breach of Planning Permit, Building Permit, Development Plan approval or Section 173 Agreement with respect to construction. For example:


Specific measures:

Refer matters directly to the Relevant Building Surveyor verbally within 14 days of being made aware of the issue where the building permit has been issued by a private building surveyor.

Council Building Inspector to inspect site within 14 days where Council is the relevant building surveyor.

Variation to approved colours or minor variation to approved materials other than within a heritage area


Medium

Construction contrary to the aesthetic requirements of the Building Permit

Insignificant Likely Medium

Att

ach

men

t 1

6.3



10.3 Tree-related

Significant breach of Planning Scheme provisions or permit requirements. For example:


Specific measures:

Council Development Planning Arborist to attend the site. Where possible a second officer is to be present.

Arrange for provision of independent evidence where Tribunal or Court action anticipated.

Destruction or removal of a tree protected by the Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 4 (ESO4) or Heritage Overlay (HO)


Very high

Storage of goods or conduct of works within specified Tree Protection Zone surrounding a tree protected by the Environmental Significance Overlay Schedule 4 (ESO4) or Heritage Overlay (HO)


Very high

Storage of goods or conduct of works within specified Tree Protection Zone


High

Failure to provide required Tree Protection Fencing


High

Removal of a significant amount of vegetation not specifically approved by a Planning Permit


Very high

Removal of a tree previously identified as having specific aboriginal cultural significance.


Very high

Objective breach of Planning Scheme provisions or permit requirements. For example:


Specific measures:

Council Development Planning Arborist to attend the site. Where possible a second officer is to be present.

Arrange for provision of independent evidence where Tribunal or Court action anticipated.

Removal of more than one tree affected by Planning Scheme controls other than the ESO4 or specifically protected by the HO


High

Unauthorised pruning of a tree affected by the ESO4 or specifically protected by the HO


Very high

Lopping carried out contrary to a Planning Permit or without the requisite planning permit


Replacement planting not installed in accordance with a planning permit for vegetation removal


High

Subjective breach of Planning Scheme provisions or permit requirements. For example:


Specific measures:

Council Development Planner or Development Planning Arborist to attend the site within 14 days of being made aware of the issue.

Landscaping not maintained in accordance with endorsed plans


High

Removal of a minor amount of vegetation not specifically approved by a Planning Permit


High

Minor pruning carried out contrary to a Planning Permit or without the requisite planning permit


Att

ach

men

t 1

6.3



10.4 Use-related



Very high Refer to Table 7 for general measures and escalation.

Specific measures:

Council Planning Investigations Officer to

conduct an inspection of the site within 7

days accompanied by a Development

Planner, the Building Enforcement Officer

or an Environmental Health Officer as

relevant.

Use of land for a purpose permitted by the Planning Scheme without the

requisite Planning Permit for the use

Moderate Likely High Refer to Table 7 for general measures and escalation.

Specific measures:

Council Planning Investigations Officer to

conduct an inspection of the site within

14 days accompanied by a Development

Planner, the Building Enforcement Officer

or an Environmental Health Officer as

relevant.

Use of land contrary to the specific provisions of the Banyule Planning

Scheme, including:


Clause 52.06: Car parking Moderate Likely High

Clause 52.11: Home occupation Minor Almost

certain

High

Clause 52.27: Consumption of liquor


High

Clause 52.28: Gaming Minor Almost

certain

High

Clause 52.34: Bicycle parking and

associated facilities


Clause 52.30: Freeway service

centre

Insignificant Almost

certain

Medium

Failure to comply with a Planning Permit for use of the premises,

including with respect to:



premises in a residential area Moderate Almost

certain High

The provision of on-site parking Moderate

Almost

certain High


other premises in a commercial

or industrial area Minor

Almost

certain High

Att

ach

men

t 1

6.3



10.5 Demolition-related

Demolition, relocation or removal of an A or B graded building affected by a Heritage Overlay without the requisite Planning Permit


Very high Refer to Table 7 for general measures and escalation.

Specific measures:

Planning Enforcement officer, in consultation with the Coordinator Development Planning and Manager Development Services to seek an Interim Enforcement Order to have works cease immediately.

Issue an Emergency Order to have the site made safe if necessary.

Council to refer the Relevant Building Surveyor to the Victorian Building Authority if a building permit has been issued without or contrary to Council’s advice.

Seek cancellation of the building permit.

Demolition, relocation or removal of a C or lower graded building affected by a Heritage Overlay without the requisite Planning Permit


High Refer to Table 7 for general measures and escalation.

Specific measures:

Planning Enforcement officer, in consultation with the Coordinator Development Planning and Manager Development Services to seek an Interim Enforcement Order to have works cease immediately.

Issue an Emergency Order to have the site made safe if necessary.

Council to refer the Relevant Building Surveyor to the Building Practitioners Board if a building permit has been issued without or contrary to Council’s advice.

Seek cancellation of the building permit

Demolition, relocation or removal of a post box constructed before 1930



Specific measures:

Planning Investigations Officer to attend site, with the Asset Protection Supervisor where possible, immediately to document nature of post box and verbally seek a stop to works.

Demolition, relocation or removal of a building without the requisite Building Permit



Demolition, relocation or removal of a fence affected by a Heritage Overlay without the requisite Planning Permit



Specific measures:

Planning Investigations Officer to attend site within 24 hours to document nature of original fence and verbally seek a stop to works.

Att

ach

men

t 1

6.3



Demolition, relocation or removal of an unlisted building affected by a

Heritage Overlay without the requisite

Planning Permit



Specific measures:

Issue an Emergency Order to have the

site made safe if necessary.

Council to refer the Relevant Building Surveyor to the Building Practitioners

Board if a building permit has been issued

without or contrary to Council’s advice.

Seek cancellation of the building permit

10.6 Safety-related

Catastrophic breach of Building

Regulations, including:

Refer to Table 7 for general measures and

escalation.

Failure to comply with emergency egress requirements for a public

building

Catastrophic Likely Very high

Structural failure of a commercial or industrial building (eg. Shop,

Office and Factory), including

failure resulting from fire or

impact


Structural failure to a Boarding House / Motel, including failure

resulting from fire or impact


Structural failure to an apartment

or associated building, including


impact


Failure to install or maintain an

appropriate pool barrier

Major Almost

certain

Very high

Structural failure to a dwelling or

associated structure, including


impact

Major Almost

certain

Very high

Keeping of bees in a manner which does not comply with the Apiary Code

of Practice 2011 or any relevant

Planning Permit

Catastrophic Likely Very high Refer to Table 7 for general measures and escalation.

Bee swarms to be addressed by Council’s

Health Unit, with supplementary advice and

support by the Planning Investigation Officer, Planning Technical Officers or Development

Planners.

Att

ach

men

t 1

6.3



10.7 Signage-related

Display of signage contrary to planning permit/scheme within a Heritage

Overlay or Environmental Significance

Overlay Schedule 1 (ESO1)



Display of signage contrary to planning

permit/scheme on land not affected by

the Heritage Overlay or ESO1

Insignificant Almost

certain

Medium Refer to Table 7 for general measures and

escalation.

Display of specific temporary signage

without a planning permit in excess of

the time specified in Clause 52.06

(includes the display of real estate

signage more than one week following

sale of property)

Insignificant Likely Low Refer to Table 7 for general measures and

escalation.

Specific measures:

Upon receipt of a complaint a Planning

Technical Officer is to advise the officer

in effective control of the relevant Real

Estate Agent office by facsimile or email

within 14 days seeking the removal of the

sign within a further 14 days.

10.8 Subdivision/restriction-related

Failure to comply with building

regulations for subdivided buildings

Catastrophic Likely Very high Refer to Table 7 for general measures and

escalation.

Failure to comply with Section 173

Agreement requirements

Moderate Likely High Refer to Table 7 for general measures and

escalation.

Specific measures:

Refer to action above with respect to

Significant, Objective and Subjective

breaches of planning permit provisions.

Unauthorised construction over an

easement

Minor Almost

certain

High Refer to Table 7 for general measures and

escalation.

Unauthorised construction requiring a

building permit within the road

reservation

Minor Almost

certain

High Refer to Table 7 for general measures and

escalation.

Unauthorised construction not

requiring a building permit within the

road reservation

Minor Almost

certain

High This matter is addressed by Council’s Asset

Protection Supervisor.

Easement variation Minor Likely Medium Refer to Table 7 for general measures and

escalation.

Specific measures:

Refer to action above with respect to Significant, Objective and Subjective

breaches of planning permit provisions.

Failure to comply with approved

subdivision layout plans

Minor Rare Low Refer to Table 7 for general measures and

escalation.

banyule city council agenda 18 august 2014

Documents

council meeting dates

people community

upper heidelberg road

planning application

community life

wurundjeri people

review of planning controls

proposed apartment building