banyule city council agenda 27 june 2016

Ordinary Meeting of Council

Council Chambers, Service Centre

275 Upper Heidelberg Road, Ivanhoe

27 June 2016 commencing at 7.45pm

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

AGENDA

Acknowledgement of the Traditional Owner, the Wurundjeri willam people

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

Apologies and Leave of Absence

Confirmation of MinutesOrdinary Meeting of Council held 14 June 2016

Disclosure of Interests

1. Petitions

1.1 Petition regarding the Residential Parking Permit Scheme .....................................3

REPORTS:

2. People – Community Strengthening and Support

Nil

3. Planet – Environmental Sustainability

Nil

4. Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment

4.1 Analysis of Proposed Traffic and Car Parking Initiatives aroundLoyola College, Watsonia .......................................................................................7

4.2 Managing Construction Activity associated with LargeDevelopment Sites................................................................................................17

4.3 44 Turnham Avenue, Rosanna - Proposed Supermarket(P1260/15)............................................................................................................27

AGENDA (Cont’d)

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 27 June 2016

4.4 Use and development of land at 29 Howard Street and 2-6 StubleyCourt, Greensborough, for a Car Park ..................................................................54

4.5 Banyule Surveillance Policy ..................................................................................64

5. Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life

Nil

6. Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely

6.1 Somers Avenue, Macleod - Review of paid parking system..................................696.2 Kindergartens - Proposed Leases.........................................................................766.3 Rear 7A Curzon Street, Ivanhoe - Proposed licence of Council

land.......................................................................................................................816.4 Items for Noting ....................................................................................................866.5 Assembly of Councillors........................................................................................896.6 Submission to the Minister for Planning in relation to the proposed

Planning and Environment (Fees) Regulations and Subdivision(Fees) Regulations ...............................................................................................94

7. Sealing of Documents

7.1 Sealing of Documents.........................................................................................101

8. Notices of Motion

8.1 Hurstbridge Line Upgrade – Lower Plenty Road Level Crossing,Rosanna .............................................................................................................103

8.2 Access to Anthony Beale Reserve......................................................................1068.3 Banyule Horse Riders .........................................................................................1078.4 Road and drainage improvements of Bonds Road, Lower Plenty .......................1088.5 Garage Sale Trail................................................................................................1098.6 Tree Removal Process on Road Reserves .........................................................1108.7 Tribute to Eric Rosario ........................................................................................1118.8 Bell Street Mall - CCTV Upgrade ........................................................................112

9. General Business

10. Urgent Business

Closure of Meeting

Petitions


1.11.1 PETITION REGARDING THE RESIDENTIAL

PARKING PERMIT SCHEME

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

Ward: All

Previous ItemsCouncil on 9 May 2016 (Item 4.1 - Residential Parking Permit Policy 2016-2020)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A petition with 67 signatures has been received in relation to the Residential ParkingPermit Scheme and the implementation of parking restrictions in residential streets.The petition was received on 25 May 2016 after the adoption of the ResidentialParking Permit Policy 2016-2020 on 9 May 2016.

The petition prayer is as follows:

“Residents of Banyule request that Banyule City Council and its Transport PlanningStaff:

1. Retain the relative proximity to the relevant residential address for residentialparking permits

2. Use very small street based zones for parking permits (recognising that someparking will still be allowed throughout all zones depending on the time-limitsthat apply and that coded zones can still be used – if street names on permitsare an issue for stick-on permits)

3. Improve consultation with residents over parking permits by holding local Q andA meetings in advance of any proposed permit scheme

4. Consider a greater variety of solutions to residential parking overlay, bypossible application of more varied different time limits and exclusion times,which place less inconvenience on residents and visitors but still solve theproblems that occur at peak periods.”

The recently adopted Residential Parking Permit Policy 2016-2020 reflectedcommunity desire for smaller parking permit areas, and introduced conditionsrequiring permits to only be used to visit the residence of issue. Consultationapproaches will be considered as part of a future parking restriction frameworkcurrently in development.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council receives and notes the petition.

Petitions

PETITION REGARDING THE RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT SCHEME cont’d


1.1 DISCUSSION

The Banyule Resident Parking Permit Policy 2016-2020 was adopted by Council on9 May 2016. The adopted policy introduced a parking permit area system, withpermit holders being allowed to park within a relevant permit area. The size of thepermit areas were refined and reduced in size following community feedback duringthe consultation period.

The policy also introduced a proximity condition, requiring permits only be used toattend the residence identified in the permit application, and not to be used to visitany other property or for any other means, even if it is within the permit areaspecified. This was in response to concerns raised by the community regarding thepotential for misuse of parking permits around key destinations such as activitycentres and train stations.

Parking in residential areas and surrounding activity centres is guided by the BanyuleIntegrated Transport Plan 2015-2035 and the Banyule Activity Centre Car ParkingPolicy and Strategy. These provide direction and an overall framework for theconsideration of parking restrictions in residential areas.

In relation to item 4 of the petition prayer, while a greater variety of options could beconsidered when investigating parking options in residential streets a consistentapproach is used in terms of the type and duration of restrictions from one street tothe next. While each location and situation can be different, a consistent approachleads to better compliance by road users and is easier to enforce.

Presenting residents with a greater variety of options can present challenges inobtaining a majority agreement from affected properties in the introduction of parkingrestrictions. When a number of options are presented, the majority response may bein favour of parking restrictions; however there is often no clear consensus on thetype of restrictions to be installed. As such, only one or two types of restrictions arepresented during the consultation process.

Respondents are welcomed and encouraged to provide comments to proposedchanges to parking restrictions during the consultation phase. Where situationsrequire a more tailored approach, feedback obtained through the consultationprocess can guide and influence the parking restrictions or measures that may beintroduced. Where feedback on a particular matter is consistently raised, for examplein relation to the duration of the parking restrictions, the final proposal can be alteredto align with these suggestions.

Issues relating to consultation will be considered as in the future formalisation theparking restriction process. This will provide greater clarity for the community onwhere parking restrictions may be considered and the consultation procedure. It isanticipated this will be presented to Council for consideration and adoption later inthe year.

Petitions

PETITION REGARDING THE RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT SCHEME cont’d


1.1

CONCLUSION

A petition with 67 signatures has been received on 25 May 2016 in relation to theResidential Parking Permit Scheme and the implementation of parking restrictions inresidential streets.

Council adopted the new Residential Parking Permit Policy 2016-2020 on 9 May2016. The adopted policy reflected community concerns received during theconsultation process, and addresses a number of matters raised in the petition.Consultation approaches will be considered as part of a future parking restrictionframework currently in development.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment


4.14.1 ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED TRAFFIC AND CAR

PARKING INITIATIVES AROUND LOYOLACOLLEGE, WATSONIA

Author: Daniel Kollmorgen - Manager Transport, Sustainability and MunicipalLaws, City Development

Ward: Grimshaw

Previous ItemsCouncil on 17 March 2014 (Item 8.4 - Investigation - Traffic Challenges Bungay

Street, Watsonia)

Council on 21 July 2014 (Item 4.1 - Bungay Street, Watsonia - Traffic Investigation)

Council on 23 March 2015 (Item 4.2 - Review of Traffic aroundLoyola College, Watsonia)

Council on 8 February 2016 (Item 4.2 - Traffic around Loyola College, Watsonia)

Council on 18 April 2016 (Item 8.4 - Traffic and car parking package of initiatives inthe vicinity of Loyola College, Watsonia)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Over the last two years, Council has consulted with residents and modified parkingarrangements around Loyola College, Watsonia, in order to manage traffic flow andparking demand in the area. The proposed development of the college, including thePerformance Arts Centre which is under construction, has added to residents’concerns about the use of the college and additional access/parking pressures.

On 18 April 2016, Council resolved to ask for the preparation of a report consideringadditional actions to alleviate the traffic and parking issues close to Loyola College.The actions for consideration included the installation of ‘hockey stick’ line marking,the provision of a brochure to inform residents on the process to report instances ofillegally parked vehicles, and the review of the installation of parking restrictions inLoyola Court and Regis Court, Watsonia.

Previous consultation on turning movement bans at the intersections of BungayStreet and Watsonia Road and Bungay Street and Princess Street have not beensupported by the majority of community respondents, so it is proposed that theseinitiatives not be pursued.

This report responds to the Resolution of 18 April 2016.I

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. At this time, does not modify the access arrangements from Watsonia Roadinto Bungay Street, or from Princes Street into High Street, Watsonia.

2. Installs ‘hockey stick’ line marking at the start of permissible parking areasclose to intersections around Loyola College as a means of educating drivers.


ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED TRAFFIC AND CAR PARKING INITIATIVES AROUNDLOYOLA COLLEGE, WATSONIA cont’d


4.1

3. In order to inform residents on the process to report illegally parked vehicles:

a. Produce a brochure to be delivered in areas where illegal parking isrecurrent; and

b. Include appropriate details in the Banner and on Council’s website onhow residents can report illegally parked vehicles.

4. Investigate parking occupancy levels in Loyola Court, Regis Court andCastlereagh Place, during the third school term in 2016, and consult withresidents in Loyola Court, Regis Court and Castlereagh Place, Watsonia on theinstallation of timed parking restrictions. Depending on the outcome of surveyresults for each of the streets a meeting may be required to discuss theinstallation of restrictions.

5. Continue to maintain a register of complaints that are received regarding trafficand parking issues surrounding Loyola College in preparation for the furtherreport back to Council in late 2017.

6. Notifies Loyola College and previously consulted residents around LoyolaCollege of this Resolution.

7.

OFFICER DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST

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

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

CITY PLAN

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

HUMAN RIGHTS CHARTER

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

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

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




4.1

LEGAL CONSIDERATION

Council’s powers over roads are defined under Schedule 11 of the Local GovernmentAct (1989), which allows for the management of parking.

In addition, the Road Safety Road Rules (2009) establish rules to be observed byroad users in Victoria, including restrictions on stopping and parking relevant to thebehaviour of motorists around Loyola College:

• Stopping in or near an intersection;• Stopping on or near a children’s crossing;• Double parking;• Stopping near a fire hydrant; and• Obstructing access to and from a driveway.

BACKGROUND

Council has previously considered options to manage the traffic and parkingchallenges around Loyola College, Watsonia (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Location of Loyola College, Watsonia




4.1

Over the last two years, consultation on parking restrictions have taken place withlocal residents and Loyola College to gather feedback on the nature and severity ofthe parking and traffic problems, and to understand suggestions to address theissues.

At its meeting on 23 March 2015, Council considered a report reviewing theoperation of traffic around the College, and resolved:

“That Council:

1. Notes that the trial of the following parking restrictions has been completed andthat they will remain in place:a. No Stopping restrictions (8.00 – 9.00am and 2.30 – 4.00pm School Days)

on the south side of Bungay Street and the east side of Kenmare Street(between Bungay Street and Princes Street);

b. Two minute parking (8.00 – 9.00am and 2.30 – 4.00pm School Days) onthe north side of Bungay Street along the Loyola College frontage;

2. Notify residents and install No Stopping restrictions (8.00 – 9.00am and 2.30 –4.00pm School Days) on the west side of High Street, between Bungay Streetand Princess Street;

3. Investigate parking occupancy levels and consult with residents in Loyola Courtand Regis Court Watsonia on the possible installation of time parkingrestrictions;

4. Consult with Loyola College, local residents, and the Victoria Police about aproposed trial to:a. Restrict traffic access from Watsonia Road into Bungay Street (8.00 –

9.00am and 2.30 – 4.00pm School Days).b. Prohibit access from Princes Street into High Street.

5. Notes that Municipal Laws Officers regularly enforce the road rules aroundLoyola College.

6. Receive a further report on the traffic operations of streets surrounding LoyolaCollege six months after the operation of the package of traffic managementinterventions outlined in resolutions 1 to 5.”

As per the Resolution of 23 March 2015:

• Additional ‘No Stopping’ restrictions were installed on High Street, betweenBungay Street and Princes Street, following notification to residents;

• Parking occupancy levels were investigated on Loyola Court and Regis Court;• Residents of Loyola Court and Regis Court were consulted on the possible

installation of timed parking restrictions;• The proposals to restrict access from Watsonia Road into Bungay Street and to

prohibit access from Princess Street into High Street were referred to LoyolaCollege, local residents and the Victoria Police.

A report summarising the results of the consultation processes related to theinstallation of parking restrictions and turn bans was presented to Council on8 February 2016. The item was deferred, and consequently no formal decision hasbeen made in regards to these proposals.




4.1

Further to the above, Council considered a Notice of Motion at its meeting on18 April 2016 and resolved, in part, that:

“1. A report is prepared which considers the following traffic and parking ''package"in the area around Loyola College that builds on current traffic and parkingmanagement arrangements:

a) Rolls-out on-street line markings (“hockey sticks”) in appropriate areas,based on officer assessment, that show motorists where to park their carsso that parked cars do not impede resident access to their drive-ways.

b) Provides a brochure, or appropriate details, on how residents can reportto Council instances where parked cars are restricting drive-way accessand/or in breach of local parking restrictions. This brochure shouldinclude appropriate Council contact details (number/email) as well asdetails on what information residents should provide to support Councilenforcement efforts.

c) Reconsiders the introduction of parking restrictions in Loyola Court andRegis Court to deter parking by Loyola College students in these courts.This should involve consultation with the residents in these courtsincluding a consultation forum with the Ward Councillor at the WatsoniaLibrary.

d) Maintenance of a register of all resident complaints that are receivedregarding traffic and parking issues by Council in the area around LoyolaCollege over a 12-month period to track the success of this package aswell as previous traffic and parking interventions that have been deliveredby Council.

4. Report back to Council in late 2017 on traffic and parking in the area aroundLoyola College. This report should include details on the dates and outcomesof the local enforcement ''blitzes".”

This report responds to the above Resolutions.

PARKING RESTRICTIONS IN LOYOLA COURT AND REGIS COURT

The parking occupancy levels for Loyola Court and Regis Court were assessed inMay 2015. It was observed that the average rate of occupancy was 15% on bothstreets. In line with the occupancy rate and Council’s resolution from 23 March 2015,residents were consulted in regard to the installation of four hour parking restrictionson one side of the street.




4.1

Table 1 summarises the results of the consultation in relation to the parkingrestriction proposals for Loyola Court and Regis Court.

Table 1. Results of consultation on proposals to install timed parkingrestrictions on Loyola Court and Regis Court, Watsonia

ProposalInstallation of 4P restrictionson Loyola Court, Watsonia

Installation of 4P restrictionson Regis Court, Watsonia

Response Rate 75% 31%

Number ofrespondents

Percentage ofrespondents



Support 6 50% 3 60%

Don't Support 4 33% 2 40%

Other/Unsure 2 17% 0 0%

TOTAL 12 100% 5 100%

Loyola Court

Letters were sent to all 16 properties in Loyola Court, Watsonia, and 12 responseswere received. Half of the respondents supported the installation of 4-hour parkingrestrictions in the court. Nonetheless, some residents’ comments indicated that theywould prefer:

• the modification of the proposal in terms of the duration of the parkingrestrictions (1-hour or 2-hour restrictions instead of 4-hour restrictions);

• the installation of restrictions to operate on both sides of the road; and• to be exempted from paying for parking permits.

Regis Court

Letters were sent to all 16 properties in Regis Court, Watsonia, and five responseswere received. While the majority of respondents supported the installation ofrestrictions in the street, the response rate is low indicating that most of the residentsin the court may not consider that parking issues are of sufficient concern to warrantresponding to the survey. In addition, three respondents raised concerns in relationto the cost of parking permits.

Given the low parking occupancy rate on the roads and the varied views on theproposal, it is considered that at this time, no parking restrictions should be installedat Loyola Court and Regis Court, Watsonia.

It is considered that parking occupancy levels for Regis Court and Loyola Courtshould be reassessed during the third school term in 2016, and consultation withresidents in Loyola Court and Regis Court on the installation of timed parkingrestrictions occur at that time.

CONSULTATION IN REGARD TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TURN BANS

Letters were sent to 273 properties around Loyola College in April 2015 to determinethe level of support from residents for restricted access from Watsonia Road intoBungay Street (8am to 9am, and 2:30pm to 4pm, on School Days) and permanentprohibited access from Princes Street into High Street.




4.1

A total of 79 responses were received. Table 2 summarises the results of theconsultation in relation to access into Bungay Street at Watsonia Road, and into HighStreet from Princes Street. None of the proposals received support from a majority ofrespondents to the survey.

Table 2. Results of consultation on proposals to modify access into BungayStreet and High Street, Watsonia

ProposalRestrict access from Watsonia

Rd into Bungay StreetProhibit access into High

StreetResponse Rate 29% 29%





Support 38 48% 27 35%

Don't Support 29 37% 31 40%

Other/Unsure 12 15% 20 26%

TOTAL 79 100% 78 100%

It is considered that the access arrangements from Watsonia Road into BungayStreet, and from Princes Street into High Street, should not be modified.

PERFORMING ARTS CENTRE PROPOSAL IMPACT

Planning permission was granted to Loyola College on 20 January 2015 for apurpose built Performing Arts Centre and associated car parking and vegetationremoval. Works for the construction of the Performance Arts Centre started inSeptember 2015, and in early 2016, the College requested modifications to some ofthe conditions in the permit.

Surrounding residents were consulted on the impact of the works to the PerformingArts Centre. Meetings with the community around the school were held to discuss theissues in the area, providing an opportunity to raise their concerns.

COMMUNITY CONCERNS

A register of community concerns about traffic and parking around Loyola College iscurrently being maintained. Analysis of the information reveals that in 2015, a total of49 requests relating to traffic and car parking concerns were logged with Council.Table 3 indicates the types of requests by street.

Instances of illegally parked vehicles are registered when a person reports anillegally parked vehicle according to the Road Safety Road Rules. Reports on ‘schoolprecinct traffic’ and ‘parking control review’ relate to concerns about the trafficconditions in and around a school, and changes to parking restrictions, respectively.




4.1

As indicated in Table 3, most (43 out of 49) of the concerns from residents in thearea relate to ‘illegally parked vehicles’. Accordingly, the parking enforcement activityaround Loyola College was increased and will be maintained at a high level.

Table 3. Customer Requests around Loyola College, Watsonia, 2015

StreetIllegallyParked

Vehicles

SchoolPrecinctTraffic

ParkingControlReview

TOTAL

Bungay St 11 1 1 13

Castlereagh Pl 6 1 0 7

Gleeson Dr 6 0 0 6

Grimshaw St 2 0 0 2

High St 0 0 1 1

Hillboro Ct 0 0 0 0

Kenmare St 0 0 0 0

Ladd St 3 0 0 3

Loyola Ct 0 0 0 0

McKellar St 2 0 0 2

Morwell Ave 5 0 0 5

Nell St W 4 0 0 4

Nina Ct 0 0 0 0

Princes St 2 0 2 4

Regis Ct 0 0 0 0

Watsonia Ct 0 0 0 0

Yemaya Ct 2 0 0 2

TOTAL 43 2 4 49

Recent correspondence from residents of Castlereagh Place Watsonia indicatestraffic and parking congestion also occurs due to school pick up and drop off. Whileparking enforcement will be increased in this location, a survey of residents wouldalso be appropriate to see if there is an appetite to alter parking restrictions toaddress the problem.

‘HOCKEY STICK’ LINE MARKING

‘Hockey stick’ line marking (Figure 2) is a non-standard treatment commonly used toprovide drivers with an indication of the space in which parking a vehicle isacceptable.




4.1

Figure 2: ‘Hockey Stick’ Line Marking Example

The installation of ‘hockey stick’ line marking is used, for example, to improve accessto properties with old and sub-standard crossovers (for example, less than 3 metreswide, at a bend or at a crest), or in very narrow streets by allowing additionalmanoeuvring space.

In locations where drivers block access to and from driveways, against the VictorianRoad Rules, ‘hockey sticks’ are unlikely to reduce the frequency of vehicles parkingillegally. Consequently, a roll out of ‘hockey stick’ line marking around Loyola Collegeis not considered beneficial in addressing blocked driveway concerns and in fact canlead to frustration as residents have a heightened expectation of compliance wherethey have been used. Increased enforcement and awareness of the Victorian RoadRules are considered more appropriate means to reduce the incidence of vehiclesillegally parked across driveways.

However, the installation of ‘hockey sticks’ to mark the start of permissible parkingareas close to intersections can be considered as a means of educating drivers.

PROVISION OF BROCHURE INDICATING PROCESS TO REPORT ILLEGALLYPARKED VEHICLES

The cost of designing, printing and distributing brochures to approximately 300properties around Loyola College is estimated at $2,000.

In order to provide this information to all Banyule residents, including information inthe Banyule Banner on the process of reporting illegally parked vehicles is alsoproposed at no additional cost.




4.1

CONCLUSION

Following Council’s resolutions of 23 March 2015 and 18 April 2016, differentconsultation processes and analysis on proposed traffic and car parking initiativesaround Loyola College, Watsonia, have been undertaken.

The initiatives included the implementation of turn bans, the installation of parkingrestrictions in Loyola Court and Regis Court, the installation of ‘hockey stick’ linemarking, and a proposal to develop a brochure to inform residents on the process toreport instances of illegally parked vehicles.

Residents did not support for the introduction of turn bans or additional parkingrestrictions in the area, therefore the implementation of these measures is notrecommended.

It is worth noting that the majority of concerns related to traffic and parking in thearea received in 2015 were associated with illegally parked vehicles. While ‘hockeystick’ line markings are a non-standard, non-enforceable treatment, they can, insome cases, help inform the community to park legally.

In order to inform residents on the process to report illegally parked vehicles, it isappropriate that Council produce a brochure to be delivered in areas where illegalparking is recurrent, and include appropriate details in the Banyule Banner on howresidents can report illegally parked vehicles.

In relation to the installation of parking restrictions in Loyola Court and Regis Court, itis appropriate that parking occupancy levels in Loyola court and Regis Court areassessed during the third school term in 2016, and that a consultation process isdeveloped with residents in Loyola Court and Regis Court on the installation of timedparking restrictions.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil



4.24.2 MANAGING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY

ASSOCIATED WITH LARGE DEVELOPMENTSITES

Author: Scott Walker - Director City Development, City Development

Previous ItemsCouncil on 2 December 2013 (Item 4.3 - Options Available to Council to Address

Development Sites with Issues)

Council on 23 March 2015 (Item 6.7 - Adoption of Proposed General Local Law No. 1(2015))

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Development within Banyule has been growing over recent years with a significantincrease in larger development sites resulting in amenity impacts on residential andcommercial areas. Construction activity impacts include noise, mud, dust, parking ofconstruction vehicles and plant and equipment located on public land. TheDevelopment Planning, Engineering, Municipal Laws, Building and Asset ProtectionUnits of Council are all involved in the approvals and construction monitoringprocess. Many of the systems and processes have been in place for some time andwere not set up to deal with the amount and scale of development that is now takingplace across the municipality. In order to provide the level of protection that thecommunity expects, a review of the processes and systems is needed to ensurecompliance with the appropriate legislation and requirements.

Council’s General Local Law contains many relevant amenity clauses that can beused as permit requirements for asset protection. Construction Management Plansare an important tool that can also be used at the Planning Permit stage, however,they are best enforced through the Local Law and other associated legislation.

Additional resources are required to assist with establishing an effective system forconstruction activity permits, approvals and monitoring associated withdevelopments. Such a system should include changes in delegation to staff, theimplementation of streamlined application processes, and the use of “in field”technology.

It is expected that the increased costs to establish and run the new system can becovered through permit and approval fees and enforcement activities. The revisedsystem is expected to improve stakeholder management, provide enhanced levels ofcustomer service and clearer roles for those involved.


MANAGING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY ASSOCIATED WITH LARGEDEVELOPMENT SITES cont’d


4.2

RECOMMENDATION

That the process and system for undertaking the issuing of construction activitypermits, approvals and monitoring associated with development in Banyule isreviewed and enhanced to ensure that amenity impacts are appropriately managed.

The changes should be in accordance with the following principles and parameters:

i. Processes are streamlined, including the use of technology to improvetransactions between developers and Council, timely feedback to stakeholdersand improved customer service levels;

ii. A clear enforcement framework is developed which supports the issuing ofinfringements for breaches of the Local Law and other relevant legislation;

iii. Processes, systems and resource are aligned to ensure that the various roleswithin the organisation are clear and unambiguous in terms of responsibility;

iv. Delegations are broadened to enable a range of legislation and enforcementtools to be used by staff involved;

v. Fees associated with approvals are increased to improve the quality ofapplications, reduce unnecessary activity and recover costs associated withadditional resources;

vi. A cost neutral or positive net return to Council is achieved taking intoconsideration additional income and additional resource costs expected.

A report outlining the new system including process changes and associated feesand costs is to be brought back to Council by the end of 2016.

CITY PLAN

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

BACKGROUND

At its meeting on 9 May 2016, Council considered a Notice of Motion (CO2016/152)on managing amenity impacts and construction activity for large development sitesand resolved as follows:

“That a report be prepared which reviews the management of amenityimpacts, car parking and construction activity for large development sites. Thereview should consider:

• Construction management plans and when they should be used;• Construction activity which impacts on Council assets and the

functioning of roads, footpaths, car parks and other public spaces;• Construction vehicle and worker car parking impacts;• Resourcing required to better manage construction activity within the

municipality.”




4.2

Council previously considered a report on a related issue on 2 December 2013looking at options available to Council to address development sites with issues(CO2013/1). At the time Council resolved as follows:

That Council:

1. Pursues opportunities to better manage building sites and unsightlyproperties as part of the Local Law Review currently underway and areview and updating of the associated Building Site Code of Practice.

2. Identify and pursue opportunities to educate the community on theissues associated with development sites and the role of Council andother agencies through the media and Banyule Banner, direct mail toreal estate agents and managing agents and the preparation of aninformation booklet and pamphlet to be made available on Council’swebsite and customer service centres.

3. Focused enforcement of the Local Law on key building site issues withthe resources available within the Local Law Team and particularlyfollowing the review of the Local Law and Building Site Code of Practiceand increased education.

4. Request the Municipal Association of Victoria through the State Councilmeeting to advocate for State wide legislation to better manage andcontrol the amenity of development sites and move a Notice of Motion atnext years State Conference.

5. Preparation and implementation of Planning and Building EnforcementPolicy and further consideration of options to improve Statutory Planningenforcement

6. Continued Building enforcement in line with recent serviceimprovements to enforce Building Requirements.

7. Ongoing updates of the Local Planning Policy Framework and planningrequirements to support and encourage the redevelopment of parts ofthe municipality in line with the Strategic Direction being pursued andidentified in the Housing Strategy/framework and Activity Centre Plans.This will include the use of the new residential zones.

8. Consideration of options for direct development support through anenhanced Economic Development and project support service whichmay include additional resources to be considered as part of futurebudgets.

9. Further refinement and streamlining of the development planningapprovals process to facilitate timely redevelopment outcomes in linewith Council’s Strategies identified in the Local Planning PolicyFramework.

All of the actions arising from the 2 December 2013 resolution have been pursued.The primary action has been the extensive review of the Local Law. A new GeneralLocal Law No. 1 was adopted by Council on 23 March 2015. Local Laws are adoptedto protect public health, safety, or amenity and are designed to ensure that theactions of an individual or group do not have a negative or undesirable impact on therest of the community. However, they cannot duplicate, overlap, conflict with or beinconsistent with existing Federal or State legislation. There were a number ofchanges to the local law in 2015 as it relates to building sites with significant changesrelating to the Asset Protection processes, permits and infringements.




4.2

Since 2013 development within the municipality has continued at a rapid pace with alarge number of significant development sites under construction and causingamenity impacts on existing residential and commercial areas.

LEGAL CONSIDERATION

There are a number of relevant legal considerations when considering permits andenforcement associated with development sites. Ensuring that the appropriatelegislation is used to address the particular concern and that Council does not gobeyond its powers is essential. Whilst Council’s Local Law No.1 can be amended andprovides flexibility for Council to address specific issues it must not duplicate, overlapor be inconsistent with other State or Federal legislation. It is also important thatCouncil ensures that it has provided sufficient delegation to staff to act on its behalfand designated the appropriate authority to staff to act.





CURRENT SITUATION

Council plays an important role in setting the strategic direction and guidelines fordevelopment, approving developments and then monitoring construction activities andthe subsequent development outcomes. However, the development process does notalways run smoothly. Construction activities often impact on the amenity of an areaand there are times when development sites become unsightly or create amenityimpacts on the surrounding area due to construction activity. The impacts can includenoise, mud or dust, damage to Council assets, occupation of Council land and publicspaces and equipment, plant and construction vehicles occupying surrounding streetsamongst other issues. Over recent years there has also been a significant increase indevelopment activity associated with larger multi-level developments, often withinconstrained locations in activity centres or built up areas. These larger developmentsin constrained locations magnify the amenity impacts, particularly where there aremultiple developments underway concurrently.

Banyule (like many middle ring municipalities) is slowly coming to grips with the factthat the city is coming to the suburbs. The size and scale of development traditionallyreserved for the city and inner suburban municipalities such as Yarra, Port Phillip,Boroondara and Stonnington are becoming more common as the land within innersuburbs becomes less available, more expensive or otherwise less viable fordevelopment.




4.2

The issues associated with large development sites are not unique to Banyule. It isan issue common to many municipalities, but the issue has varying degrees ofdetrimental impact on a community depending on the location and surroundingcharacter of an area.

Council Departments Dealing with Development Sites

There are a number of Council Departments or service units that have a role in thedevelopment and land use management process, some more directly than others.The State Government and its associated agencies such as the Department of Land,Water, Environment and Planning (DLWEP) and the Environment ProtectionAuthority (EPA) also play an important role. In summary, Council Service units havethe following key roles:

Strategic Planning Setting the broad land use direction and planning frameworkincluding Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) and localpolicies, rules and guidelines for the municipality inaccordance with the State Planning Policy Framework(SPPF) and Planning and Environment Act 1987 (P&E Act).

EconomicDevelopment

Encouraging positive development, employment andinvestment within the municipality which is consistent withthe City Plan and local planning policy direction.

DevelopmentPlanning

Managing the overall development and land use approvalsand subsequent enforcement in accordance with the LPPFand local rules prepared by Strategic Planning and the SPPFand P&E Act established by the State Government.

Building (BanyuleBPI)

Managing building approvals, if appointed as the relevantbuilding surveyor, and enforcement of building approvalsissued in the municipality primarily in relation to structuralintegrity and safety of buildings and subsequent to relevantplanning approvals.

EngineeringServices

Providing technical advice on the appropriate standards andapproval of design in relation to car parking, roads anddrains (including drains which will become Council assets) tosupport the approval processes of Development Planningand Building. There is also direct input to the approval oftraffic management plans for construction activity.

Local Laws Ensuring that construction and building activity is wellmanaged in accordance with Council’s Local Law tominimise amenity impacts on the community.

Asset Protection Granting approvals for works and occupation of Council landand the inspection and protection of Council’s assets.

EnvironmentalHealth

To respond to and manage health related issues fromsustained land use activities such as domestic noise,offensive odours, asbestos management, vermin or otherhealth issues in accordance with State legislation.




4.2

A more detailed examination of the role of each Department involved in themanagement of development is included as Attachment 1.

TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND DISCUSSION

Responsibility for monitoring and managing construction sites

As outlined above there are multiple agencies, stakeholders and Council units thathave responsibility for managing building activities on development sites. Theoverlapping nature of these responsibilities as well as the gaps between thoseresponsibilities at times result in poor construction practices and amenity impacts onthe community. These issues are compounded for larger building sites which are nowmuch more common in Banyule as a result of the increase in larger scaledevelopments over recent years. The resourcing levels required to monitor andenforce building activity has also not increased in proportion to the change.

Some of the key issues that have been identified include:

• The lack of notification of the Asset Protection Unit before a developmentcommences.

• Confusion created where Construction Management Plans are sometimesrequired for planning permits (but not always);

• Inconsistencies between Construction Management Plans and the Local Law;

• Overlapping responsibility between Council Units (Planning, Building, LocalLaws and Asset Protection) depending on the type of development andwhether a Construction Management Plan has been prepared;

• Gaps in responsibility between Council Units (i.e. some developments nottriggering consideration of construction management issues or assetprotection);

• Inadequate guidance to developers on their obligations and Councilrequirements in relation to construction management;

• Insufficient fees for approving construction activities which impact on Councilland, assets and residential and commercial amenity;

• Limited resources to adequately monitor development sites during constructionand respond to issues and concerns when they arise;

• Low number of infringements issued for breaches of approved ConstructionManagement Plans and the Local Law despite a large number of complaintsand apparent non-compliance in many situations;

• High rate of undetected damage to Council assets and subsequent requirementfor Council to undertake repairs and reinstatement.




4.2

Construction Management Plans

Construction Management Plans (CMP) are discussed in detail in Attachment 2.

It is recognised that a CMP provides a valuable tool to focus the mind of thedeveloper on the implications of their proposed construction activity on surroundingresidents and infrastructure. However, the imposition of the requirement for a CMPas a condition of a planning permit provides the inference and unrealistic expectationthat any breach of the CMP will be pursued under the planning function. A planningpermit should contain conditions that are reasonably able to be enforced by theDevelopment Planning Unit under the provisions of the Planning and EnvironmentAct 1987, rather than conditions that are enforced under other legislation.

It is therefore more appropriate to impose stand-alone conditions on planning permitswhere construction has a direct impact on a planning-related issue, and to seek aCMP separately for consideration and enforcement primarily by Council’s MunicipalLaws Unit, but with reference to the Environmental Health Unit, Building Unit andBuilding and Civil Works Unit as appropriate. A suitable permit note or initiatingcondition can be included on a planning permit for larger developments where a CMPis required.

Approvals for Occupation of Council land

Council has obligations under the Local Government Act 1989 and RoadManagement Act 2004 to ensure all activities upon roads within the municipality arethe subject of surveillance audits to ensure Compliance with the Road ManagementAct and other associated legislation. The types of activities that come under thisobligation are outlined in Attachment 3 but include cranes, concrete pumps,hoardings, scaffolding, work areas and zones and temporary vehicle crossing.

Delegations and authority

Given the number of Council staff involved in development site enforcement activitiesthere is a spread across the different positions with regard to delegations andauthority to undertake enforcement. At times this can be separated out into individual“silo’s” which can result in a narrow focus when sites are inspected by individualofficers. There should be a wider use of delegations which provide scope, but notnecessarily the responsibility, to undertake enforcement using the range of legislationand enforcement tools available. For example, the Municipal Laws Officers should beempowered to enforce under the Planning and Environment Act and vice versa. hisdoes not necessarily mean that the Municipal Laws Officers would subsequently beresponsible for enforcement of planning matters, but there may be times whereproviding that power is of benefit, particularly for construction activity managementand enforcement.




4.2

Processes and systems

The current systems and processes associated with development site enforcementare adhoc and not fully linked. There needs to be a streamlined application processfor approvals which can be linked with the Construction Management Plan processdescribed earlier in this report. This can be provided online so that it can beincorporated with Councils corporate systems including the records managementsystem and then subsequently accessed using mobile technology by officers “in thefield”. This will improve the access to information for staff and improve the level ofenforceability and customer service levels to not only developers but the generalpublic who regularly raise concerns with regard to development activity.

Resources and effective controls

Whilst there are available process improvements which should be considered andimplemented, there is also a direct relationship between the resourcing available tomonitor development sites and compliance issues. Additional enforcement resourceswill enable enhanced monitoring of development sites. There is merit in one or moreadditional officers to issue approvals and monitor construction sites.

The addition of Local Laws / Permits Inspector role(s) is intended to meet thefollowing objectives and outcomes:

• Ensure compliance with the requirement to obtain permits for activities onroads and Council Land;

• Undertake inspection of activities upon Roads and Council Land to ensurePermits conditions are implemented and Construction Management Plans arecomplied with. Key issues to be monitored include public safety, trafficmanagement arrangements, and damage to Council assets;

• Ensure all additional requirements such as Road Opening Consents,Regulation 604 Public protection measures are in place and Asset ProtectionPermits have been obtained;

• Increase proactive compliance activities around building sites and other privatecivil works occurring within the Municipality;

• Meet public expectations to ensure building works are occurring with minimalimpact on Amenity.

Whether the position(s) is best located in the Municipal Laws or Assets Unit and theongoing relationship between the units with regard to monitoring construction siteswill need to be established.

Fees and potential income

The fee structure for permits and approvals should be reviewed to ensure that thefees being charged at a minimum cover the administrative cost of the service.Occupation fees should also take account of the impact on amenity and disruption. Inaddition, increased enforcement will enable more infringements to be issued todevelopers in breach. Whilst this will bring additional revenue it will also send amessage to developers that Banyule Council takes the management of constructionsites seriously and expects compliance.




4.2

FUNDING IMPLICATIONS

Whilst additional resources will be required to establish an effective system forissuing construction activity permits, approvals and monitoring associated withdevelopments under construction, it is expected that the increased costs will becovered by additional revenue.

TIMELINES

A revised system will take up to 6 months to establish new processes, updaterelevant documentation and information and appoint appropriate staff. Enhancedmonitoring of construction sites can be gradually introduced and a fully operationalrevised monitoring system could be established by the end of the year. A report canbe brought to Council at this time outlining the changes to be undertaken.




CONCLUSION

Development within Banyule has been growing over recent years with a significantincrease in larger development sites resulting in amenity impacts on residential andcommercial areas. Construction activity impacts include noise, mud, dust, parking ofconstruction vehicles and plant and equipment located on public land. TheDevelopment Planning, Engineering, Municipal Laws, Building and Asset ProtectionUnits of Council are all involved in the approvals and construction monitoringprocess. Many of the systems and processes have been in place for some time andwere not set up to deal with the amount and scale of development that is now takingplace across the municipality. Therefore, in order to provide the level of protectionthat the community expects, a review of the processes and systems is needed toensure compliance with the appropriate legislation and requirements. Council’srevised Local Law contains many relevant amenity clauses that can be used aspermit requirements for asset protection. Construction Management Plans are animportant tool that can also be used at the Planning Permit stage, however, they arebest enforced through the Local Law and other associated legislation.

Additional resources are required to assist with establishing an effective system forconstruction activity permits, approvals and monitoring associated withdevelopments. Such a system should include changes in delegation to staff, theimplementation of streamlined application processes, and the use of “in field”technology. It is expected that the increased costs to establish and run the newsystem can be covered by additional revenue primarily achieved through permit andapproval fees and enforcement activities. The revised system is expected to improvestakeholder management, provide enhanced levels of customer service and clearerroles for those involved.




4.2

ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 Managing Development in Banyule 114

2 Occupation of Council Land 117

3 Construction Management Plans 118



4.34.3 44 TURNHAM AVENUE, ROSANNA -

PROPOSED SUPERMARKET (P1260/15)

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

Ward: Ibbott

Previous ItemsCouncil on 18 June 2012 (Item 1.1 - Heidelberg Theatre Company - objection to

process for sale of Council land in Rosanna)

Council on 18 November 2013 (Item 5.1 - Proposed Sale of Rosanna Service CentreOffice Site)

Council on 16 December 2013 (Item 4.5 - 44 Turnham Avenue Rosanna)

Council on 18 April 2016 (Item 6.2 - 72 Turnham Avenue Rosanna - Widening ofproposed accessway)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Having been assessed against the relevant planning policy, an application for the useand development of a Woolworths Supermarket with undercroft car parking at44 Turnham Avenue, Rosanna together with a reduction in onsite car parking andremoval of one tree is considered appropriate.

Advertised by way of two signs being erected on the site, along with letters and flyersbeing circulated to nearby residents and stakeholders, drawing attention to theapplication, at the time of writing this report, a total of 129 objections were received.

It is considered that the application should be supported subject to conditions thatimprove the amenity of surrounding residents and the Heidelberg Theatre Company,as well as provide for appropriate tree protection measures for retained trees on site,and nearby on adjoining properties.

It is also considered necessary for Council to finalise plans for the provision of carparking and pedestrian access works, confirm timing of those works and prepare astreetscape plan for Turnham Avenue addressing car parking, landscaping,pedestrian access and identification of the Heidelberg Theatre.


44 TURNHAM AVENUE, ROSANNA - PROPOSED SUPERMARKET (P1260/15)cont’d


4.3

RECOMMENDATION

Part 1 – Planning Application

That Council having complied with Section 52, 58, 60, 61 and 62 of the Planning andEnvironment Act 1987, resolves that a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permitbe issued in respect of Application No. P1260/2015 for Use and Development of theland for the construction of a supermarket, liquor license (packaged liquor), reductionin car parking and associated vegetation removal at 44 Turnham Avenue ROSANNAand adjoining road reserve, subject to the following conditions:

Plans

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

a. Trees 38, 39 and 41 at 72 Turnham Avenue marked as retained;

b. A streetscape improvement plan to the satisfaction of Council forTurnham Avenue for an equivalent area of streetscape as shown on thestreetscape concept plan submitted with the application but amended toinclude the area in front of the Heidelberg Theatre and to be consistentwith the overall streetscape plan prepared by Council for TurnhamAvenue;

c. Provision of a feature wall and identification signage for the HeidelbergTheatre Company along the southern wall of the supermarket adjoiningthe entrance to 36 Turnham Avenue;

d. Provision of appropriately specified acoustic fencing to the eastern andsouthern boundaries where they abut 53 and 55 Grove Road and 36Turnham Avenue so as to minimise noise disturbance as a result ofdeliveries to the site;

e. The bicycle parking hoops within the rear car park relocated to theundercroft/basement car park;

f. A shower clearly marked to use as part of staff end of trip cyclingfacilities;

g. Construction techniques as recommended by the project arborist andoutlined in the tree management plan as required by condition 15, tominimise impacts to trees 23, 24, 25, 26, 29 and 30.

h. All sustainable design features as outlined in the submitted SustainableManagement Plan. Where features cannot be visually shown, include anotes table providing details of the requirements (i.e. energy and waterefficiency ratings for heating/cooling systems and plumbing fittings andfixtures);

i. Installation of additional line marking and signage making clear theproposed unidirectional flow of traffic north of the Trolley Store;




4.3

j. Extend the footpath width north of the Trolley Store to reduce the width ofthe trafficable space to 3 metres.

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

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

(ii) The specified flood level for the property.

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

2. Prior to the occupation of the permitted use and development, a car parkingmanagement plan must be submitted to and approved by the ResponsibleAuthority. The plan must outline how on site car parking will be made availablefor public use at all times and how pedestrian access will be available throughthe site at all times.

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

4. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority thedevelopment permitted by this permit must not be commenced until:-

a. The tree protection measures required by Condition 15 and 16 areinstalled to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

b. The necessary approvals and associated fee for the removal of theexisting street trees (tree 2 and 7), which are shown on the plans to beremoved, must be obtained and paid to the Responsible Authority(Banyule Tree Care Department).

5. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority the usepermitted by this permit must not be commenced until:-

a. Streetscape improvement works shown on the streetscape improvementplan are completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

b. A feature wall and identification signage for the Heidelberg TheatreCompany along the southern wall of the supermarket adjoining theentrance to 36 Turnham Avenue is provided;

c. Acoustic fencing along the southern boundary abutting the HeidelbergTheatre Company and along the eastern boundary abutting the rear of 53and 55 Grove Road, Rosanna is provided.




4.3

Amenity

6. The use or development permitted by this permit must not, in the opinion of theResponsible Authority, adversely affect the amenity of the locality by reason ofthe processes carried on; the transportation of materials, goods or commoditiesto or from the subject land; the appearance of any buildings, works ormaterials; the emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke,vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit, or oil; thepresence of vermin, or otherwise.

7. In respect of commerce, industry and trade development and/or use, noiseemissions from the subject land must comply with State EnvironmentProtection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce Industry and Trade) No.N-1.

In all other cases noise emissions from the subject land must comply withEnvironmental Protection (Residential Noise) Regulations 2008 and/orEnvironmental Protection Authority Noise Control Guidelines TG 302/92,whichever is deemed to be appropriate by the Responsible Authority.

8. Noise emissions from any equipment required for refrigeration, air-conditioning,heating, ventilation and the like must comply with State environment ProtectionPolicy (Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade) No N-1 and/orEnvironment Protection (Residential Noise) Regulations 2008 and/orEnvironmental Protection Authority Noise Control Guidelines TG 302/92,whichever is deemed to be appropriate by the Responsible Authority.

9. The surface of the subject land must be treated and maintained so as toprevent the loss of amenity to the neighbourhood through the emission of dustand the discharge of stormwater drainage to the satisfaction of the ResponsibleAuthority.

Hours of operation

10. Except with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, the usepermitted by this permit may only operate between the following times:

• Supermarket 7am – Midnight daily

• Packaged Liquor – 9am – 9pm daily

11. Deliveries to the subject land must only occur between the following times:

• 7am – 10pm weekdays

• 7am – 7pm Saturday and Sunday

Urban Design

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

Car parking/Access

13. Areas set aside for the parking of vehicles together with the aisles and accesslanes must be properly formed to such levels that they can be utilised inaccordance with the endorsed plans and must be drained and provided with anall-weather seal coat. The areas must be constructed, drained and maintainedin a continuously useable condition to the satisfaction of the ResponsibleAuthority.




4.3

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

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

Tree Protection/Management Plan

16. The development permitted by this permit must not be commenced until asatisfactory Tree Management Plan is submitted to and approved by theResponsible Authority. Such plan must be prepared by a person suitablyqualified or experienced in arboriculture, must be prepared in accordance withSection 5, AS4970 – Protection of Trees on Development Sites, and shallinclude:

(a) A plan and corresponding detail identifying location of each tree (those tobe retained on site and nearby trees on adjoining properties), theirspecies, tree preservation zones and ground protection (tree protectionplan) and other relevant identifying information.

(b) In relation to the development phase:

(i) The processes required to initiate, manage and protect thecanopies, limbs and root systems of retained trees during theconstruction process. All processes and protective measures mustbe undertaken in accordance with the guidelines detailed inAS4970-2009 Protection of Trees on Development Sites. Particulardetail must given in regards to the management process of tree rootsystems – including supervision, root exposure and excavationmethod, and root severance – where works are approved within theTPZ of a retained tree. No works shall be commenced within theTPZ of any of these trees until such a management plan is receivedand endorsed by the Responsible Authority.

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

(iii) Show locations of tree protection fencing, and any other methodssuch as hording that may be used to protect trees during demolitionand construction.

(c) Following completion of the development:

(i) Maintenance requirements for the trees.

(ii) Ongoing tree protection requirements.

(iii) Other relevant recommendations.




4.3

Tree protection

17. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority, prior to thecommencement of works (including demolition) on the site Tree PreservationZones must be established around Trees 23, 24, 25, 26, 29 and 30. You mustcontact Council’s Development Planning Unit on 9457 9808 once the TreePreservation Fencing is erected so that an inspection of the fencing can becarried out. Once installed and inspected the Tree Preservation Zones must bemaintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, and meet thefollowing requirements:

(a) Extent

Tree Preservation Zones are to be provided to the extent of thecalculated Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) where it occurs within the subjectproperty of all trees indicated as being retained on the endorsed plan.The fencing can be realigned and suitable ground protection provided toallow the approved construction therein only to the satisfaction of theproject arborist and only when approved by the Responsible Authority.

The fencing can be realigned and suitable ground protection provided toallow any construction approved within a TPZ only in accordance withendorsed plans.

(b) Management of works

(i) A suitably qualified arborist must supervise or undertake allapproved activity within the calculated TPZ of a retained tree. Anyroot severance within the TPZ must be undertaken to theirsatisfaction using a clean sharp and sterilised pruning saw. Theremust be no root pruning within the SRZ unless consent is receivedin writing by the Responsible Authority, and there must be no rootpruning within the TPZ for works other than those endorsed by theResponsible Authority.

(ii) All and any excavations within the TPZ of retained trees must beundertaken by hand or by approved non-destructive techniquessuitable in the vicinity of trees, and must only be undertaken forendorsed works or for works subsequently approved by theResponsible Authority.

(c) Weed control

Any weeds located within the Tree Preservation Zone are to be removedand the area mulched with 100mm of composted coarse gradewoodchips.

(d) Fencing

(i) Protective fencing must consist of chain wire mesh panels held inplace with concrete feet. Fencing must comply with AustralianStandard AS 4687-2007 Temporary fencing and hoardings.

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

(iii) Canopy and Limb protection must be provided in accordance withthe guidelines detailed in AS4970-2009 Protection of Trees onDevelopment Sites. (usu. Multi-storey developments)




4.3

(e) Signage

Fixed signs are to be provided on all visible sides of the TreePreservation Fencing, stating “Tree Preservation Zone – No entry withoutpermission from the City of Banyule”.

(f) Irrigation

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

(g) Access to Tree Preservation Zone

(i) No persons, vehicles or machinery are to enter the VegetationProtection Zone except with the consent of the ResponsibleAuthority;

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

(iii) No storage of material, equipment or temporary building is to takeplace 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 tothis Condition should be directed to Council’s Arborist – Development Planningon 9457 9808. Consent for the conduct of further works within a TreeProtection Zone, where granted, may be subject to conditions. Such conditionsmay include a requirement that:

• Any underground service installations within the Tree Protection Zone bebored 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 undertakenby a qualified arborist.

Or other conditions, as relevant, to ensure the ongoing health and stability ofthe subject tree/s.

Time Limits

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

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

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

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

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




4.3

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

(a) Before the permit expires, or

(b) Within six months afterwards, or

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

PERMIT NOTES

A. Expiry of Permit

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

B. Building Permit Required

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

C. Building over Easements

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

D. Memorandum of Consent for Works

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

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

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

E. Building Site Code of Practice

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




4.3

Part 2 – Library car parking, streetscape plan and theatre identification

That Council:

i. Finalise plans for the provision of car parking and pedestrian access associatedwith the Rosanna Library and confirm timing for implementation having regardto the redevelopment of the Rosanna Service Centre site at the appropriatetime.

ii. A streetscape concept plan is prepared for Turnham Avenue from Lower PlentyRoad through to Station Street which provides for a future high qualitystreetscape taking account of the pedestrian environment, incorporatesappropriate pedestrian crossing points, landscaping, on street car parking, buszones and disabled car parking. The plan needs to take into consideration theproposed plan for the level crossing removal and new Rosanna Station.

iii. A proposal is developed for identification signage and landscaping works in thefront setback and streetscape in front of the Heidelberg Theatre forimplementation as part of the streetscape improvement works in TurnhamAvenue.

Planning Permit Application: P1260/15

Development Planner: Andy Wilson

Address: 44 Turnham Avenue ROSANNA

Proposal: Use and Development of the land for the construction ofa supermarket, liquor license (packaged liquor) andreduction in car parking

Existing Use/Development: Office

Applicant: Woolworths

Zoning: Commercial 1 Zone, Mixed Use Zone

Overlays: Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO5) to part of the site

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

Objections Received: 129

Ward: Ibbott

It is proposed to demolish the existing office building and construct a part two storeysupermarket with basement car parking. The proposal to use the land for asupermarket does not require permission under the Commercial 1 Zone (where thesupermarket will be constructed), however a portion of the site is zoned Mixed UseZone where permission is required for the use of the land for a supermarket (the landwhere the car park will be constructed).

The proposal also includes a liquor license for packaged liquor.

The supermarket will be used during the hours of 7am to 12am daily. Packagedliquor is proposed to be sold during the hours of 9am and midnight.




4.3

The new undercroft/basement car park will include 64 car parking spaces in additionto the 22 existing at grade spaces at the rear of the site, giving a total of 86 on sitecar parking spaces. The 12 car parking spaces abutting the rear of the library do notform part of this application as they are located on the land at 72 Turnham Avenue(Rosanna Library site).

It is proposed to remove a number of trees from the site and adjoining land at 72Turnham Avenue (Library). Tree 2 is the only tree proposed to be removed whichrequires a permit and is located within the Turnham Avenue road reserve as is tree 7.Table 2 below describes the retention value of trees on site and at 72 TurnhamAvenue that are proposed to be removed and retained:

Tree Name Height Retentionvalue

Location Protected? Retained?

2 Eucalyptussideroxylon

18 High RoadReserve

Yes No

3 Eucalyptuscamaldulensis

16 Very High On site No No


16 High On site No No



7 Eucalyptusleucoxylon

10 Moderate RoadReserve

No No

11 Grevillearobusta

19 High Library No No



16 Casuarinacunninghamiana






29 Quercus robur 14 Very High On site No Yes30 Eucalyptus

melliodora16 High No Yes

33 Populus nigra‘Italica’



21 High Library No No

Table 1




4.3

In addition, three trees have been identified to the rear of the land at 72 TurnhamAvenue (Library site) which will not be impacted by the proposal although two ofthem are marked for removal. The plans should be amended to reflect their retention.These trees are outlined in table 2 below:

Tree Name Common name Height Retentionvalue


River Red Gum 16 High

39 Angophora costata Sydney Apple Gum 13 High41 Corymbia

citriodoraLemon Scented Gum 21 High

Table 2

For a full copy of the advertised plans see Attachment 3.


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


BACKGROUND/HISTORY

The planning application has been lodged by Woolworths, who have entered into acontract to purchase the land from Council under their property division Fabcot PtyLtd. The subject site currently contains the Rosanna Council Service Centre andadministrative offices. This has been a temporary arrangement since the inception ofBanyule Council more than 20 years ago with the Council expressing its intent torelocate to a consolidated office at Greensborough for some time. In order tofacilitate the move and subsequent sale of the Rosanna Site, Council undertook anumber of key steps which included:

1. Rezoning of the land to Commercial 1 Zone and Mixed Use Zone;2. Undertaking an Expression of Interest process for the sale of the land;3. Subdivision of the land and establishment of easements;4. Public Notice of Council’s Intention to sell the land and commitment to sell;5. Committing to undertake car parking and pedestrian access works in the

vicinity of the library and Heidelberg Theatre as part of the sale of the land;6. Commencement of the new offices to accommodate Council staff at One

Flintoff, Greensborough.

Each of these steps provides context to the current proposal and is discussed below.




4.3

REZONING OF THE LAND TO COMMERCIAL 1 AND MIXED USE ZONE (AMENDMENT C76)

The Council land at Turnham Avenue and Douglas Street was rezoned in 2012following the completion of Amendment C76 to the Banyule Planning Scheme. TheAmendment underwent a complete and thorough consultation and exhibition processwhich included submissions from the Rosanna library, Heidelberg Theatre Companyand surrounding residents and a detailed assessment and report by an independentplanning panel. The Planning Panel evaluated the submissions and recommendedsupport for the rezoning of the land. Some of the key issues considered by thePlanning Panel included:

• Whether the Amendment was premature;• Future use of the site for community and cultural facilities;• Justification for accommodating business uses;• Future development and potential impacts on neighbourhood character;• The loss of car parking;• Drainage;• Public access; and• Whether the zones proposed are appropriate;

The planning panel ultimately supported the rezoning of the land to Business 1(Subsequently Commercial 1) for the Turnham Avenue component and Mixed UseZone for the Douglas Street component indicating that the issues raised by thesubmitters were not relevant concerns, were not of sufficient concern to prevent therezoning or would be dealt with at a further stage by Council and in the detailedassessment of a future development proposal for the land.

There are a number of key comments of note in the panel report which are relevant.These include the following:

“The Panel accepts there has been strategic planning work undertakenwhich enables the evaluation of the appropriate zoning to capitalise on thepotential of this strategically significant parcel of land….

The focus of the Panel’s consideration is on the planning merits of theAmendment, including whether the Amendment Site is suitable for thepurposes envisaged by the zones proposed…..

Remedial works arising from the future development or sale of theAmendment Site may be necessary and could include:• Consideration of the need for Council customer service arrangements

in Rosanna;• Works to ensure parking for the library and theatre is maintained and• Measures to maintain access to the theatre for people with

disabilities….

While the retail core will continue to be to the west of the railway line, theproposed rezoning of the Amendment Site to B1Z [Business 1 Zone] wouldfacilitate retail development, particularly at ground level, to compliment theretail core and community uses in the immediate area. The Panel issatisfied that this zoning would contribute to the ongoing economicdevelopment of the activity centre….




4.3

The built form along Turnham Avenue and Douglas Street has been lowscale but change has begun, with a three storey building at 76-80 TurnhamAvenue. The Panel agrees with Council’s submission that the permitprocess can deal with the range of development issues applicable to thissite….

The Panel notes that surveys indicate that parking pressures are primarilyan issue during working hours; the Douglas Street car park is currentlyreserved for authorised Council vehicles; and the Council offices alsogenerate demand for on street parking which will no longer apply when thatuse relocates. It is also recognised that Council is investigating parkingimprovements on the library site and these works will be important to libraryoperations….

The Panel is satisfied that the regulatory framework applicable to the landwill enable Melbourne Water to ensure drainage issues are appropriatelyaddressed…..

The Panel agrees with Council that the public access concerns raised areprimarily matters for the subdivision process and/or is a property law issuethat is beyond the scope of this Panel’s consideration.”

Subsequent to the rezoning to Business 1 Zone, the State Government rezoned theland to Commercial 1 Zone as part of VC100 which reformed existing zones acrossVictoria in 2013. All Business 1 zoned land in the municipality was translated toCommercial 1 Zone as part of this process.

EXPRESSION OF INTEREST PROCESS FOR LAND SALE

In early 2012 Council commenced the process to seek Expressions of Interest for thesale and development of the Rosanna Service Centre site in accordance with theprovisions of the Banyule Planning Scheme. Following a subsequent shortlistingprocess and extended contract negotiations, Council agreed to sell the site to FabcotPty Ltd subject to a number of conditions including Council vacating the premisesand moving its administrative offices Greensborough.

As part of the sale the purchaser was advised that they would be responsible forsubmitting a planning permit application for the development of the land and thatCouncil must then independently consider and assess the application in its role asthe responsible authority under the Banyule Planning Scheme and pursuant to thePlanning and Environment Act 1987.

The purchaser was also advised that this would involve public notice of theapplication and a report being prepared and submitted by the Planning Departmentto Council for consideration. The contract of sale also makes it clear that nothing inthe contract shall fetter or restrict the power or discretion of Council as theresponsible authority under the Planning Scheme or in any other statutory role.

SUBDIVISION OF THE LAND AND ESTABLISHMENT OF EASEMENTS

As part of the process to enable to land to be sold, a land surveyor was engaged toprepare a draft plan of subdivision and submit a planning application for thesubdivision of the land.




4.3

Planning Permit P1033/2013 was issued on 3 April 2014 for a Three Lot Subdivision(Consolidation of Titles and Realignment of Boundaries). This followed a publicnotice process, receipt of objections and a Council decision to issues a Notice ofDecision to Grant a Planning Permit at its meeting on 16 December 2013.

There was a subsequent Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal objector appealthat was ultimately withdrawn. The permit enabled the consolidation of ten existingtitles which incorporated the Rosanna library site and the subdivision of the land tocreate three lots (Lot 1 containing the existing Rosanna Library, Lot 2 containing theexisting car park off Douglas Street and Lot 3 containing the existing RosannaService Centre together with car parking fronting Turnham Avenue). This thenenabled Council to sell the service centre and associated car park whilst retaining theRosanna library on a separate title.

PUBLIC NOTICE OF COUNCIL’S INTENTION TO SELL LAND

In order to give effect to the sale of the land, Council was required to give notice of itsintention to sell, hear any submissions received in respect of such notice and resolveto sell the land pursuant to sections 189 and 223 of the Local Government Act 1989.Only after this occurred could Council sign the contract of sale.

A report on the public notice process was considered by Council on 18 November2013. The report considered submissions received which included the HeidelbergTheatre Company and local residents and raised the following main issues:

• Increased Traffic;• Loss of car parking;• Loss of community facilities;• Loss of public access to the Land and over the Melbourne Water drainage

reserve land;• Lack of consultation regarding development of the proposed Integrated

Transport Strategy;• Requirement of Structure Planning for Rosanna; and• Inadequate future planning/consultation with the community.

Council subsequently resolved to sell the land, finalise contract negotiations with theprospective purchaser and advise submitters.

As part of the planning permit application for the supermarket, the applicant hassought to acquire an additional 90m2 (approx.) of land at the rear of 72 TurnhamAvenue (library site) to allow for improved vehicle access to the proposed undercroftparking and access for delivery vehicles to the loading bays at the rear of theproposed development. Council considered a report in relation to the sale of this landto Fabcot Pty Ltd at the Council Meeting on 18 April 2016, but deferred the report toreconsider the request following the outcome of the current planning application forthe supermarket.




4.3

LIBRARY CAR PARKING AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS WORKS

The development of the site for a supermarket or any other land use will requireCouncil to undertake alterations to car parking arrangements and suitable site worksto enable the Rosanna library to be retained and continue to function in its currentform. Council considered a petition report on 18 June 2012 regarding the Rosannalibrary and Heidelberg Theatre sites which specifically raised concern with the sale ofthe land and the potential impact on the loss of car parking. In response to theseconcerns a concept plan was prepared and forwarded to the Heidelberg TheatreCompany showing the proposed changes in the vicinity of the library. The ‘Rosannalibrary site remodelling works’ concept plan is included at Attachment 2.

In regard to car parking, the plan shows:

• Remedial works to the Library to reconfigure the undercroft car park forimproved vehicle movement and safety, and improved pedestrian accessbetween the undercroft car park and Library entrance which will set asideapproximately 25 public car spaces.

• Provision of DDA compliant on street car spaces in the vicinity of the Library (inDouglas Street) and Heidelberg Theatre Company (in Turnham Avenue,adjacent to the Theatre).

• Changed time limits for on street car parking on Turnham Avenue to benefitLibrary users and other visitors to the area.

Depending on the outcome of the planning permit application and confirmation thatthe development is proceeding, a final design will be prepared with the necessaryworks being programmed for implementation.

NEW OFFICES TO ACCOMMODATE STAFF AT ONE FLINTOFF, GREENSBOROUGH

ADCO Constructions is currently building new Banyule Council staff accommodationand community facilities on top of WaterMarc in Greensborough. Work started inOctober 2015 and is expected to finish in December 2016, ready for staff to move into and community to access from January 2017.

The investment in new staff accommodation and community facilities is anticipated tobring economic benefits, long-term productivity and financial savings. The projectwas foreshadowed in 2007 with Council’s release of the Greensborough Project, aplan to revitalise and influence future planning and development of theGreensborough Activity Centre.

The new staff accommodation will bring together 320 Council staff from three officelocations - Ivanhoe, Rosanna and Greensborough. Council will retain customerservice points in Ivanhoe and Rosanna, ensuring easy access for people acrossBanyule. Council meetings will continue to be held at Ivanhoe in the heritage listedtown hall building.

Final arrangements for the customer service point at Rosanna will be confirmed priorto the move to Greensborough.

http://www.banyule.vic.gov.au/Services/Planning/Activity-Areas/The-Greensborough-Project




4.3

ROSANNA STATION LEVEL CROSSING REMOVAL AND TRACK DUPLICATION TO

HEIDELBERG

The State Government has recently committed to upgrading the Hurstbridge Railwayline with specific projects impacting directly on Rosanna Station and the RosannaActivity Centre. The Hurstbridge line upgrade will include:

• Duplication of the single-track section of rail line between Heidelberg andRosanna, removing a significant bottleneck, with associated power andsignalling work;

• The duplication works will be coordinated with the Grange Road, Alphingtonand Lower Plenty Road, Rosanna level crossing removals;

• Redesigning the timetables for the Hurstbridge and South Morang lines toachieve additional services and improved reliability on both lines;

• Building a new train station at Rosanna.

The State Government has advised that a contract will be awarded in 2017 andconstruction works will start shortly thereafter, with completion by 2019. Communityconsultation will take place from mid-2016 regarding the removal of the level crossingon Lower Plenty Road. The Level Crossing Removal Authority (LXRA) will managethe delivery of the project. LXRA will be working closely with Public TransportVictoria, local councils, key stakeholders in the area and the local community todeliver this project.

LEGAL CONSIDERATION

The process for considering a Planning Permit matter and the decision by Councilmust be in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Planning and EnvironmentAct 1987. In this case compliance with Section 52, 58, 60, 61 and 62 of the Planningand Environment Act 1987 is relevant.

SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

The subject site is currently occupied by a part three storey building used as an officeof Banyule City Council. It is sited on the eastern side of the Hurstbridge rail line,opposite the Rosanna Railway Station and is abutted by the Rosanna Library to thenorth and Heidelberg Theatre Company to the south. The site has two frontages, oneto Turnham Avenue and one to Douglas Parade. The site contains a car park to thenorth east of the office building with access from Douglas Parade and a car park tothe west with access from Turnham Avenue. These car parks are currently used bystaff and customers of Banyule City Council.

A small portion of the subject site to be developed is owned by Melbourne Water andpart of a larger parcel known as 32 Station Road Rosanna. This is located along theeastern boundary in the southern portion of the site. It is 3.5 metres wide,approximately 47 metres long and 161m2 in area.

http://levelcrossings.vic.gov.au/crossings/grange-road-alphington

http://levelcrossings.vic.gov.au/crossings/lower-plenty-road-rosanna




4.3

Figure 1: Locality Plan

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

The proposal was advertised by way of notices to nearby surrounding properties inthe locality and two signs on site – one on Turnham Avenue and one on DouglasStreet. A community update was also widely distributed in the vicinity of the site andmade available on Council’s website which outlined details about the project and theplanning application.

To date 129 objections have been received. Issues raised by objectors include:

• Traffic and pedestrian safety.• Traffic congestion.• Loss of car parking.• Neighbourhood character (construction to the front boundary).• Vegetation removal and environmental impacts.• Inappropriate location for a supermarket:

o Disconnection from the Rosanna Village;o Impact on existing library and Heidelberg Theatre.

• Sale of liquor.• Loss of a Banyule Council Customer Service point in Rosanna.• Increased crime and vandalism.• Council has a conflict of interest and is seeking to maximise financial return and

not considering the best outcome for the Rosanna community.• Concern the library will be sold in the future as well.• Loss of access through the Melbourne Water easement.• The proposal is not consistent with Banyule’s age friendly focus.

CONSULTATION

A meeting was had with representatives of the Heidelberg Theatre Company todiscuss the specific concerns they have with the proposal including access to parkingand impact on the character of Turnham Avenue given the proposed removal ofvegetation and construction to the front boundary.




4.3

It was accepted that it is reasonable to treat the shared boundary with some acousticfencing measures to minimise the potential noise disturbance as a result of deliveriesto the supermarket. This can be included as a condition of any approval granted.

The use of a car parking management plan was also discussed which could outlinehow parking could be made available to patrons of the Heidelberg Theatre Company.This can be requested as a condition of any approval granted.

In addition, opportunities to improve the appearance of the boundary wall with thetheatre entrance and improved identification of the theatre were explored.

REFERRAL COMMENTS

Transport Engineering

The Transport Engineering Unit has indicated that they support the proposedreduction in onsite car parking requirements based on the empirical assessment ofcar parking and available short term car parking in surrounding streets. There is alsono concerns raised with the resulting traffic impacts. However, it is recommendedthat conditions to improve the safety of the under-croft car park including installationof additional line marking and signage making clear the proposed unidirectional flowof traffic north of the Trolley Store and extending the footpath width north of theTrolley Store to reduce the width of the trafficable space to 3 metres is provided. It isalso recommended the relocation of the bicycle parking spaces at the rear of the siteto be positioned within the under-croft car park for increased security.

Traffic and car parking issues are discussed in more detail in the report.

Arborist

The design proposes the removal of Trees #2, #7, #38, #39, #40, #41, and #59 fromadjoining property. The development impact on Tree #59 – a red gum with very highretention value – is severe, and it is accepted that design modifications to thestructure of the built form would be necessary to retain it could be excessive. Trees#2 and #7 are both street trees, and have high and moderate retention valuerespectively. The justification for the removal of these trees is less clear. Thereafter itis accepted that Tree #40 has low retention value, and observations of tree #38 arethat it has limited future potential given its form, even though it is assessed as a highretention value tree.

The arborist report details that improved design detail and further investigation isrequired (page 17 and 18) to categorically determine the development impacts on thefollowing trees located on adjacent property:

Trees #23, #24 and #25:The site levels and materials proposed to facilitate construction of a new trafficablesurface capable of supporting larger vehicles; and,The canopy pruning required to enable clearances for larger vehicles.

Trees #26, #29 and #30:Detail is required in this area relating to the clarification of site levels, materials andany landscaping treatments for new surfaces and/or car park alignments.




4.3

Further clarification is required in relation to the protection of these trees.

PLANNING CONTROLS

The site is located partly within the Commercial 1 Zone and partly within the MixedUse Zone, within which the Neighbourhood Character Policy does not apply. Detailsof the relevant planning controls and State and Local Policy requirements arecontained in Attachment 1 of this report. Table 3 summarises the relevant planningcontrols including which trigger the need for planning permission

Control Permit triggered?

Commercial One Zone – Schedule 1 YesMixed Use Zone YesVegetation Protection Overlay YesClause 52.06: Car parking YesClause 52.07: Loading and Unloading of Vehicles YesClause 52.17: Native Vegetation NoClause 52.34: Bicycle Facilities No

Table 3

TECHNICAL CONSIDERATION

STATE AND LOCAL POLICY FRAMEWORK

Based on an assessment of the plans and reports accompanying the application it isconsidered that the proposal responds well to the State and Local Planning PolicyFramework within the Banyule Planning Scheme and will meet the planningobjectives established for a neighbourhood activity centre such as Rosanna.

The proposed buildings and works for the purpose of creating a new retail land usewill help to establish an overall stronger commercial centre. The development willalso result in improved overall vitality and viability of the town centre and help tomake it a more self-sustaining destination for multiple purpose trips, where visitorswill be encouraged to use alternatives to the private car, including the train, bus,cycling or walking, which will become increasingly important modes of transport intothe future.

ZONING PROVISIONS AND PROPOSED LAND USE

The rezoning of the land to Business 1 Zone (and subsequently Commercial 1 Zone)was undertaken without a specific land use in mind but rather to facilitate a range ofretail, commercial and residential opportunities. The redevelopment of the site for amulti-level mixed use development including retail and residential would be ideal butis not specifically sought by a Structure Plan or Strategic Plan for this activity centre.The proposal for a supermarket is supported by the zoning of the land and in fact isan “as of right” land use which does not require formal approval in the Commercial 1Zone.




4.3

It is noted that the proposal is for a “mini” Woolworths at 2700 square metres (2135square metres of net retail floor space) which is approximately two thirds the size of astandard full line supermarket which is typically more than 3600 square metres. Thissmaller size is suitable for a neighbourhood activity centre such as Rosanna with adesire by Woolworths to attract local residents, existing commuters and other visitorsto the centre such as those attending the library next door. This then supportsadditional expenditure within the centre which is currently lost to other locations.

There has also been concern raised by many objectors about the impact of anadditional supermarket on the existing IGA located at the western end of theshopping centre. Whilst the land use does not require a permit and concerns aboutcompetition is not a relevant consideration, it is also noted that the stimulus of a newretail premises can bring benefits to a Neighbourhood Centre such as Rosanna.There is an opportunity now for the IGA to be revitalised and continue to offer aservice to local residents. There are many examples of an existing supermarket co-existing and in fact thriving when competition is brought in to the marketplace.

SALE OF LIQUOR

The sale of liquor is a particular aspect of concern for some objectors. Given thatsocial problems associated with alcohol sales are not prevalent in the Rosanna areadespite there being two bottle shops already within the Rosanna Activity Centre it isnot expected that the additional bottle-shop will exacerbate concerns. However, arestriction on the times that alcohol can be sold from the premises so that times arelimited to those typical of shopping centre bottle shop closing times (i.e. 9pm) isreasonable to avoid attracting youth using nearby public transport in this quieter partof the activity centre.

BUILT FORM, URBAN DESIGN AND STREETSCAPE

The relationship of the built form of the building with the streetscape is an importantconsideration. The building occupies a substantial portion of the Commercial 1 part ofthe site and is brought forward all the way to the frontage on Turnham Avenue. Thebuilding design maximises the available space and topography by incorporatingbasement car parking coming in off the lower grade in Douglas Street and thenground floor retail space fronting Turnham Avenue but positioned off the drainageeasements at the rear. A first floor office area is then accommodated above the liftarea to the southern end of the building where the main entrance off TurnhamAvenue is provided to take full advantage of footpath levels.

There are no trees proposed to be retained along the Turnham Avenue frontage ofthe site. This is a specific aspect of the proposal that has been raised as a concernby many objectors given the extent of vegetation in the area. However, the land hasbeen rezoned for commercial purposes without a vegetation protection overlayrequiring the retention of existing vegetation. The maximising of a developmentfootprint on commercial land is typically expected and the provision of developmentto the extent of boundaries is common to avoid ineffective and often poorlymaintained landscaping setbacks. For this particular proposal the basement carparking prevents the provision of practical landscaping setbacks at the TurnhamAvenue ground level and would be considered wasted space if provided.




4.3

The building is well designed with use of glazing, steel, timber and stone claddingfinishes to give the building a contemporary appearance but with a localised softercharacteristic which suits the Rosanna environment. The building will sit prominentlyin the streetscape but is appropriate as a new building which continues the changeexpected in this street facilitated by the rezoning. As noted by the Planning Panelthat considered the rezoning, change has already started, with the office and retailbuilding located on the north east corner of Turnham Avenue and Douglas Street -that building also having no setback. It is expected that further change may occur inthe future as the Rosanna library is one day upgraded and opportunities to remodelthe front of the Heidelberg Theatre site arise. Further along Turnham Avenue, theredevelopment of residential properties is likely given the proximity to the activitycentre and nearby public transport.

The Heidelberg Theatre is located on Council land and adjoins the subject site to thesouth along Turnham Avenue. Whilst the theatre site has a narrow frontage andsmall setback it currently enjoys exposure and presence in the streetscape due to theopen Council car park on the subject site. This will be interrupted by the zero lot linedredevelopment proposed and therefore objectors associated with the theatre havesuggested that a setback should be provided which continues to provide exposure tothe theatre.

Taking into consideration the desire for redevelopment facilitated by the commercialzoning of the subject site and the suitability of the building design, it is consideredthat a setback to provide exposure to the side boundary of the theatre is anunreasonable and unnecessary amendment which would undermine the designconcept of the proposed development. However, the new southern wall of thesupermarket proposed on the northern boundary of the theatre site should bedesigned to provide featuring and signage which identifies the theatre for thosetravelling north along Turnham Avenue where current exposure and identification isminimal. Improved signage within the front setback of the theatre and potentiallywithin the streetscape immediately in front of the theatre should also be provided toimprove the presence of the site for those travelling south along Turnham Avenue.

The other significant change to Turnham Avenue is the level crossing removal atLower Plenty Road and construction of a new Rosanna Railway Station. Whilst it isyet to be known whether the rail line will be constructed over or under Lower PlentyRoad, the impact on the Turnham Avenue streetscape environment directly oppositethe subject site will be substantial. Council has already identified the need for carefulplanning and a suitable urban design approach for the new station so that both thewestern and eastern parts of the activity centre can be tied together and support theexpanded retail functions. The potential for commercial components to the newstation redevelopment on railway land adjoining Turnham Avenue could also belooked at.




4.3

The Supermarket proposal has put forward a specific outcome for the futurestreetscape in front of the site as part of the application which includes removal ofstreet trees, a new pedestrian crossing and reconfigured car parking. This plan wasestablished before the State Government commitments to the new Rosanna Stationand without fully incorporating Council plans for car parking reconfiguration. Theproposed removal of street trees is understandable given the difficulties with theirretention as part of a redeveloped site and the desire to establish a renewedstreetscape. However, it is not appropriate to ‘lock in’ a new streetscape now as partof the current application. A new streetscape plan should be prepared to thesatisfaction of Council prior to commencement of the development (or other agreedtimeframe) which considers the following:

• The final design for the level crossing removal and new station includingpedestrian and car parking access points from Turnham Avenue, businterchange changes and potential for any commercial development frontingTurnham Avenue;

• Proposed Council on street car parking changes including disabled car parkingnear to the Heidelberg Theatre;

• Improvements to the frontage of the Heidelberg Theatre and adjoiningstreetscape to enhance identification of the site;

• The most appropriate locations for pedestrian crossing points along TurnhamAvenue and bike parking hoops within the street.

Council has allocated funds in its 2016/17 budget to prepare streetscape conceptplans for the entire activity centre, creating a vision for revitalisation and improvedintegration between the eastern and western sections of the centre, currently dividedby the rail line. The preparation of the concept plans provides an opportunity toachieve an integrated urban design aesthetic, further strengthening the activitycentre.

Given that the earliest date that the Rosanna Service Centre site will be vacated isearly January 2017, and the streetscape works are not likely to be undertaken by thedeveloper or Council until the redevelopment is nearing completion, there is ampletime to resolve the above issues and establish the most appropriate streetscapeplan.

LANDSCAPING AND TREES TO THE REAR

Landscaping, including a large oak tree are prominent features of the site to the rearcar park where the site transitions to the residential properties in Douglas Street andGrove Road. Most of these trees will be retained or replaced with new landscaping.The large oak tree will be retained and should be suitably protected during theconstruction phase of the development. Likewise, trees to the rear of residentialproperties in Grove Road which abut the rear easement and loading bay area shouldalso be protected during construction with the design of the roadway over the criticalroot zone of the trees needing careful attention to ensure their long term retention.Suitable conditions can be included on any approval granted.




4.3

Some trees to the rear of the library may require removal to accommodate accesschanges to the library undercroft car park. This doesn’t form part of the currentapplication but will need to be considered by Council in finalising the plan for thefuture library car park. Where possible, trees will be retained and future landscapingprovided whilst still providing for the maximum possible car parking attributable to thelibrary. The initial concept plan prepared by Council, shows retention of key trees butthe loss of at least one substantial tree where the new access driveway from thelibrary undercroft car park is proposed.

CAR PARKING (CLAUSE 52.06)

A car parking assessment has been submitted with the application by the applicantwhich has been reviewed by Council’s Transport Engineering Team. Theassessment identifies that the proposed development consists of 2,702 m2 ofsupermarket (retail) floor area. The supermarket use is listed within Table 52.06 ofthe Banyule Planning Scheme. Under the Scheme, a rate of 5 car parking spaces foreach 100m2 is required. Based on the requirements of Clause 52.06, the statutorycar parking assessment for the development is 135 spaces.

The plans submitted with the application indicate a total of 86 car parking spaces onsite. Accordingly, the applicant has requested a reduction of 49 car parking spacesfrom the statutory rate.

The car parking assessment prepared by Cardno on behalf of the applicant indicatesthat supermarkets in locations with similar conditions generate a maximum carparking demand of 3.6 spaces for every 100m2.

Taking into account the empirical rate, the maximum demand for car parking spacesfor this development would be 97 spaces, resulting in an effective shortfall of 11spaces. It is considered that the surrounding road network has enough on-street carparking capacity to accommodate the demand in times of high usage. In addition, thefollowing key points are noted:

• There is excellent access to public transport with the railway station oppositeand bus interchange in Turnham Avenue;

• An expectation of multi-purpose trips with some people already in or parkednear the activity centre also visiting the supermarket such as commutersheading home, those visiting the library or at cafes or other shops west of therailway;

• The site has good pedestrian access from the surrounding residential areasparticularly with an expected well integrated new railway station and levelcrossing removal and a high quality streetscape;

• There will be far less demand on car parking in the surrounding area once theCouncil Offices are relocated to Greensborough;

• The expected peak times for visits to the supermarket are expected in theevening and weekends when demand on nearby accessible car parkingincluding on street car parking and within the railway station is lower;




4.3

• Parking for approximately 25 cars is being set aside for the Rosanna Librarywithin the land owned and controlled by Council which is in addition to theparking allocated to the supermarket.

On the basis of the above, a reduction in the provision of car parking spaces from thestatutory rate is considered appropriate.

Council’s Transport Engineering Team has also advised that the car park has beensuitably designed in accordance with Australian Standards but seek specificconditions to ensure minor improvements to the layout are made.

With regards to public access to the supermarket car park, it is consideredreasonable to require a car parking management plan which will clearly demonstratehow the spaces on site will be made available for public use at all times and howpedestrians can move through the site, particularly during events at the HeidelbergTheatre. It is noted that the spaces abutting the library remain on the library site andwill be available at all times for public use. A pedestrian path is proposed to provideaccess to these car parking spaces to and from the supermarket as well as access toTurnham Avenue via a pedestrian walkway between the supermarket and theLibrary.

TRAFFIC AND LOADING

Council’s latest available traffic data indicates the following daily traffic volumes forresidential streets in the area:

• Douglas Street: 434 vehicles per day;• Turnham Avenue: 2444 vehicles per day;• Station Road: 2126 vehicles per day.

The applicants traffic assessment indicates that the proposal could load the networkwith additional vehicles that can be accommodated within the surrounding streetnetwork given existing volumes. The corresponding reduction in vehicle movementsassociated with the relocation of Council’s offices also means that the additionalvehicles will be comfortably absorbed within the street network. In addition, given thatthe site is well positioned and located to expect a lower demand on car parking thana typical supermarket located away from an activity centre there will be acorresponding lower impact on traffic in the surrounding network.

The proposal’s documents also indicate the use of a 12.5 metre long truck fordeliveries to the supermarket, with loading proposed to occur between 7am and10pm on weekdays, and between 7am and 7pm on weekends.

The preferred route for trucks to access the site is via Lower Plenty Road, intoTurnham Avenue, to Douglas Street. This will minimise the number of heavy vehiclesin the local network. It is noted that the existing design of the intersection of TurnhamAvenue and Douglas Street does not allow for trucks to turn right from TurnhamAvenue into Douglas Street which reinforces the preferred route. As part of anystreetscape changes to Turnham Avenue in the future the street design should notenable right turns from Turnham Avenue into Douglas Street.




4.3

There have been specific concerns raised in relation to noise associated with truckmovements and loading. It is proposed that deliveries and use of the loading bay willbe up to 10pm weekdays and 7pm weekends. Whilst these times are reasonable,acoustic fencing should be provided between the loading area and adjoiningresidential properties and in particular the Heidelberg Theatre which has its stagearea towards the rear of the building near the loading bay.

On the basis of the traffic assessment undertaken and review by Council’s TransportEngineering Team it is considered that the proposal is acceptable from a trafficperspective.

BICYCLE PARKING

Based on the requirements of Clause 52.34, the proposal requires 9 bicycle spacesto be provided, 4 spaces for employees and 5 for visitors. The proposal has included5 bicycle parking hoops to the rear of the site which can accommodate 10 bicycles,and 4 additional hoops to the front, near the entrance which can accommodate8 spaces. This comfortably satisfies and exceeds the requirement for bicycle parkingon site.

The bicycle spaces on the footpath are well located to serve customers who cycle tothe supermarket. However, the spaces at the rear of the site, which may be used bystaff, are not well located and it is considered that the proposal should be amendedto incorporate the bicycle parking spaces within the under-croft parking area. Thereappears to be sufficient room to accommodate this and therefore a condition of anyapproval granted can require this. A shower for ‘end of trip’ use should also beprovided.

ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE DESIGN

The application has been assessed against the components of environmentallysustainable design including energy performance, water resources, indoorenvironment quality, stormwater management, transport, waste management andurban ecology and is found to be compliant. The applicant has submitted aSustainable Management Plan which includes a Built Environment SustainabilityScorecard, demonstrating the proposal achieves industry best practice with regardsto sustainable design.

OTHER ISSUES RAISED BY OBJECTORS

Loss of on street and disabled parking

The submitted application plans indicate the construction of streetscape improvementworks within Turnham Avenue, including the construction of a new pedestriancrossing. This would result in the loss of some at grade parking spaces in TurnhamAvenue. However, the benefit of streetscape improvement works is considered tooutweigh the loss of on street parking. It is noted that three disabled parking spacesare proposed within the undercroft car park associated with the supermarket. Astreetscape plan for all of Turnham Avenue should be prepared by Council whichincorporates on street car parking, disabled car parking and pedestrian accesspoints.




4.3

Access through Melbourne Water easement from Grove Road to Douglas Streetremaining?

The plans do not indicate that access through the site along the Melbourne Watereasement will be restricted.

Will the library site be sold in the future?

There are no current plans to sell the library site. Any plan to sell Council land wouldneed to go through the usual public notification process defined under Section 189and 223 of the Local Government Act 1989 and would involve extensive consultationwith the community.

Council is motivated to maximise return rather than get the best outcome for theRosanna community.

The land has been rezoned to Commercial 1 Zone and Mixed Use Zone to enhancethe economic viability of the Rosanna shopping centre. The application beforeCouncil is consistent with this zoning.

This proposal is not consistent with Council’s ‘age friendly’ focus

It is not clear what aspect of the proposal fails to be age friendly. Suitable provisionhas been made for people with limited mobility who arrive by car and a level entry isproposed for access from Turnham Avenue.

Loss of customer service centre at Rosanna

Council proposes to retain a customer service presence in Rosanna. The detail ofexactly how this will be provided has not yet been determined.

Loss of community use to commercial

The land has been rezoned for commercial purposes and the proposal is consistentwith this.

Pedestrian safety

The proposed supermarket is not expected to compromise pedestrian safety. It isacknowledged that the frequency of vehicle trips to the site will increase as a result ofthe supermarket, however, with vehicle access limited to Douglas Street, the impacton pedestrian safety is considered to be minimal.

Increased crime and vandalism

It is unclear how the proposed supermarket will result in increased crime andvandalism in the locality.




4.3

CONCLUSION

The proposed supermarket has been assessed against the relevant planning policyand is considered to be an appropriate outcome for the site. Specific conditionsshould be included on any approval granted, specifically relating to the protection ofamenity for adjoining properties including the Heidelberg Theatre Company as wellas protection of trees retained on site and on adjoining properties.

ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 Planning Policy 123

2 Rosanna Library car park and footpath remodelling concept plan 132

3 Plans 133



4.44.4 USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF LAND AT 29

HOWARD STREET AND 2-6 STUBLEY COURT,GREENSBOROUGH, FOR A CAR PARK

Author: Jackie Bernoth - Development Planner, City Development

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The application seeks approval to remove a total of 30 trees to facilitate thedevelopment of car parks at 29 Howard Street and 2-6 Stubley Court,Greensborough.

Council is the land owner and permit applicant. The applications have undergonepublic notification and no objections have been received. The applications will allowfor the construction of additional car parking facilities to service the GreensboroughPrincipal Activity Centre and appropriately balance this provision with the retentionand planting of trees. It is considered that the application should be approved.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council having complied with Section 52, 58, 60, 61 and 62 of the Planning andEnvironment Act 1987, resolves to issue a Planning Permit in respect of ApplicationNo. P253/2016 for tree removal associated with the development of two LocalGovernment car parks at 29 Howard Street and 2-6 Stubley CourtGREENSBOROUGH subject to the following conditions:

Plans

1 Before the development permitted by this permit starts, amended plans to thesatisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved bythe Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and willthen form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale withdimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally inaccordance with the advertised plans submitted with the application butmodified to show:

(a) Relocation of the parking space to the east of Tree 14 to the west byapproximately 10m;

(b) Removal of Trees 2 and 13;

(c) The provision of an additional tree in place of Tree 2, with the species tocorrespond to the remaining trees to be provided along the Stubley Courtfrontage;

General

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


USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF LAND AT 29 HOWARD STREET AND 2-6STUBLEY COURT, GREENSBOROUGH, FOR A CAR PARK cont’d


4.4

Works Prior to Commencement

3. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority the treeremoval permitted by this permit must not be commenced until the treeprotection measures required by Condition 6 are installed to the satisfaction ofthe Responsible Authority.

Works Prior to Occupation

4. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority thereplacement planting indicated on the endorsed plans must be provided prior tocommencement of use of the car park.

Tree Protection / Landscaping

5. Except with the further written consent of the Responsible Authority, novegetation (other than that indicated on the endorsed plan, or exempt fromplanning permission under the provisions of the Banyule Planning Scheme)shall be damaged, removed, destroyed or lopped.

6. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority, prior to thecommencement of works (including demolition) on the site Tree PreservationZones must be established around Tree 14. You must contact Council’sDevelopment Planning Unit on 9457 9808 once the Tree Preservation Fencingis erected so that an inspection of the fencing can be carried out. Onceinstalled and inspected the Tree Preservation Zones must be maintained to thesatisfaction of the Responsible Authority, and meet the following requirements:

(a) Extent

Tree Preservation Zones are to be provided to the extent of thecalculated Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) where it occurs within the subjectproperty. The fencing can be realigned and suitable ground protectionprovided to allow the approved construction therein only to thesatisfaction of the project arborist and only when approved by theResponsible Authority.

The fencing can be realigned and suitable ground protection provided toallow any construction approved within a TPZ only to the satisfaction ofthe project arborist and only when approved by the ResponsibleAuthority.

(b) Management of works

(i) A suitably qualified arborist must supervise or undertake allapproved activity within the calculated TPZ of a retained tree. Anyroot severance within the TPZ must be undertaken to theirsatisfaction using a clean sharp and sterilised pruning saw. Theremust be no root pruning within the SRZ unless consent is receivedin writing by the Responsible Authority, and there must be no rootpruning within the TPZ for works other than those endorsed by theResponsible Authority.




4.4

(ii) All and any excavations within the TPZ of retained trees must beundertaken by hand or by approved non-destructive techniquessuitable in the vicinity of trees, and must only be undertaken forendorsed works or for works subsequently approved by theResponsible Authority.

(c) Weed control

Any weeds located within the Tree Preservation Zone are to be removedand the area mulched with 100mm of composted coarse gradewoodchips.

(d) Fencing

(i) Protective fencing must consist of chain wire mesh panels held inplace with concrete feet. Fencing must comply with AustralianStandard AS 4687-2007 Temporary fencing and hoardings.

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

(e) Signage

Fixed signs are to be provided on all visible sides of the TreePreservation Fencing, stating “Tree Preservation Zone – No entry withoutpermission from the City of Banyule”.

(f) Irrigation

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

(g) Access to Tree Preservation Zone

(i) No persons, vehicles or machinery are to enter the VegetationProtection Zone except with the consent of the ResponsibleAuthority;

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

(iii) No storage of material, equipment or temporary building is to takeplace 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 tothis Condition should be directed to Council’s Arborist – Development Planningon 9457 9808. Consent for the conduct of further works within the TreeProtection Zone, where granted, may be subject to conditions. Such conditionsmay include a requirement that:

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




4.4


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

Or other conditions, as relevant, to ensure the ongoing health and stability ofthe subject tree/s.

7. All tree pruning is to be carried out by a trained and competent arborist whohas a thorough knowledge of tree physiology and pruning methods. Pruningmust be carried out in accordance with Australian Standard AS4373 Pruning ofAmenity Trees. Tree pruning is to be restricted to the removal of no greaterthan 15% of the total live canopy of individual trees.

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

Time limit

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

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

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

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

(a) Before the permit expires, or

(b) Within six months afterwards, or

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

Notes

Expiry of Permit

In the event that this permit expires or the subject land is proposed to be used ordeveloped for purposes different from those for which this permit is granted, there isno guarantee that a new permit will be granted. If a permit is granted then the permitconditions may vary from those included on this permit having regard to changes thatmight occur to circumstances, planning scheme provisions or policy.

Additional approvals required

No Signs Without ConsentExcept where no permit is required under the provisions of the Banyule PlanningScheme, no advertising signs may be constructed or displayed without a permit.




4.4

Building over EasementsNo 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 exceptwith the consent of the relevant Responsible Authority.

Access to Council ReserveNo permission can be granted either temporary or otherwise by Council and/or itsemployees with respect to access to the adjacent Council owned land (including theroad reserve) for any purposes relating to the proposal (e.g. parking of surplusvehicles, delivery of materials etc.), without application being made for the requisitepermit (i.e. Local Law Permit).

Permit PersonalThis permit allows the removal of vegetation associated with the development of theland as a car park by the Banyule City Council. If the land ceases to be owned oroperated by the Banyule City Council a planning permit may be required to continueto utilise the land for the purposes of a car park.

Ongoing restrictions

Tree Protection ZonesRequests for the consent or approval of tree protection measures pursuant toCondition 6 should be directed to Council’s Arborist – Development Planning on 94579808. Consent for the conduct of works within the Tree Protection Zone, wheregranted, may be subject to conditions. Such conditions may include a requirementthat:

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


• Roots required to be cut are to be severed by saw cutting and undertaken by aqualified arborist.

Or other conditions, as relevant, to ensure the ongoing health and stability of thesubject tree/s.

Action on/for completion

Supervision of works undertaken on Council AssetsCouncil’s Construction Department must supervise all works undertaken on Councilassets within private property, Council Reserves, easements, drainage reservesand/or road reserves, including connection of the internal drainage system to theexisting Council assets. Prior to the commencement of any works, an applicationmust be made and a permit received for:

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

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




4.4

Planning Permit Application: P253/2016

Development Planner: Mrs Jackie Bernoth

Address: 29 Howard Street GREENSBOROUGH & 2-6 StubleyCourt GREENSBOROUGH

Proposal: Tree removal associated with the development of twoLocal Government car parks

Existing Use/Development: Each property is currently developed with a singledwelling, with that at 2-4 Stubley Court previously utilisedas a medical centre.

Restrictive covenant: Nil

Applicant: Banyule City Council

Notification (Advertising): Four signs on siteNotices to surrounding properties

Objections Received: Nil

Ward: Bakewell

Cultural Heritage ManagementPlan (CHMP) required:

No

Planning controls: Control Permittriggered?

Activity Centre Zone (ACZ1) NoVegetation Protection Overlay (VPO5) –Stubley Court properties only

Yes

Policies considered: Clause 12: Environmental and Landscape ValuesClause 21.05: Natural EnvironmentClause 21.08: Local Places

The proposal incorporates:

29 HOWARD STREET

The removal of the existing vegetation on the land and provision of a car park whichwill connect with the existing Henry Street/Howard Street car park, with no directaccess to Howard Street. The land will accommodate 24 parking spaces, plus part ofthree spaces which will extend over the title boundaries into the existing car park.The proposal will increase the number of parking spaces provided in this location by18, as a result of modifications required to existing line marking proposed so as tofacilitate access to the proposed car park.




4.4

2-6 STUBLEY COURT

The removal of seventeen trees and large shrubs (ie. retention of Trees 2, 13 and 14and removal of the remainder), and construction of a car park accommodating 48cars. Access will be provided by one double-width and one single-width crossover toStubley Court, with the single-width crossing indicated as being for exit only. Theproposal incorporates the following minimum setbacks to the existing trees to beretained:

Tree 2: 1.3mTree 13: 3.5mTree 14: 2.4m


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


BACKGROUND/HISTORY

Council purchased the properties in order to provide additional car parking for theGreensborough Activity Centre, with the intent initially being to maximise parkingprovision, with removal of all existing vegetation anticipated. The properties werereferred to Council twice in 2015. At its meeting on 21 September 2015, Councilresolved that:

A report be presented to Council on options for additional off-street carparking facilities at 29 Howard Street and, 2-4 and 6 Stubley CourtGreensborough.

A report outlining a preferred car parking layout for the sites was considered at theCouncil meeting held on 9 November 2015. The report provides the followingbackground:

The Greensborough Structure Plan, adopted in 2003, promotedsignificant growth within the Greensborough Activity centre, includingconception of the “Greensborough Project” and the wider strategicredevelopment of the Greensborough Activity Centre. Over time, Councilhas delivered on various components of the vision, and has recentlyapproved the next stage of development, the construction of Council’soffices above WaterMarc.

A Car Parking Management Plan (CPMP) has been developed forGreensborough to better understand the impact of the new Counciloffices, the commercial office above WaterMarc, and other changesoccurring in the Greensborough area. The CPMP considered themanagement of Council's broader car parking resources, and identifiedthe possible provision of additional car parking on Council owned landwithin the Activity Centre.




4.4

Council has obtained 29 Howard Street and 2-4 and 6 Stubley Court toprovide additional car parking as the Greensborough Activity Centregrows.

The additional spaces at 29 Howard Street and 2-4 and 6 Stubley Courtwill cater for the increased parking demand across the GreensboroughActivity Centre and provide additional car parking. The construction ofthese additional spaces is to be funded through Council’s reserves.In the longer term, the management of parking across theGreensborough Activity Centre will be guided by the futureGreensborough Parking Plan. As a key initiative of the Activity Centre CarParking Policy and Strategy, the Greensborough Parking Plan will identifycar parking needs and issues within the Greensborough Activity Centre,and set out a framework on how to address these concerns. This work isexpected to commence in the next few years.

Following consideration of this report, Council resolved to:

Construct additional parking spaces at 2-4 and 6 Stubley Court, and 29Howard Street, Greensborough, and the alterations to the existing HenryStreet Off Street Car Park, with the estimated construction costs of$590,000 to be funded from reserves.

SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

Locality Plan

The existing Henry Street public car park abuts the northern and western boundariesof the property at 29 Howard Street, with a single residential neighbour to the south.The site is currently occupied by a single storey dwelling.

The properties at 2-4 and 6 Stubley Court are currently occupied by detached singlestorey dwellings, with that at 2-4 Stubley Court most recently having been used as amedical centre. The public car park at 30 Howard Street abuts the western boundaryof these properties, with a single storey dwelling located to the south. All vehicularaccess to these properties is currently from Stubley Court.




4.4

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

The application was advertised by means of erecting a sign on each street frontage,and posting notices to the owners and occupiers of properties surrounding each ofthe proposed sites. To date no objections have been received as a result.

PLANNING CONTROLS

A planning permit is required for: the removal of Trees 3, 5, 6, 8, 10-12, 15 and 20from the land at 2-6 Stubley Court.

It is noted that whilst the application underwent public notification for ‘use anddevelopment’ of the land as a Car Park, Clause 4.1 to Schedule 1 of the ActivityCentre Zone outlines that in fact a planning permit is not required to use the land forsuch a purpose, provided that this is conducted by or on behalf of Council. Additionaldetails are contained in Attachment 1.

TECHNICAL CONSIDERATION

The key considerations when assessing this application are the suitability of theproposed tree removal on the Stubley Court properties, and the impact of theproposed works on existing trees to be retained.

Council’s arboricultural consultant has provided the following advice in relation to thetrees which are protected by the Vegetation Protection Overlay:

Tree#

Species (Common Name)Height

(m)Spread

(m)DBH(cm)

Retention

RatingSRZ(m)

TPZ(m)

3Quercus palustris(Pin Oak)

15 12 50 High 2.5 6.0

5Fraxinus excelsior 'Aurea'(Golden Ash)

10 14 50 Low 2.5 6.0

6Quercus palustris(Pin Oak)

14 14 60 High 2.7 7.2

8Eucalyptus bicostata(Eurabbie)

16 16 110 High 3.4 13.2

10Corymbia maculata(Spotted Gum)

16 8 40 High 2.3 4.8

11Eucalyptus camaldulensis(River Red Gum)

12 4 40 Poor 2.3 4.8

12Eucalyptus camaldulensis(River Red Gum)

12 8 49 Poor 2.5 5.9

13 Ailanthus altissima(Tree of Heaven)

12 12 32 Remove (weed) 2.1 3.8

14Corymbia maculata(Spotted Gum)

17 10 70 High 2.8 8.4

15Grevillia robusta(Silky Oak)

15 10 58 Medium 2.6 7.0

20Ailanthus altissima(Tree of Heaven)

16 13 50 Remove (weed) 2.5 6.0




4.4

It is noted that Trees 2 and 13 are indicated as being retained on the site, althoughtheir removal is recommended by the arborist. Further, the proposed parking spacesare located within the Structural Root Zone of Tree 14, indicating that somerefinement of the proposed parking layout is required in order to maximise theretention of substantial vegetation on the site and contribute to the treed character ofthe area.

Plans submitted with the application include landscape plans for both properties, withthree Yellow Box or similar proposed to be planted along the Stubley Court frontage,one in the Howard Street frontage, and two within the Henry Street car park close tothe Howard Street property.

It is considered that the proposed tree removal is acceptable in light of:

• The relatively low retention value of a number of trees;

• The demand for car parking within the area;

• The site’s location at the interface with the core of the Activity Centre; and the

• Ability to both retain a significant tree within the Grimshaw Street setback of theStubley Court properties and provide planting to soften the car park as viewedfrom Stubley Court,

However, minor modifications to the car park design are required to ensure theongoing health of Tree 14. These will require the removal of Tree 13, which hasbeen identified as being of poor suitability for retention. Similarly, it is considered thatan integrated approach to landscaping of the Stubley Court frontage, is appropriate,and that accordingly Tree 2 should be removed and replaced with a Yellow Box orsimilar as detailed for the remainder of this frontage.

CONCLUSION

The proposed development of the properties at 29 Howard Street and 2-6 StubleyCourt, Greensborough for car parks by Council will expand the amount of parkingavailable within the Greensborough Activity Centre, as was Council’s intention inpurchasing the properties. The proposed removal of vegetation is considered to beacceptable in light of the sites’ location and the ability to retain a high retention valuetree and provide additional planting. Approval is therefore supported.

ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 Attachment 1 - Background information 149

2 Attachment 2 - Advertised plans 152



4.54.5 BANYULE SURVEILLANCE POLICY

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council owns and manages a number of cameras in public spaces for surveillancepurposes and works closely with Victoria Police as requested to assist with theirinvestigations. Departments across Council have developed their own proceduresaround the management of the cameras and have responded to new requests withinthe scope of their own areas.

Recent experiences across council in responding to requests for investigations intocamera installation in ‘hot spot’ areas has highlighted the urgent requirement for aconsistent approach across Council, in particular the need for common criteria thatapplies transparency and clarity in decision making processes. In addition, StateGovernment has introduced the requirement for a Surveillance Policy to be in placebefore funding of cameras can be granted to local government and otherorganisations.

The draft Banyule Surveillance Policy has been developed under a structureconsisting of a cross council key stakeholder working group, with public consultationproposed to be undertaken in July 2016.

Responses to the draft will help inform a final Banyule Surveillance Policy. The finaldocument will provide clear direction for future decision making processes in relationto requests for cameras in the community. The policy is an important step forward toensuring a consistent and coordinated effort across Council to strengthen Council’sresponse to issues relating to community safety and perceptions of safety by thecommunity whilst protecting legislative requirements of privacy of residents.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Approve the draft Banyule Surveillance Policy for consultation for a four (4)week period.

2. Receive a further report to consider feedback and submissions received duringthe consultation period and adopt the final Banyule Surveillance Policy.

3.

CITY PLAN

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


BANYULE SURVEILLANCE POLICY cont’d


4.5

BACKGROUND

Council owns and manages a number of cameras in public spaces for surveillancepurposes and works closely with Victoria Police as required from time to time inresponse to their investigations. A number of business units are responsible forsurveillance equipment. Each business unit has developed its own proceduresaround the management of the cameras and has responded to community requestsfor cameras in hot spot areas within the scope of their business unit.

Recent experiences of council officers in responding to requests for investigationsinto camera installation in ‘hot spot’ areas has highlighted the urgent requirement fora consistent approach across Council, in particular the need for common criteria thatapplies transparency and clarity in decision making processes. In addition, StateGovernment has introduced the requirement for a Surveillance Policy to be in placebefore funding of cameras can be granted to local government and otherorganisations.

A cross-Council management group was established, convened to oversee allaspects of the development of the policy. The participating business units included;Community Safety, Leisure and Culture, Leisure facilities, Open Space Planning,Local Laws, Operations/Waste Management, Capital Projects, Assets andinfrastructure, Human Resources and IT.

Consultants Safe Security Systems were further engaged in late 2015 to undertakean audit of all Council owned surveillance systems across Banyule. The reportoutlined the technical specifications and status of relevant systems and includedrecommendations for maintenance and or upgrade of systems. Subsequently acentral database of all relevant surveillance cameras has been established to bemaintained collectively by each business unit.

Overview of the Banyule Surveillance Policy

The Banyule Surveillance Policy has been developed to:

• strengthen the coordination and encourage greater consistency across allbusiness units in the operation and management of cameras in public spaces;

• inform future decision making processes in response to requests for cameras in‘hot spot’ areas; and

• comply with state government requirements in relation to future fundingapplications for cameras.

The Policy applies to all Council-owned systems installed in public places that havethe purpose of surveillance. It does not apply to surveillance systems used byCouncil where public access is restricted. It also does not apply where surveillanceis for Council’s own assets. However any incidental footage captured that isrequested through a formal channel, e.g. Victoria Police, is included in the scope.

The policy will assist Council to manage legislative requirements such as privacy andprovide direction where Council considers the installation of new systems.




4.5

The objectives of the policy are:

• To ensure Council systems are compliant with relevant legislation and otherlaws;

• To ensure that systems are installed for a lawful and proper purpose;• To ensure that management of records/footage is appropriate, including in

relation to use, retention, security, privacy, access, disclosure, storage anddisposal; and

• To ensure there is appropriate and ongoing monitoring and evaluation ofexisting systems.

The policy also outlines the requirement for Standard Operating Procedures for eachsite, which covers technical data, maintenance, authorised officers, security andaccess of data and incident response.

LEGAL CONSIDERATION -

Council surveillance systems must operate and be managed in accordance with allrelevant Commonwealth and State legislation, including; Privacy & Data ProtectionAct 2014, Public Records Act 1973, Private Security Act 2004, Charter of HumanRights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (the Charter), Freedom of Information Act 1982,and Evidence Act 2008

HUMAN RIGHTS CHARTER -



It is considered that the subject matter does raise human rights issues.

The Charter makes it unlawful for public authorities to act in a way that isincompatible with human rights listed in the Charter, including the right not to haveprivacy arbitrarily interfered with. The Charter requires any interference (such asthrough surveillance, recorded or unrecorded) to be demonstrably justifiable. BanyuleCity Council is committed to ensuring the right to privacy of individuals is respectedand honoured. This Banyule Surveillance Policy is intended to ensure the privacy ofindividuals undertaking lawful activity is protected and to govern the manner in whichdata collected through the operation of surveillance systems are maintained.

CONSULTATION

Consultation will commence with the public release of the draft Banyule SurveillancePolicy. The consultation program has been developed in consideration of theconsultation completed to date.




4.5

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

The Banyule Website, including links to the draft Banyule Surveillance Policyand the feedback summary paper;

Copies of the draft Banyule Surveillance Policy being available at Council’scustomer service centres and libraries;

Presentations to relevant networks and associations.

The draft Banyule Surveillance Policy will be available for consultation for a four (4)week period, until at least Monday 18 July 2016. The feedback will assist in thepreparation of a final Banyule Surveillance Policy for future Council adoption. It isexpected that this document will be considered by Council on 22 August 2016.




CONCLUSION

The Banyule Surveillance Policy will provide clear direction for future decision makingprocesses in relation to requests for cameras in the community. The policy is animportant step forward to ensuring a consistent and coordinated effort across Councilto strengthen Council’s response to issues relating to community safety andperceptions of safety by the community whilst protecting legislative requirements ofprivacy of residents.

ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 Draft Banyule Surveillance Policy 159

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely


6.16.1 SOMERS AVENUE, MACLEOD - REVIEW OF

PAID PARKING SYSTEM

Author: Sanjev Sivananthanayagam - Transport Engineer, City Development

Ward: Ibbott

File: D16/52531

Previous ItemsCouncil on 22 June 2015 (Item 6.5 - Additional Paid Parking Locations)

Council on 9 November 2015 (Item 8.3 - Somers Avenue Macleod -Staging of Paid Parking)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

At its meeting on 22 June 2015 Council resolved to install a paid parking system inSomers Avenue, Macleod. In addition, at its meeting on 9 November 2015 Councilresolved to stage the paid parking implementation in two stages, assessing theimpacts of the first one prior to proceeding with the second.

Stage one of the paid parking system was implemented in Somers Avenue inDecember 2015. In the last months the occupancy rate has been low, with anaverage transaction of two to three vehicles per weekday, resulting in thedisplacement of approximately 22 vehicles to the surrounding street network.

Residents, commuters and traders have raised their concerns in relation to theimplementation of paid parking; with displacement of parking and increase in totalcost of travel being the major concerns.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Retain the stage one paid parking restrictions installed in Somers Avenue,Macleod, and reduce the fee to $2 per day.

2. Postpone the implementation of stage two paid parking restrictions proposed inSomers Avenue, Macleod, until further assessment is undertaken in 12 months,when commuter parking is expected to have settled.

3. Receive a report in relation to the utilisation of the stage one paid parkingrestrictions in Somers Avenue, Macleod, following the assessment in12 months.

4. Undertake regular enforcement of the short term parking restrictions in thestreets near the Macleod railway station and Macleod Village shoppingprecinct.

5. Investigate the possibilities of jointly funding a Parkiteer bicycle cage atMacleod railway station, with Public Transport Victoria.


SOMERS AVENUE, MACLEOD - REVIEW OF PAID PARKING SYSTEM cont’d


6.1




CITY PLAN

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





BACKGROUND

A report regarding additional paid parking locations was considered by Council at itsmeeting on 22 June 2015. At the meeting it was resolved to install a paid parkingsystem in Somers Avenue, Macleod, adjacent to Macleod College.

A locality plan is provided in Figure 1 and it shows the length of Somers Avenue,where paid parking was approved to be installed.




6.1

Figure 1 – Extension of the approved Paid Parking System in Macleod

Further, at its meeting on 9 November 2015, Council considered a Notice of Motionin relation to staging the installation of the paid parking system in Somers Avenue,Macleod. At the meeting it was resolved:

“That Council:

1. Stage the introduction of paid parking along the east side of Somers Avenue inMacleod adjacent to Macleod College. The first stage for approximately halfthe unrestricted length is to be serviced by two machines and installed prior toChristmas 2015.

2. Receive a report assessing the impacts of the first stage six months followingthe introduction of stage 1 machines to determine whether to proceed to asecond stage.”

This report responds to item 2 of the above resolution.

LEGAL CONSIDERATION

Council’s powers concerning parking is defined under Schedule 11 of the LocalGovernment Act 1989, which allows for Council to fix, rescind or vary:

• The days, hours and periods of time for which, and the conditions on which,vehicles may stand in a parking area in any highway or other parking area; and

• Fees for any vehicles standing in a parking area and the manner of payment ofthose fees.




6.1

As such, there are no legal implications for Council in relation to introducing ormodifying parking restrictions in the streets, including paid parking systems.

CURRENT SITUATION

Consistent with the resolution of 9 November 2015, the first stage of the paid parkingsystem was implemented in Somers Avenue, Macleod, in December 2015. Thissection includes 24 parking spaces and is serviced by two machines (Refer toFigure 1). The fees are currently set at $1 per hour and up to $5 per day.

Several observations were undertaken in Somers Avenue in the last months todetermine the level of use of the paid parking spaces. It was determined that therewas a low occupancy level (4%), and that at the most, one vehicle was parked at anytime.

In addition to the site observations, the transactions registered by the ticket machinesprovide an indication of the number of vehicles that have utilised the paid parkingarea. The number of transactions per machine for each month since the installation isprovided in Table 1.

Table 1 – Number of transactions per month

Machine No. Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16

36017 4 11 32 51 38 46

36018 1 1 5 8 0 0

Total 5 12 37 59 38 46

Consistent with the observations, the recorded transactions indicate that the overallusage is low, with two to three vehicles per day.

It could be assumed that the demand for parking has increased by 22 vehicles in thesurrounding street network following the introduction of paid parking in SomersAvenue. While the number of vehicles relocated by the introduction of paid parkingrepresents a low number in relation to the available parking in the area, residents,commuters and traders have raised their concerns in relation to this.

COMMUNITY FEEDBACK

The nature of concerns received from the community in relation to paid parkingimplemented in Somers Avenue is listed in Table 2.

Table 2 – The nature of community concerns

ConcernNumber of

times raisedDisplacement of parking demand to commercial andresidential area

8

Total cost of travel increased 5

Reduced access to Public Transport 2

Lack of consultation with the community prior to theinstallation

2

Low use of the paid parking spaces 2




6.1

In addition to concerns directly associated with the installation of paid parking onSomers Avenue, residents living in close to Somers Avenue and the Macleod railwaystation have raised concerns in relation to an increase in the parking levels in theirstreet and difficulty in finding parking near their properties. Figure 2 shows the streetswhere residents have contacted Council in relation to parking concerns, following theintroduction of paid parking in Somers Avenue.

The introduction of parking restrictions in Carwarp, Argyle and May Streets serves toboth protect residents against commuter parking intrusion as well as to make theSomers Avenue parking relatively more attractive when compared to a longer walkfrom the next available unrestricted parking areas.

Figure 2 – Streets where short-term parking restrictions have been requested

While it is recognised that the introduction of a paid parking system in SomersAvenue may have resulted in the displacement of 22 vehicles, it is important to notethat other factors could also have had an effect on the increase in the demand for theparking in the surrounding streets, including:

• Reduction in public transport fare prices when travelling between zones oneand two since 1 January 2015

• Introduction of parking restrictions in residential streets• Introduction of paid parking and changed parking restrictions close to other

railway stations in Banyule.




6.1

Some residents have suggested that the daily fee is too high and that more peoplewould use the paid parking if the fee was lowered or removed. In consideration ofthis, it is proposed that the daily fee be reduced to $2 per day for this location.

The Macleod Village Traders Association indicated their concerns regarding the lackof public transport for residents living in the north side of the railway line and the lackof secure bicycle parking spaces at Macleod railway station. They also had concernsin relation to lack of enforcement in the streets surrounding the shopping precinct.

The Parkiteer bicycle cages recently installed at the Watsonia and Greensboroughrailway stations have been positively received by the community, and promotessustainable modes of transport. Given this, the installation of a Parkiteer bicycle cagein Macleod railway station is considered appropriate, and as such, Council shouldinvestigate the possibilities of jointly funding a Parkiteer bicycle cage with PublicTransport Victoria.

Council’s Municipal Laws department has been requested to enforce the Macleodshopping precinct in the coming months to raise awareness of the parking restrictionsand improve ability for customers to find parking.

IMPLEMENTATION OF STAGE 2

The low usage of the parking spaces where the paid parking system currentlyoperates in Macleod and the displacement of vehicles into neighbouring streets is asimilar situation to the one when paid parking was implemented in the off street carpark in Greensborough and also the on street parking areas to the east of Rosannarailway station.

Initially, there were low occupancy rates, displacement of parking to residentialareas, and then the installation of short-term parking restrictions. Approximately oneyear after the introduction of paid parking, occupancy rates are now close to 100%.

Given the above, it is considered appropriate to retain the existing paid parkingrestrictions implemented in Somers Avenue and postpone the implementation ofstage two until further assessment is undertaken in 12 months, when commuterparking is expected to have settled.




CONCLUSION

At its meeting on 22 June 2015 Council resolved to install a paid parking system inSomers Avenue, Macleod. In addition, at its meeting on 9 November 2015 Councilresolved to stage the paid parking implementation in two stages, assessing theimpacts of the first one prior to proceeding with the second.




6.1

Stage one of the paid parking system was implemented in Somers Avenue inDecember 2015. In the last months the occupancy rate has been low, with anaverage transaction of two to three vehicles per weekday, resulting in thedisplacement of 22 vehicles to the surrounding street network.

Residents, commuters and traders have raised their concerns in relation to theimplementation of paid parking; with displacement of parking and increase in totalcost of travel being the major concerns.

Given that other factors impact on the demand for parking, it is difficult to link theintroduction of paid parking to the increase of requests for short-term parkingrestrictions around Macleod railway station.

While it is considered appropriate to retain the existing paid parking restrictions inSomers Avenue, it is proposed that the fee be reduced to $2 per day and theutilisation and performance of the paid parking be reassessed in 12 months whencommuter parking is expected to have settled.

The installation of a Parkiteer bicycle cage in Macleod railway station is consideredappropriate, and as such, Council investigate the possibilities of jointly funding aParkiteer bicycle cage with Public Transport Victoria.

Council’s Municipal Laws department is to undertake regular enforcement of theshort term parking restrictions in the streets near Macleod Village shopping precinct.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil



6.26.2 KINDERGARTENS - PROPOSED LEASES

Author: Andrea Turville - Property Officer, City Development

Ward: Various

Previous ItemsCouncil on 8 February 2016 (Item 6.2 - Preschool Leases - Commence statutory

procedures)

Council on 4 April 2016 (Item 6.2 - Kindergartens - Proposed Leases)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council owns and leases the land and improvements at 23 kindergartens within themunicipality. The leases, which did not provide an option for a further term, haveexpired (expired leases).

It is now proposed that Council enter into new leases with each of the entities thatcurrently offer kindergarten services from the 23 kindergartens (proposed leases).The proposal triggered the need to give public notice under section 190 of the LocalGovernment Act 1989 (Act).

Public notice was given in the “Heidelberg Leader” on 16 February 2016 and the“Diamond Valley Leader” on 17 February 2016, with the public invited to makesubmissions on the proposal in accordance with section 223 of the Act. Thesubmission period closed at 5:00pm on 16 March 2016, with no submissions beingreceived.

This report, previously presented to Council on 4 April 2016 but deferred to a futuremeeting of Council, now seeks Council’s decision on the granting of leases for a termof five (5) years, with no further term, at the commencing rent of $454 per annumplus GST for one room kindergartens and $654 per annum plus GST for two roomkindergartens.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. Having complied with sections 190 and 223 of the Local Government Act 1989:

a. by giving public notice in the “Heidelberg Leader” on 16 February 2016and the “Diamond Valley Leader” on 17 February 2016; and

b. by providing an opportunity to those who have requested to be heard atCouncil’s Ordinary Meeting of 4 April 2016 to be heard at that meeting;and

c. by recording that no submissions were received;

Council grants to each entity listed below, a lease of the respective Council-owned land and improvements, for a term of five (5) years at the commencingrent of $454.00 per annum plus GST for one room kindergartens and $654 perannum plus GST two room kindergartens.


KINDERGARTENS - PROPOSED LEASES cont’d


6.2

* Denotes two room kindergartens

2. The necessary documentation to give effect to the leases be signed and sealedat the appropriate time.

Entity Council-owned Land Kindergarten sitesTry Australia Children’sServices

7 Thyer Road, Ivanhoe179 Nepean St, Greensborough10 The Rameo, Bundoora

Fairy Hills Kindergarten *Grace Park PreschoolWarrawee Park Preschool

Early Childhood ManagementServices Inc.

15 Delta Road, Greensborough19 Interlaken Pde, Rosanna5 Birdwood Avenue, Macleod22 Wallowa Road, Eltham North311 Yallambie Road, Yallambie17-19 Ester St, Greensborough37 St Helena Rd, Greensborough

Delta Road PreschoolInterlaken Preschool *Macleod Kindergarten *St Helena PreschoolYallambie Park Preschool *Greensborough PreschoolGreenhills Preschool

Apollo Parkways PreschoolInc

31 Plenty River Drive,Greensborough

Apollo Parkways Preschool

Briar Hill PreschoolAssociation Inc.

118 Karingal Drive, Greensborough Briar Hill Preschool

The Bundoora PreschoolAssociation Inc.

20 Noorong Avenue, Bundoora Bundoora Preschool

Panorama Heights PreschoolInc.

3 Mitchell Avenue, Montmorency Panorama Heights Preschool *

Sherbourne PreschoolAssociation Inc.

156 Sherbourne Road,Montmorency

Sherbourne Preschool.

Wahroongah Preschool Inc. 66 Wahroonga Crescent,Greensborough

Wahroongah Preschool

Watsonia North PreschoolInc.

68 Macorna Street, Watsonia North Watsonia North Preschool

Viewbank PreschoolAssociation Inc.

84 Duff Parade, Viewbank Viewbank Preschool

Watsonia PreschoolAssociation Inc.

19 Crellin Crescent, Watsonia Watsonia Preschool

Winston Hills PreschoolAssociation Inc.

24 Rohan Street, Viewbank Winston Hills Preschool *

East Ivanhoe PreschoolCentre Inc.

1 King Street, Ivanhoe East East Ivanhoe Preschool

Lower Plenty KindergartenAssociation Inc.

34 Glenauburn Road, Lower Plenty Lower Plenty Kindergarten

Yandell Kindergarten Inc. 37 St Helena Road,Greensborough

Yandell Kindergarten




CITY PLAN

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




6.2 BACKGROUND

Council owns the land and improvements at the 23 kindergarten sites referred to inTable 1 below:

Table 1

*Denotes two room kindergarten

The existing leases, which did not provide for an option of a further term, expired on30 April 2015.

The permitted use under the existing leases allows for the operation of an educationand care service, managed and administered by a non-profit community basedorganisation, primarily for the benefit of the residents and ratepayers of the City ofBanyule, including those who are socially and/or financially disadvantaged andpeople with special needs.

The entities are non-profit organisations offering kindergarten services from therespective kindergartens; many having offered the service to the community for manyyears.

Entity Council-owned Land Kindergarten sitesTry Australia Children’sServices

7 Thyer Road, Ivanhoe179 Nepean St, Greensborough10 The Rameo, Bundoora

Fairy Hills Kindergarten *Grace Park PreschoolWarrawee Park Preschool

Early Childhood ManagementServices Inc.

15 Delta Road, Greensborough19 Interlaken Pde, Rosanna5 Birdwood Avenue, Macleod22 Wallowa Road, Eltham North311 Yallambie Road, Yallambie17-19 Ester St, Greensborough37 St Helena Rd, Greensborough

Delta Road PreschoolInterlaken Preschool *Macleod Kindergarten *St Helena PreschoolYallambie Park Preschool *Greensborough PreschoolGreenhills Preschool

Apollo Parkways PreschoolInc

31 Plenty River Drive,Greensborough

Apollo Parkways Preschool

Briar Hill PreschoolAssociation Inc.

118 Karingal Drive, Greensborough Briar Hill Preschool

The Bundoora PreschoolAssociation Inc.

20 Noorong Avenue, Bundoora Bundoora Preschool

Panorama Heights PreschoolInc.

3 Mitchell Avenue, Montmorency Panorama Heights Preschool *

Sherbourne PreschoolAssociation Inc.

156 Sherbourne Road,Montmorency

Sherbourne Preschool.

Wahroongah Preschool Inc. 66 Wahroonga Crescent,Greensborough

Wahroongah Preschool

Watsonia North PreschoolInc.

68 Macorna Street, Watsonia North Watsonia North Preschool

Viewbank PreschoolAssociation Inc.

84 Duff Parade, Viewbank Viewbank Preschool

Watsonia PreschoolAssociation Inc.

19 Crellin Crescent, Watsonia Watsonia Preschool

Winston Hills PreschoolAssociation Inc.

24 Rohan Street, Viewbank Winston Hills Preschool *

East Ivanhoe PreschoolCentre Inc.

1 King Street, Ivanhoe East East Ivanhoe Preschool

Lower Plenty KindergartenAssociation Inc.

34 Glenauburn Road, Lower Plenty Lower Plenty Kindergarten

Yandell Kindergarten Inc. 37 St Helena Road,Greensborough

Yandell Kindergarten




6.2

Discussions regarding opportunities for two of the entities, namely Try AustraliaChildren’s Services and Early Childhood Management Services Inc, to take over theoperation of some of the kindergartens as Cluster Managers, has delayed therenewal of the existing leases.

LEGAL CONSIDERATION

Section 190 of the Local Government Act 1989 (the Act) provides that Council mustgive public notice of its intention to enter into a lease where:

• the term of the lease is greater than one year and the current market rentalvalue for the premises is greater than $50,000; or

• where the term of the lease is 10 years or greater; or• it is a building or improving lease.

In this instance the current market rental valuations are above $50,000 per annum,therefore public notice is required to be given for each proposed lease.

Public notice of the proposal was given in the “Heidelberg Leader” on16 February 2016 and the “Diamond Valley Leader” on 17 February 2016, with thepublic invited to make a submission on the proposal in accordance with section 223of the Act. The submission period closed at 5:00 pm on 16 March 2016, with nosubmissions being received.

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Under existing leases, Council is responsible for the structure of the building.Council also provides maintenance services for roof and gutter cleaning, securitylighting and a range of other statutory responsibilities including maintaining exit signsand emergency lighting, fire prevention and detection equipment. The existing leaseprovides that the entities reimburse Council the cost of providing these services.

Save and except for approved Capital Works expenditure, Council does not providefunding for these entities under any Operational or Capital Works budgets. Inaddition, it would appear that State and Federal Government reforms have placedadditional financial burdens on organisations offering kindergarten and other childcare services.

Consequently, it is considered that the proposed increase in the rent of $1.00 perannum plus GST should be revised and replaced with the following for the term of theproposed lease:

1 room kindergartens - a nominal fee of $104.00 per annumplus $350 per annum for security lighting, exit signs and fireequipment.Total $454 per annum plus GST

2 room kindergartens - a nominal fee of $104.00 per annumplus $550 per annum for security lighting, exit signs and fireequipment.Total $654 per annum plus GST




6.2 Otherwise, the proposed leases will generally be in accordance with the existing

leases and provide that the entities will be responsible for all consumables, someinternal maintenance and reimbursing Council for the cost of providing certainservices, other than security lighting, exit signs and fire equipment. Thesereimbursable costs have now been included in the proposed fee.


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

In developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered inaccordance with the requirements of the Charter. Section 20 provides that “A personmust 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. Anyperson who considers that they have been deprived of their rights may make asubmission in accordance with Section 223 of the Act with respect to a proposal togrant a lease.

CURRENT SITUATION

The giving of public notice does not obligate Council to approve the proposal to grantthe leases. It is merely an invitation to the public to make a submission in respect ofthe proposal.

Given that no submissions on the proposal were received it is now appropriate forCouncil to decide whether or not to grant leases to the entities.

CONCLUSION

The proposal to grant to the entities a lease of the respective Council-owned landand improvements, for a term of five (5) years at the commencing rent of $454 perannum plus GST for one room kindergartens and $654 per annum plus GST for tworoom kindergartens, should be supported.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil



6.36.3 REAR 7A CURZON STREET, IVANHOE -

PROPOSED LICENCE OF COUNCIL LAND

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

Ward: Olympia

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council owns the land known as 1 Liberty Parade, Ivanhoe, which forms part of theDarebin Creek Reserve (Banksia to Bond Street). The owners of 7A Curzon Street,Ivanhoe, seek permission to occupy, under licence, 35m2 of the Council landimmediately adjacent to the rear boundary of their property which forms part of theDarebin Creek Reserve.

The purpose of this report is to provide background information on the proposal andthe request by the owners of 7A Curzon Street for a reduction in the annual fee.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. Pursuant to Part 5.7 of General Local Law No. 1, Council grants permission tothe owners of 7A Curzon Street, Ivanhoe, to fence off, occupy and maintain35m2 of the Council owned land known as 1 Liberty Parade, Ivanhoe,immediately adjacent to the rear of their property, subject to the ownersentering into a licence with Council.

2. Based on the 2015/2016 fees and charges schedule, the annual fee payableunder the licence will be $1,400.

3. The necessary documents to give effect to the licence be signed and sealed atthe appropriate time.

CITY PLAN

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

BACKGROUND

Council is the owner of the land known as 1 Liberty Parade, Ivanhoe, shown inFigure 1 below. The Council land forms part of the Darebin Creek Reserve (Banksiato Bond Street).

Part of the Council land, now known as 7A Curzon Street (being 197m2) shown inFigure 2, was purchased from Council by the owners of 7A Curzon Street in about2010.


REAR 7A CURZON STREET, IVANHOE - PROPOSED LICENCE OF COUNCILLAND cont’d


6.3

The western title boundary of 7A Curzon Street was determined by survey in 1997and again in 2009. The Plan of Survey includes a notation “v. irreg. leaning openhoriz. boards” (meaning - very irregular leaning open horizontal boards) to describethe barrier previously used to retain soil. The Plan of Survey indicates a small areaof land below the barrier above the top of embankment. The balance of the Councilland consists of a steep escarpment, which falls away sharply to the Darebin Creek.

The rear fences to the properties to the north of 7A Curzon Street are not located onthe correct title boundaries. This is because of the topography of the Council land.

Figure 1: Location plan of Council owned land known as 1 Liberty Parade

Figure 2: Location of 7A Curzon Street




6.3

It would appear that during or subsequent to the development of 7A Curzon Street,part of the Council land at the top of the embankment has been backfilled and anadditional useable area of approximately 35m2 created (subject land), as shown inFigure 3. The subject land has become an isolated parcel of Council land at the topof the Darebin Creek escarpment.

Figure 3: Council Land proposed to be licensed

The owners of 7A Curzon Street have sought to occupy the subject land, underlicence, for the purposes of fencing and maintaining it as part of their adjacentlandholding. Because of its location and the steep topography, it is not practicable forCouncil to safely access and regularly maintain the area of Council land immediatelyto the rear of 7A Curzon Street. The proposed licencing of the subject land maypresent efficiencies for Council in this regard.

CURRENT SITUATION

The owners of 7A Curzon Street have recently written to Council indicating apreparedness to offer $500.00 per annum as an annual fee.

The reduced rental offer is based on the intention to make a further application toCouncil to purchase the subject land. In order to consider an application topurchase, the subject land would need to be deemed surplus to Council’s and thecommunity’s needs.

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS -

Part 5.7 of General Local Law No. 1 provides for “the fair and equitable use ofCouncil Land” and states that “A person must not, without a permit ….. occupy orfence off Council Land.” Occupation of the subject land, without obtaining a permit,would be considered a breach of the Local Law.

Council may require notice to be given to persons who may be affected by thegranting of such a permit. This will entitle those persons to make a submission,which must be considered by Council before a deciding on the application.




6.3

If Council approves the application, and grants a permit, a licence could be issued tothe owners of 7A Curzon Street. A licence gives permission to the holder to occupyland without being a trespasser, but does not constitute an interest in the land.

In considering a future application to purchase the subject land, Council must complywith section 189 of the Local Government Act 1989 (the Act). This section providesthat public notice of its intention to sell land must be given four weeks prior to thesale. Submissions from the public must be invited during this period and a valuationobtained.

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Council’s City Valuer has determined that the underlying unencumbered residentialland value for adjoining residential property is $1,200/m2. However, for the purposesof this exercise, the underlying value of the subject land, which is included in thePublic Park and Recreation Zone, has been adopted at $400/m2, which equates to aland value of $14,000.

The current annual fee (based on the 2015/2016 fees and charges schedule) foroccupancy of Council land is $110.00 per annum inclusive of GST or 10% of thevalue of the land, whichever is the higher. Accordingly the annual fee has beendetermined at $1,400.

Therefore the offer of $500.00 per annum is inconsistent with Council’s fees andcharges schedule.


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

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





CONCLUSION

The subject land has become an isolated parcel of Council land at the top of theDarebin Creek escarpment, which is not practical for Council to safely access andregularly maintain.




6.3

Part 5.7 of General Local Law No. 1 provides that a person may, with a permit,occupy Council land. The permit can provide for the granting of a licence to fenceoff, occupy and maintain Council land.

Based on the valuation provided by Council’s City Valuer, the annual fee has beendetermined at $1,400.

Council should support the proposal to grant permission to the owners of 7A CurzonStreet, Ivanhoe, a fence off, occupy and maintain the subject land on the basis thatthe owner agrees to enter into a licence agreement and pay an annual fee of $1,400,which is consistent with Council’s fees and charges schedule.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil



6.46.4 ITEMS FOR NOTING

Authors: India Mortlock - Community & Social Planner, Community Programs &John Milkins – Environmental Sustainability Co-ordinator, City Development

RECOMMENDATION

That Council note:

1. The responses received on the Funding Safe School Coalition AustraliaProgram in Schools resolution of Council.

2. Banyule Environmental Advisory Committee (BEAC) Meeting Notes for June2016.

The following responses to Council’s letter to Members of Parliament regarding theSafe School Coalition Australia Program of support and Notes from the BEACMeeting of June are presented for noting:

1 Report: Funding Safe School Coalition Australia Program inSchools resolution of Council

Officer: India MortlockBrief explanation: Council at its meeting 7 March 2016 resolved the

following:

“Resolution (CO2016/1)1. That Council advocate and write to the Federal

Minister for Education, Senator the Hon SimonBirmingham to continue funding the SafeSchools Coalition Australia program in schools.

2. That Council write to all Federal Membersoutlining this resolution”

Letters were sent to Federal Members and to theFederal Minister for Education on 24 March 2016.

Council has to date received responses from thefollowing (attached):• Senator the Hon. James McGrath, Assistant

Minister to the Prime Minister, on behalf of thePrime Minister

• The Hon. Bill Shorten MP, Leader of theOpposition

• Senator Carol Brown, Senator for Tasmania• Senator the Hon. Marise Payne, Minister for

Defence• Department of Education & Training, Australian

Government reply on behalf of the Hon.Christian Porter MP, Minister for Social Servicesand Senator the Hon. Simon Birmingham,Minister for Education and Training


ITEMS FOR NOTING cont’d


6.4

• The Hon. Tanya Plibersek MP, Deputy Leader ofthe Opposition and Shadow Minister for ForeignAffairs and Trade

• Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, Senator for SouthAustralia

• Senator Ricky Muir, Senator for Victoria• Senator Eric Abetz, Senator for Tasmania• Mr Warren Truss MP, Federal member for wide

Bay• Senator Glenn Lazarus, Senator for Queensland• Mr Clive Palmer MP, Federal Member for Fairfax• Senator the Hon. Fiona Nash, Minister for

Regional Development, RegionalCommunications and Rural Health

• Senator the Hon. Claire Moore, Senator forQueensland

• Ms Julie Owens MP, Federal Member forParramatta

2 Report/Committee Name: Banyule Environmental Advisory Committee (BEAC)Meeting June 2016

Officer: Daniel Kollmorgen, John Milkins, Peter Benazic, JeffParkes

Brief explanation: 16.09 Great Forest National ParkBEAC clarified that its recommendation is to read:

BEAC supports the proposal for a GreatForest National Park and recommends thatCouncil also indicate its support for thecreation of a Great Forest National Park dueto the direct and indirect benefits to Banyuleresidents. BEAC noted that such benefitswould occur in the following areas:• biodiversity• water quality• drinking water supply• tourism opportunities• wildlife corridor connectivity• mental health• clean air• protecting the uniqueness of the old

growth tall forests of SE Australia• inter and intragenerational equity• natural heritage

14.34 DivestmentBanyule City Council has made an assessment duringthe month of available investment returns as providedby some of the banks, credit unions and buildingsocieties that are not funding fossil fuels. The currentinvestment made with these institutions is 11%.

16.13 Banyule Draft Open Space Plan


ITEMS FOR NOTING cont’d


6.4

ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 Safe Schools Program - Senator James Mcgrath 171

2 Safe Schools Program - Bill Shorten 172

3 Safe Schools Program - Senator Carol Brown 174

4 Safe Schools Program - Senator Marise Payne 175

5 Safe Schools Program - Department of Education and Training (on behalf ofthe Minister for Education and Training and the Minister for Social Services)

176

6 Safe Schools Program - Tanya Plibersek MP 178

7 Safe Schools Program - Senator Sarah Hason-Young 180

8 Safe Schools Program - Senator Ricky Muir 181

9 Safe Schools Program - Senator Eric Abetz 182

10 Safe Schools Program - Warren Truss MP 183

11 Safe Schools Program - Senator Glen Lazarus 187

12 Safe Schools Program - Clive Palmer MP 188

13 Safe Schools Program - Senator Fiona Nash 189

14 Safe Schools Program - Senator Claire Moore 190

15 Safe Schools Program - Julie Owens MP 191

16 Banyule Environmental Banyule Environmental Advisory Committee (BEAC)Meeting Notes June 2016

192

BEAC recommended that the Plan include:• better acknowledgement of the nexus between

open space and wildlife corridors, includingcreeks, rivers, roadsides and railway corridors

• acknowledgement that the Banyuleenvironment is critical for the survival of for non-human species too

• consideration of cemeteries as part of Banyuleopen space

16.14 Standing for Council electionsBEAC members were supplied with Standing forCouncil material

16.15 Community Leaders in Sustainabilitygraduation and 16.16 ChangeMakers event BEACwas invited to participate in these two BanyuleStewardship Plan events.16.17 Resilient Melbourne StrategyCouncil endorsed the Resilient Melbourne Strategy on30 May 201616.18 Thank you to retiring BEAC membersThe Mayor, Cr Langdon, made a presentationthanking retiring BEAC members Alan Leenaerts,Jonathan Thom, Matt Hall and John D’Aloia.



6.56.5 ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS

Author: Ellen Kavanagh - Governance Officer, Corporate Services

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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

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

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

delegated to a person or committee.

In accordance with Section 80A of the Local Government Act 1989 Council isrequired to report as soon as possible to an Ordinary Meeting of Council a record ofany assemblies of Councillors held. Below is the latest listing of notified assembliesof Councillors held at Banyule City Council.

RECORD OF ASSEMBLIES

1 Date of Assembly: 13 April 2016

Type of Meeting: Banyule Environment Advisory Committee (BEAC)April 2016 Meeting

Matters Considered: • Beyond ParisBZE Case StudyHazelwood advocacy

• Urban Forest Strategy• Ethical Paper Pledge• Great Forest National Park

Councillors Present: Mark Di PasqualeCraig Langdon

Staff Present: Daniel Kollmorgen – Manager Transport,Sustainability and Municipal LawsJohn Milkins – Environmental Sustainability

Others Present: BEAC Community Representatives:Kate Roberts (interim Chair), Alan Leenaerts,Matt Hall, Denise Fernando, Maree Keenan, PeterCastaldoGuests: Sue McKinnon and Mary Anne Boyd-SquiresThe Wilderness Society

Conflict of Interest: Nil

2 Date of Assembly: 23 May 2016

Type of Meeting: Councillor Briefing

Matters Considered: 1. Petrie Park Masterplan2. North East Link Resident Committee3. 421 Upper Heidelberg Road – Places Vic4. Shop 48 Update


ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS cont’d


6.5 5. La Trobe Uni – Update

6. Community Sport Infrastructure Funding State ofPlay

7. Banyule Surveillance Policy8. Status Update – Budget/City Plan

Councillors Present: Steven BriffaMark Di PasqualeRick GarottiCraig LangdonTom MelicanJenny MulhollandWayne Phillips

Staff Present: Simon McMillan – Chief Executive OfficerAllison Beckwith – Director Community ProgramsScott Walker – Director City DevelopmentGeoff Glynn – Director Assets & City ServicesMarc Giglio – Director Corporate ServicesLucia Brennan – Recreation PlannerDarren Bennett – Manager Leisure, Recreation &Culture ServicesDaniel Kollmorgen – Manager Transport,Sustainability & Municipal LawsJoel Elbourne – Manager Urban Planning & BuildingFrances Gianinotti– Co-ordinator Youth & CommunityPartnershipsGiovanna Savini – Manager Youth & Family ServicesMelinda Ramsay – Leisure Services Team LeaderBen McManus – Coordinator Leisure & CulturalServicesTania O’Reilly – Manager Finance & Procurement

Others Present: Five Representatives from Places VictoriaDamien Jones, Shop 48 Facility Manager


3 Date of Assembly: 30 May 2016


Matters Considered: Items on the Council Agenda for theOrdinary Meeting of 30 May 2016 (excludingconfidential items) as listed below:

2.1 Request for Over Mass Fire Truck Access onLocal Roads

2.2 Spirit Walk & Babarrbunin Beek Activation:Employment of an Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander Cultural Development Worker

2.3 Rushworth Street and Reeves Street,Watsonia - Possible Treatment Options

3.1 Resilient Melbourne - metropolitan strategy fora sustainable, liveable and prosperousMelbourne

4.1 Banyule Planning Scheme Amendment C110- Results of Public Exhibition

4.2 Status of Closure of Myrtle Street, Linden




6.5

Avenue and Forster Street, Ivanhoe4.3 Erect a carport within the front setback on a

lot less than 500 sqm at 1/33 Coventry Street,Montmorency (P1070/2012)

4.4 Naming of the new public open space betweenBonar and Haig Street, Heidelberg Heights

4.5 Heidelberg Road, Ivanhoe - New PedestrianCrossing

4.6 Grimshaw Street / Flintoff Street,Greensborough, Intersection ImprovementFunding

4.7 Reallocation of 2015/2016 Local RoadsResurfacing Program Funding

5.1 Proposed City Plan & Budget - Consideration ofSubmissions Received

6.1 Items for Noting6.2 Assembly of Councillors7.1 Sealing of Documents8.2 Access on to the M80 Ring Road from the

Greensborough By-pass (north bound)8.3 Banyule Theatre8.4 Stormwater Harvesting and Pollution Mitigation

at Olympic ParkCouncillors Present: Mark Di Pasquale

Rick GarottiCraig LangdonTom MelicanJenny MulhollandWayne Phillips

Staff Present: Simon McMillan – Chief Executive OfficerAllison Beckwith – Director Community ProgramsScott Walker – Director City DevelopmentGeoff Glynn – Director Assets & City ServicesMarc Giglio – Director Corporate ServicesGina Burden – Manager Governance &CommunicationEmily Outlaw – Council Governance Liaison OfficerDaniel Kollmorgen – Manager Transport,Sustainability & Municipal LawsJoseph Tabacco – Manager Property & EconomicDevelopmentTania O’Reilly – Manager Finance & Procurement

Others Present: Nil


4 Date of Assembly: 6 June 2016

Type of Meeting: Confidential /Strategic Planning Meeting

Matters Considered: Confidential Contractual Matters

Councillors Present: Mark Di PasqualeCraig LangdonTom Melican




6.5 Jenny Mulholland

Staff Present: Simon McMillan – Chief Executive OfficerScott Walker – Director City DevelopmentGeoff Glynn – Director Assets & City ServicesJeanette Kringle – Property Co-ordinatorJoseph Tabacco – Manager Property & EconomicDevelopmentDarren Bennett – Manager Leisure, Recreation &Culture Services

Others Present: Nil


5 Date of Assembly: 14 June 2016


Matters Considered: Items on the Council Agenda for theOrdinary Meeting of 14 June 2016(excluding confidential items) as listedbelow:

1.1 Volunteers of Banyule and BanyuleSupport and Information Centre(BANSIC) Funding

2.1 Rates Hardship Assistance Policy2.2 2017 - 2018 Community Sport

Infrastructure Fund3.1 Indian Myna Bird Control4.1 91 Darebin Street, HEIDELBERG -

Construction of a multi level mixed usedevelopment

4.2 Infrastructure Victoria 30 YearStrategy - Draft Submission

5.1 Petrie Park and Rattary ReserveMaster Plan

6.1 Adoption of Banyule's City Plan 2013-2017 (Year 4)

6.2 Adoption of Banyule's Budget for theperiod 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017

6.3 Return of the 2016 General Re-valuation

6.4 Items for Noting6.5 Reappointment of the Chief Executive

Officer7.1 Sealing of Documents8.1 Dedication and launch of new Reserve

celebrating Vin Heffernan OAM8.2 North East Link Advocacy8.3 Banyule Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander Remembrance9.1 General Business - 3rd IFTAR

Ramadan Dinner at the Bell StreetMall

9.2 General Business - Bell Street Mall -




6.5

CCTV Upgrade9.3 General Business - Tribute to Eric

Rosario10.1 Urgent Business – Orlando Victims

Remembered at Banyule10.2 Urgent Business – Safety on

Rosanna RoadCouncillors Present: Steve Briffa

Craig LangdonTom MelicanJenny MulhollandWayne Phillips

Staff Present: Simon McMillan – Chief Executive OfficerAllison Beckwith – Director Community ProgramsScott Walker – Director City DevelopmentGeoff Glynn – Director Assets & City ServicesGina Burden – Manager Governance &CommunicationVivien Ferlaino – Governance Co-ordinatorJoseph Tabacco – Manager Property & EconomicDevelopmentLucia Brennen – Recreation PlannerTania O’Reilly – Manager Finance & Procurement

Others Present: Nil


RECOMMENDATION

That the Assembly of Councillors report be received.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil



6.66.6 SUBMISSION TO THE MINISTER FOR

PLANNING IN RELATION TO THE PROPOSEDPLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT (FEES)REGULATIONS AND SUBDIVISION (FEES)REGULATIONS

Author: Jackie Bernoth - Development Planner, City Development

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The State Government released a Regulatory Impact Statement in relation to theproposed Planning and Environment (Fees) Regulations 2016 and Subdivision(Fees) Regulations on 26 May 2016. The proposed regulations incorporatesignificant increases in a range of planning and subdivision fees which would seek toprovide Council with near-full cost recovery for its planning and subdivision service.Submissions in relation to the Statement were required to be submitted to the by24 June 2016.

The Municipal Association of Victoria has indicated it will be preparing a submissionand a draft of that submission has been circulated to members for feedback. At thetime of writing this report Council has not received the final MAV submission.

The purpose of this report is to provide details of the proposed fees and the contentof the submission made on behalf of Council. It is considered that Council shouldendorse this submission.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Endorse the submission of the Municipal Association of Victoria assupplemented and amended by the submission prepared by officers on behalfof Council in relation to the proposed Planning and Environment (Fees)Regulations 2016 and Subdivision (Fees) Regulations; and

2. Write to the Minister for Planning advising of this decision.

CITY PLAN

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




SUBMISSION TO THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING IN RELATION TO THEPROPOSED PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT (FEES) REGULATIONS ANDSUBDIVISION (FEES) REGULATIONS cont’d


6.6


BACKGROUND

Fees for the assessment of planning permit applications, subdivision applications,and related requests, are set by the State government through the Planning andEnvironment (Fees) Regulations and the Subdivision (Fees) Regulations.

Most of the planning fees currently in place were set in 2000 and haveremained unchanged, or have been increased on an ad-hoc basis toaccount for changes in CPI (but were last increased in 2009/10). Further,the existing fees have not been reviewed in light of changes in theprocesses followed by council, such as the introduction of VicSmart in2014.

A recent data collection and analysis study commissioned by thedepartment identified that the actual cost to councils for providing theseservices was, in most cases, significantly higher than the current fees.While it is difficult to aggregate fees across all councils and acrossdifferent types of fees, it is estimated that current fees only recover about20-30 per cent of the actual costs to councils.

Regulatory Impact Statement, p.6

The lack of review or indexation of fees has resulted in a significant accumulatedshortfall for councils and effectively created a transfer in the costs of planning fromapplicants to broader ratepayers. The proposed fees seek to address this by aiming“at recovering a greater percentage of costs from those making applications.However, some categories of fees have been set below the estimated costs, in orderto achieve fairness or other policy objectives” (Regulatory Impact Statement, p.7).

In addition, the fees are proposed to be converted into fee units, which are subject toannual indexation, avoiding the need for separate consideration of the quantum offees on an annual basis.

In setting fees, the Department collected information from a range of councils acrossVictoria, and convened a Stakeholder Reference Group incorporating representativesof six councils, the Municipal Association of Victoria, Planning Institute of Australia,Property Council, Surveying and Spatial Sciences Institute and Association ofConsulting Surveyors

In general, stakeholders supported the proposed fees, although in a fewinstances councils advocated for higher fees than those proposed(related to permits for subdivision, and the fee cap for consideration ofengineering plans). These were included as options considered in thisRIS . Non-council stakeholders on the reference group were alsogenerally supportive of the proposed changes to fees.

A list of the proposed fee changes is included at Pages 8 and 9 of the RegulatoryImpact Statement (Attachment 1).




6.6

LEGAL CONSIDERATION

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





ADVOCACY

Council has sought to bring the quantum of planning fees to the attention of theMinister for Planning on previous occasions, including taking part in a review ofplanning fees 2008, and writing to the Minister for Planning on behalf of the NorthernRegion of Councils (Banyule, Darebin, Hume, Moreland, Nillumbik and Whittlesea) inSeptember 2015 seeking an urgent increase in Planning Application fees.

Approval of the modifications outlined in the Regulatory Impact Statement cannot beguaranteed, however, and continued advocacy on behalf of the community isrequired in an effort to ensure that they are implemented.

KEY COMPONENTS OF THE REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT

The MAV advises that key components of the RIS are as follows:

• Full cost recovery across categories with the exception of VicSmartpermits, single dwellings less than $2 million and other developmentgreater than $100,000.

• Additional development value bands to deliver a higher level of costrecovery from the single dwelling over $250,000 and other developmentcategories with a construction value of over $2 million.

• Subdivision fees will increase and double every 100 lots and satisfactionmatters can be charged per item.

• Removal of the per lot certification and statement of compliance fee andits replacement with a $300 flat fee. The RIS confirms that the increase insubdivision fee and its doubling per 100 lots will offset the revenuereduction.

• Increase in the amendment fee to applications after notice, but beforedecision…

• Increase in the amendment fee to an existing planning permitapplication…

• Clarification is provided that satisfaction matters can be charged per itemlisted as part of the condition, rather than permit condition.




6.6

• Introduction of a fee for private initiated amendments paid to theresponsible authority to consider submissions. The fee will be escalatedat up to 10 submissions, up to 20 submissions and 20 plus submissions.

• New fees for VicSmart, amendment or request to end 173 agreements,request to amend a certified subdivision plan and statement ofcompliance.

• Importantly, fees will be set in monetary fee units. This will enable fees tobe indexed automatically in line with other State Government fees andfines.

• Fees will expire in 2026.

FUNDING IMPLICATIONS

If introduced, the revised planning fees would have the impact of full (or near full)cost recovery of statutory planning services from permit applicants. Cost recovery inrelation to strategic planning projects would be lower, given that the majority ofplanning scheme amendments conducted within the City are initiated by Councilrather than members of the public.

Council has previously been concerned that the current fees are not reflective ofcurrent practice or of stakeholder expectations, with councils, through their ratesrevenue, significantly subsiding users of the planning system. An increase in incomefrom planning fees would therefore allow:

• An appropriate allocation of resources to the planning area and other areas ofCouncil which provide input to the planning process;

• A greater ability to meet the needs of the wider community in other areas.

DISCUSSION

The Statement seeks input from stakeholders, particularly with respect to sixquestions, which broadly seek Council’s view as to whether the following areappropriate:

1. The proposed fee discount for single dwellings;

2. The changes to the way fees are calculated for subdivisions;

3. The altered fees for VicSmart applications;

4. Fees for matters carried out to Council’s satisfaction;

5. Fees for the supervision of subdivision works; and

6. Criteria for when Council’s may waive fees.

Council has participated in a MAV briefing session on the RIS and provided feedbackto that session along with representatives of a number of other councils fromthroughout the State. Specific feedback was given in relation to both these questionsand other issues arising from the RIS. The MAV has prepared a submission withrespect to the RIS, a draft of which was available at the time of preparation of thisreport. The submission confirms support for the review of the fees, including a shifttowards a user-pays system; and the quantum fees proposed.




6.6

It is considered that the draft submission is reflective of the implications of theproposed fees upon Council and those submitting applications and amendmentrequests within Banyule. However, it is noted that fees for relatively minor mattersassociated with multi-dwelling, commercial and industrial properties, including minorbuilding works and the display of advertising signage are proposed to risesignificantly. The increases proposed would result in a fee of at least 12% of the costof works proposed. This may both have a significant financial impact uponbusinesses and result in the conduct of works without the required planning permit. Itis suggested that an extension of the fee discount applied to single dwellings shouldalso be applied to other types of development, so as to alleviate this impact.

Whilst Council has long advocated for an increase in planning fees which is reflectiveof the cost burden on council for administering the planning scheme, it isacknowledged that the increases proposed are significant, and will be accompaniedby increased expectations from permit applicants with respect to the services offeredby Council. A key question implied in the review therefore is the form of serviceimprovements Council would anticipate resulting from the fees proposed. Havingregard to increases in Development Planning staffing during 2015 (some of whichwere temporary), workload impacts experienced by related departments and thecurrent staff workload associated with developing the provision of an on-line portal forthe lodgement of applications, it is suggested that service improvements to beconsidered may include:

• Further developing the ability for planning applications to be lodged online anda shift towards electronic processing of applications. This has the potential tosave applicants both time and money in the processing of applications.

• An ability to provide more targeted pre-application advice to clients through theappointment of additional staff.

• The provision of more support staff so as to reduce administrative delays in theplanning process.

• The provision of additional resources to areas of Council directly impacted byplanning and subdivision applications. This may include engineering services,supervision of works, and enforcement.

Finally, it is noted that the fees are outlined as expiring in 2026. It is thereforeappropriate that a review of the fees now being considered occurs well in advance oftheir expiry so as to ensure that new fees are set prior to 2026.

TIMELINES

The timelines for providing feedback on the RIS were relatively short, with a period offour weeks allowed. Submissions were required by 24 June 2016, which did notallow sufficient time for this matter to be reported to Council prior to a submissionbeing prepared. As a result, the purpose of this report is to inform Councillors of thecontents of the RIS, provide for discussion on the matters involved, and allow Councilto formally endorse or amend the submission previously lodged. A copy of thissubmission is included as Attachment 2 to this report. A copy of the final MAVsubmission will be circulated prior to the Council meeting.




6.6

CONCLUSION

The review of the fees outlined in the Planning and Environment (Fees) Regulationsand Subdivision (Fees) Regulations is supported. The fees outlined will generallyresult in full cost recovery to Council. However some modification to ensure that aninappropriate impact is not experienced by businesses is warranted. It is consideredthat Council should endorse the submission made by officers prior to 24 June 2016.

ATTACHMENTS

No. Title Page

1 Proposed Planning and Subdivision Fee Changes 197

2 Submission on Proposed Planning and Environment (Fees) Regulationsand Subdivision (Fees) Regulations

199

Sealing of Documents


7.17.1 SEALING OF DOCUMENTS

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

RECOMMENDATION

That the Common Seal of the Banyule City Council be affixed to Contract 0871-2016.

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

1. PARTY\PARTIES: Absolute Planning SolutionsOFFICER: Andy WilsonFILE NUMBER: F2015/5242DOCUMENT: Contract No. 0871A-2016ADDRESS: n/aWARD: n/aBRIEF EXPLANATION: At its meeting on 18 April 2016, Council resolved to

award a contract to a panel of planning consultants toprovide statutory planning services to Council. Thecontracts for each of these providers now need to besealed.

2. PARTY\PARTIES: Andrew Crack and AssociatesOFFICER: Andy WilsonFILE NUMBER: F2015/5242DOCUMENT: Contract No. 0871B-2016ADDRESS: n/aWARD: n/aBRIEF EXPLANATION: As above.

3. PARTY\PARTIES: Collie Pty LtdOFFICER: Andy WilsonFILE NUMBER: F2015/5242DOCUMENT: Contract No. 0871C-2016ADDRESS: n/aWARD: n/aBRIEF EXPLANATION: As above.

4. PARTY\PARTIES: Grace Town PlanningOFFICER: Andy WilsonFILE NUMBER: F2015/5242DOCUMENT: Contract No. 0871D-2016ADDRESS: n/aWARD: n/aBRIEF EXPLANATION: As above.

5. PARTY\PARTIES: Kellock Town PlanningOFFICER: Andy WilsonFILE NUMBER: F2015/5242DOCUMENT: Contract No. 0871E-2016ADDRESS: n/aWARD: n/a

Sealing of Documents

SEALING OF DOCUMENTS cont’d


7.1

BRIEF EXPLANATION: As above.

6. PARTY\PARTIES: Louise Lunn PlanningOFFICER: Andy WilsonFILE NUMBER: F2015/5242DOCUMENT: Contract No. 0871F-2016ADDRESS: n/aWARD: n/aBRIEF EXPLANATION: As above.

7. PARTY\PARTIES: Meinhardt Infrastructure and EnvironmentOFFICER: Andy WilsonFILE NUMBER: F2015/5242DOCUMENT: Contract No. 0871G-2016ADDRESS: n/aWARD: n/aBRIEF EXPLANATION: As above.

8. PARTY\PARTIES: Multiply Town PlanningOFFICER: Andy WilsonFILE NUMBER: F2015/5242DOCUMENT: Contract No. 0871H-2016ADDRESS: n/aWARD: n/aBRIEF EXPLANATION: As above.

9. PARTY\PARTIES: Perspective Planning ConsultantsOFFICER: Andy WilsonFILE NUMBER: F2015/5242DOCUMENT: Contract No. 0871I-2016ADDRESS: n/aWARD: n/aBRIEF EXPLANATION: As above.

10. PARTY\PARTIES: Tamara OrrloveOFFICER: Andy WilsonFILE NUMBER: F2015/5242DOCUMENT: Contract No. 0871J-2016ADDRESS: n/aWARD: n/aBRIEF EXPLANATION: As above.

11. PARTY\PARTIES: APP CorporationOFFICER: Andy WilsonFILE NUMBER: F2015/5242DOCUMENT: Contract No. 0871K-2016ADDRESS: n/aWARD: n/aBRIEF EXPLANATION: As above.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Notice of Motion


8.18.1 HURSTBRIDGE LINE UPGRADE – LOWER

PLENTY ROAD LEVEL CROSSING, ROSANNA

Authors: Cr Tom Melican & Cr Craig Langdon

TAKE NOTICE that it is my intention to move:

“That:

1. Council welcomes the State Government commitment to allocate $140m in the2018/19 Budget for duplicating the Hurstbridge Rail line between Heidelbergand Rosanna including the grade separation of Lower Plenty Road and therailway line. However a number of matters need to be clarified:

a) confirmation that no land acquisition is required for the duplication andgrade separation including no impact on adjoining land and proposeddevelopments;

b) the measures to be introduced as part of the works to protect the amenityand construction impacts to nearby properties and the RosannaParklands;

c) the form of the grade separation, in particular the alignment and whetherthe railway line or road will be built under or over (ie. elevated train line);

d) the urban design approach to the new railway station at Rosanna and itsrelationship between the Rosanna Shopping Centre at Beetham Parade,Lower Plenty Road and the emerging activity at Turnham Avenue. Theconnection of the activity centre is a critical element and consideration;

e) the impact on bus services in Lower Plenty Road and Turnham Avenuewith confirmation there will be no service interruptions duringconstruction and the ongoing provision of enhanced services as part of anew bus interchange following completion of the project. Lower PlentyRoad and Turnham Avenue are heavily utilised by various bus services;

f) that all relevant authorities including VicRoads, VicTrack, the LevelCrossing Removal Authority and relevant State Government Departmentswill work with Council and the Local Shopping Centre to reduce andminimise disruption to the businesses;

g) that measures will be introduced to ensure resident access across therailway line and Lower Plenty Road are maintained during constructionand into the future including the pedestrian crossing at Davies Street;

h) the extent and length of time that Brown Street and Darebin Street will beclosed (if at all) during the duplication;

i) that local residents will be protected from noise impacts duringconstruction;

j) ongoing impact on Rosanna Parklands including the ability to retain treesand provide ongoing maintained landscaping and new tree planting; and

k) detail on ongoing soundproofing to provide for noise amenity protection ofresidents which is designed to minimise graffiti.

Notice of Motion

HURSTBRIDGE LINE UPGRADE – LOWER PLENTY ROAD LEVEL CROSSING,ROSANNA cont’d


8.1

2. Council write to:

a) the Premier, Minister for Transport and Major Projects as well as all localFederal and State Members seeking their response to these issues; and

b) local residents within several hundred metres of the railway line, allbusinesses, local schools and community groups outlining this resolutionand seeking their comments on the proposed work. The area to beincluded is bounded to the west by Waiora Road/Upper Heidelberg Road,to the east by Rosanna Road/Brassey Avenue/Fergusson Street, to thenorth at Ruthven/Chapman Street and to the south at Burgundy Street.

3. A report be prepared for Council outlining the costs associated with letters toresidents in 2b above.

4. Council request that the State Government considers the grade separation atMacleod Railway crossing will also be included in this project to limit disruptionto the line during construction and remove another dangerous crossing wherefatalities have occurred.

5. Quarterly reports be tabled at Council regarding the level crossing removal andline duplication to the railway line at Rosanna until the completion of theproject.”

Explanation

Council has been made aware through recent media coverage and morerecently contact from the Level Crossing Removal Authority of the pendingremoval of the Lower Plenty Road level crossing at Rosanna and theconcurrent duplication of the Hurstbridge Railway line between Rosanna andHeidelberg. Early works have begun with geotechnical and site investigationbeing carried out over the next four weeks.

It is noted from the Level Crossing Removal Website that the Hurstbridge lineupgrade will include:

• Duplication of the single-track section of rail line between Heidelberg andRosanna, removing a significant bottleneck, with associated power andsignaling work.

• Redesigning the timetables for the Hurstbridge and South Morang lines toachieve additional services and improved reliability on both lines.

• Removal of the Lower Plenty Road level crossing in Rosanna.• Building a new train station at Rosanna.• Removal of the level crossing on Grange Road in Alphington - community

consultation is currently underway.• Addition of a new bus route between Greensborough and Diamond Creek.• Investigation into further public transport benefits for the north east of

Melbourne.

Notice of Motion

HURSTBRIDGE LINE UPGRADE – LOWER PLENTY ROAD LEVEL CROSSING,ROSANNA cont’d


8.1

Consultation with the community is expected to commence in the comingweeks and construction is expected to commence by the end of the year withcompletion by 2019.

The development of the Latrobe employment cluster will add to congestionalong Ruthven Street, Macleod so it is appropriate that the removal of thatcrossing be incorporated in this single project.

CR TOM MELICANIbbott Ward

CR CRAIG LANGDONOlympia Ward

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Notice of Motion


8.28.2 ACCESS TO ANTHONY BEALE RESERVE

Author: Cr Wayne Phillips


“That a report be presented to Council to review the safety of vehicles andpedestrians accessing Anthony Beale Reserve, St Helena, from St Helena Road.The review should also include the consideration of a safe pedestrian crossing onSt Helena Road, near the entrance to Anthony Beale Reserve.”

Explanation

Anthony Beale Reserve is a major sports and recreation reserve in St Helena. It isparticularly heavily used on Sundays during the football season as it has two sportinggrounds and is the home base for the Greensborough Junior Football Club, one ofthe largest junior football clubs in the region.

Construction has recently started on the $750,000 regional family play space in at theReserve and works are expected to be completed in September, 2016.

Once completed the regional family play space is expected to further increase thevisitation rates to Anthony Beale Reserve.

During the consultation phase for developing the play space, one of the key issuesidentified by the community was safety around accessing the reserve from theSt Helena Road entrance. This is due to the lack of a dedicated right hand turninglane in St Helena Road and also to the volume of traffic entering and exiting thereserve, at peak times. Residents on the eastern side of St Helena Road have alsocomplained of a lack of a safe pedestrian crossing point near the entrance of theReserve.

There is currently $40,000 included in year 2 of Council’s draft Capital WorksProgram for a safe pedestrian crossing on St Helena Road, near the Anthony BealeReserve entrance.

CR WAYNE PHILLIPSBeale Ward

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Notice of Motion


8.38.3 BANYULE HORSE RIDERS

Author: Cr Steven Briffa


“That a report be presented to Council on investigating the feasibility of providingimproved connectivity, both on-road and off-road, for horse riders in the Lower Plentyand Viewbank areas. The investigation is to include commentary from otherappropriate land managers, Parks Victoria and Melbourne Water, on the issue andinvolve discussions with the Banyule Horse Riders Association.”

Explanation

There are a number of horse riding facilities located in Banyule, including the North-Eastern Pony Club and the Riding for the Disabled facility, both of which are locatedin Viewbank and the horse riding paddocks on The Boulevard in East Ivanhoe. All ofthese facilities are located on land managed by Parks Victoria.

There are over 170 horse owners (mostly female) residing within Banyule, themajority of whom are located within the Lower Plenty and Viewbank areas. The vastmajority of these horse owners reside and agist their horses in the low residentialdensity areas of Lower Plenty and the only safe way of getting their horses to theViewbank horse riding facilities (approximately one kilometre away) is to load themonto a horse float and drive them there.

The roadside verges in the area, which by law horse riders are entitled to use, arenarrow, often dangerously sloped and contain various hazards such as bollards,deep gutters, drainage pits, etc. that make them unsafe to ride on. There is also nosafe crossing of the Plenty River in the area and there are no trails on public land inBanyule that allow horse riding.

It is proposed that a report be presented to Council investigating the feasibility ofproviding improved connectivity, both on-road and off-road, for horse riders in theLower Plenty and Viewbank areas.

CR STEVEN BRIFFAHawdon Ward

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Notice of Motion


8.48.4 ROAD AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS OF

BONDS ROAD, LOWER PLENTY

Author: Cr Steven Briffa


“That a report be presented to Council to investigate the improvement of the roadsurface, road widening and drainage of Bonds Road, Lower Plenty. The reportshould consider community views, changes in traffic volumes, cost estimates andother impacts of any improvements considered.”

Explanation

Bonds Road, Lower Plenty, like many of the roads in the area, is constructed to arural standard with a sealed road pavement and open table drains down each side ofthe road. The existing configuration has evolved over time to minimise the impact onthe local vegetation and to fit in with the low housing density environment.

There have been a number of approaches to Council in the past few yearsrequesting that Council review the road and associated drainage to improve thesafety of road users and to resolve localised drainage problems caused byinadequate drainage infrastructure.

The investigation needs to consider:

• drainage improvements to resolve localised flooding;• the safety of the various users of the road;• assessment of vehicle speeds;• possible widening of the road;• impact on any possible works on existing vegetation;• community views on any possible upgrade of the road and drainage; and• estimates of costs and options for funding any improvements.

CR STEVEN BRIFFAHawdon Ward

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Notice of Motion


8.58.5 GARAGE SALE TRAIL

Author: Cr Tom Melican


“That a report be prepared that assesses the benefits and costs associated withparticipating in the Garage Sale Trail program and to consider taking part in the 2016event as a one year trial.”

Explanation

Garage Sale Trail is not-for-profit program which claims to provide assistance toLocal Government in promoting waste reduction in their communities. The once ayear event fosters the opportunity for people to de-clutter, reuse, meet theneighbours, and make a few dollars all at the same time. Anyone can be involvedfrom households, to local businesses; makers and creators, community groups,cultural institutions, schools and charities, and they can register their venue on theGarage Sale Trail website to advertise their participation.

The program is a marketing and communications tool to deliver a three to four monthcampaign for mobilising communities around Australia to hold Garage Sales on thesame day. It has been operating for five years and claims to have over 133 Councilswith more than 8,000 garage sales registered all over Australia in 2014. The packageoffered includes artwork for Council branding and media releases, access to theGarage Sale Trail website, and social media opportunities. It does not include thecost of producing flyers, posters or other costs associated with handouts or localadvertising. The communication package does not require Council to develop anyfurther tools to market the event.

The program organisers have approached Council to seek Banyule’s involvementand have offered a one year trial in 2016. Councils are usually only offered theprogram on a two year or three year basis. It is proposed that a report be presentedto Council that assesses the benefits and costs of participating in the 2016 GarageSale Trail event.

CR TOM MELICANIbbott Ward

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Notice of Motion


8.68.6 TREE REMOVAL PROCESS ON ROAD

RESERVES

Author: Cr Wayne Phillips


“That where a tree in a road reserve, which has a trunk dimension equal to orgreater than 800mm and/or a height of equal to or greater than 15 metres:

a) is being considered for removal the relevant Ward Councillor is notified; and

b) has been removed to address an imminent public safety issue, the Wardcouncillor is notified within one business day.”

Explanation

Banyule is fortunate to have in the vicinity of 65,000 street trees across themunicipality. It well established that trees provide numerous environmental benefitsfor our community and local fauna. Within the tree population there are many treesof significance both indigenous and exotic species that are established in ourstreetscapes.

The maintenance responsibility for Street tree resides with Councils Parks andGardens service. Trees are inspected and pruned on a 2 year cyclical program toensure that they healthy and safe and comply with the relevant legislation.

Occasionally some trees are subjected to damage by extreme weather events,mechanical damage by vehicles, utility agencies or biological influences. Where treesare compromised council arborists assess the safety of the trees and if the tree isdeemed imminently hazardous it is made safe which can necessitate immediateremoval.

There are also times when large trees are planned to be removed and is thesecases, council staff undertake a local consultation process.

Given the value the community place of large tree it considered important the wardcouncillor is made aware of rationale for the removal of any large tree in their ward.

CR WAYNE PHILLIPSBeale Ward

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Notice of Motion


8.78.7 TRIBUTE TO ERIC ROSARIO

Author: Cr Craig Langdon


“Council consider options to commemorate Eric Rosario in line with the Council andCommunity Commemorative Plaques Protocols and liaise with Eric’s wife andfamily.”

Explanation

At the previous Council Meeting, I raised a General Business item on a tribute toEric Rosario, a resident of Greensborough.

He was an Age-Friendly Banyule Advisory Committee member, a member of theOpen Space and Playground Strategy Reference Group member and Age-FriendlyChampion, with involvement in nearly every activity.

Eric also had strong links to many other groups within his local community.

Eric’s passion was around everyone having an opportunity to exercise.

In memory of Eric, it may be fitting to install a chair along the walking track in theApollo Parkways Reserve; Plenty River Drive, Greensborough. It maybe also suitablefor plaque will be installed on the chair with the wording to be discussed with Eric’swife and family.


ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Notice of Motion


8.88.8 BELL STREET MALL - CCTV UPGRADE

Author: Cr Craig Langdon


“That Council call on the Federal Opposition to match the funding announcementmade by the Federal Government of a $75,000 grant for the upgrade of the CCTV inthe Bell Street Mall.”

Explanation

Senator Scott Ryan (at the Ramadan Iftar Dinner on Friday, 10 June 2016)announced a $75,000 grant for the upgrade of the CCTV in the Bell Street Mall undera re-elected Turnbull Government. He noted the Bell Street Mall Traders Associationis also hopeful the funds will add a sense of safety for traders and the community.

The Notice of Motion is to call on the Federal Opposition as the alternativeGovernment to match the funding.


ATTACHMENTS

Nil

ATTACHMENTS

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 27 JUNE 2016

4.2 Managing Construction Activity associated with Large Development Sites

Attachment 1 Managing Development in Banyule ............................................... 114

Attachment 2 Occupation of Council Land........................................................... 117

Attachment 3 Construction Management Plans................................................... 118

4.3 44 Turnham Avenue, Rosanna - Proposed Supermarket (P1260/15)

Attachment 1 Planning Policy.............................................................................. 123

Attachment 2 Rosanna Library car park and footpath remodelling conceptplan ............................................................................................... 132

Attachment 3 Plans ............................................................................................. 133

4.4 Use and development of land at 29 Howard Street and 2-6 Stubley Court,Greensborough, for a Car Park

Attachment 1 Attachment 1 - Background information......................................... 149

Attachment 2 Attachment 2 - Advertised plans.................................................... 152

4.5 Banyule Surveillance Policy

Attachment 1 Draft Banyule Surveillance Policy .................................................. 159

6.4 Items for Noting

Attachment 1 Safe Schools Program - Senator James Mcgrath .......................... 171

Attachment 2 Safe Schools Program - Bill Shorten ............................................. 172

Attachment 3 Safe Schools Program - Senator Carol Brown .............................. 174

Attachment 4 Safe Schools Program - Senator Marise Payne............................. 175

Attachment 5 Safe Schools Program - Department of Education andTraining (on behalf of the Minister for Education and Trainingand the Minister for Social Services) ............................................. 176

Attachment 6 Safe Schools Program - Tanya Plibersek MP................................ 178

Attachment 7 Safe Schools Program - Senator Sarah Hason-Young ................. 180

Attachment 8 Safe Schools Program - Senator Ricky Muir ................................. 181

Attachment 9 Safe Schools Program - Senator Eric Abetz .................................. 182

Attachment 10 Safe Schools Program - Warren Truss MP ................................... 183

Attachment 11 Safe Schools Program - Senator Glen Lazarus ............................ 187

Attachment 12 Safe Schools Program - Clive Palmer MP ..................................... 188

Attachment 13 Safe Schools Program - Senator Fiona Nash ................................ 189

Attachment 14 Safe Schools Program - Senator Claire Moore .............................. 190

Attachment 15 Safe Schools Program - Julie Owens MP ...................................... 191

Attachment 16 Banyule Environmental Banyule Environmental AdvisoryCommittee (BEAC) Meeting Notes June 2016.............................. 192

6.6 Submission to the Minister for Planning in relation to the proposed Planning andEnvironment (Fees) Regulations and Subdivision (Fees) Regulations

Attachment 1 Proposed Planning and Subdivision Fee Changes ........................ 197

Attachment 2 Submission on Proposed Planning and Environment (Fees)Regulations and Subdivision (Fees) Regulations........................... 199

Item: 4.2 Attachment 1: Managing Development in Banyule


Att

ach

men

t1

4.2 MANAGING DEVELOPMENT IN BANYULE

Development Planning & Engineering

The Development Planning team is responsible for managing the overall development andland use approvals process and subsequent enforcement in accordance with the LPPF andlocal rules prepared by Strategic Planning and the SPPF and P&E Act established by theState Government. Given the complexities of the planning process, public involvement anddetailed rules embodied in the Banyule Planning Scheme the team involved in the approvalscomponent of the process is quite large with individual expertise including arborists and asubdivision officer. The enforcement component, however, is limited to a ‘reactive’ servicewhich primarily responds to complaints. Technical input to the assessment and approvalsprocess is provided by the Engineering Services Team, primarily in regard to appropriatestandards and approval of designs in relation to car parking, roads and drains.

The issuing of planning permits has historically focused on the development outcome to beachieved with appropriate permit conditions relating to the development once completerather than the activities on and near a site during the construction phase. Constructionactivities have generally been managed through other State and local legislation such as theLocal Law and EPA in relation to pollution and noise. This continues to be the acceptedapproach, although conditions relating to construction activity which may impact on theultimate planning outcome are now commonly accepted. For example, a requirement toprotect a specific tree which is to be retained as part of a development is essential as aplanning permit condition as it is important that the tree is protected to achieve the overallplanning outcome sought. General conditions relating to construction activity are not usuallyexpected in a planning permit although the use of Construction Management Plans for somelarge development sites has been required in recent years. The requirement for aConstruction Management Plan provides some level of control over the construction processof these larger developments. The opportunity for and use of CMP’s is discussed in detail inthe “Technical Considerations and Discussion” section below.

Building (Banyule BPI)

Banyule BPI is responsible for managing building approvals in the municipality, but since thederegulation of the industry over 20 years ago only if appointed as the relevant buildingsurveyor. Private Building Surveyors can also be appointed to issue permits and monitorbuilding approvals on sites within Banyule. Nonetheless, the enforcement of buildingapprovals issued in the municipality, primarily in relation to structural integrity and safety ofbuildings and in accordance with relevant planning approvals is also another key function ofthe team. Banyule has been much more active in the enforcement of building regulationssince the appointment of a Building Enforcement Officer four years ago which has reducedthe incidence of building activity in breach of the regulations.

The Building Act 1993 & Building Regulations 2006 allow Council, through its MunicipalBuilding Surveyor, to enforce safety issues, such as pool fencing, dangerous buildings andunlawful building work. This makes building enforcement limited for amenity issues unlessthey affect safety. However, the Building Surveyor is responsible for ensuring that “siteprotection” works are in place which protects adjoining properties during construction and isparticularly relevant for sites which involve excavation.



Att

ach

men

t1

4.2Local Laws

Council’s Local Laws Unit has wide ranging responsibilities for enforcing Councils LocalLaws. One of their key functions is to ensure that construction and building activity is wellmanaged in accordance with Council’s Local Law to minimise the impact of constructionactivity on the amenity of the surrounding area. The Local Law has clauses which requirebuilding works to be contained within the building site and also deal with issues such asdust, mud of roads, refuse and hours of work.

The Local Law also includes clauses relating to the occupation of roads and Council landand requires a permit to be obtained for hoardings, scaffolding, plant and equipment, skipsand bins which are on Council land outside of a building sites boundary. A permit under theLocal Law needs to be in a prescribed form set by Council and subject to the payment of theappropriate fee which is also set by Council.

It is expected that all builders, developers and tradespeople operating within Banyule willcomply with the Local Law. Breaches of the Local Law may be enforced under the relevantlegislation by Council’s Local Laws unit. For significant off-site issues the EPA, MelbourneWater or other Authorities may also be involved.

Construction (Asset Protection)

Building and construction activities which impact on Council assets are also governed by theLocal Law but are managed through Council’s Asset Protection unit rather than the LocalLaws unit of Council. The relevant clause within the Local Law states:

1. If any building work is to be carried out on land:

(a) the owner of the relevant land;

(b) the builder engaged to carry out building work on the land;

(c) any appointed agent; or

(d) any demolition contractor engaged to demolish some object on theland as part of the building work

must:

(e) not carry out or allow to be carried out building work on that landunless an Asset Protection Permit has been obtained;

(f) not carry out or allow to be carried out building work on that land inbreach of any conditions of an Asset Protection Permit that has beenobtained; and

(g) pay any Asset Protection Permit Bond determined by the Council fromtime to time.

2. If a person contravenes or fails to comply with Clause 1. above, Councilmay serve a Notice to Comply on that person requiring the repair,rectification, reinstatement, replacement or any other work to repair, rectify,re-instate or replace any asset vested in, controlled or owned by Council.

Note: Council will inspect and assess potential for damage to Council assets, including anAsset Protection Permit Bond. An Asset Protection Permit is not Consent orpermission to work from or upon Council Land and an application may be requiredfor the following Permits:• Occupation of Roads and Council Land• Interference with Council Assets



Att

ach

men

t1

4.2 • Obstruction of Roads and Council Land

• Vehicle Crossings• Tradesperson Parking/Workzone

Councils Asset Protection unit is responsible for monitoring development impacts on Councilassets such as nature strips, street trees, kerb and channel, drains, roads and right of waysbut with the legislative power provided by the Local Law. The key principle behind the assetprotection system is that it is a ‘user pays’ approach where those responsible for damage toCouncil assets are responsible for the rectification. Once a Building Permit has been issuedeither through Council or through a Private Building Surveyor, the site is placed on amonitoring system for an Asset Protection Inspection which is subject to a $215 fee. Theinspection is conducted to ascertain the condition of Council’s assets before thecommencement of works. If, as a result of the inspection, it is deemed that the buildingworks may cause damage to any Council asset, the property owner is required to lodge asecurity deposit with Council.

When all works are completed the owner is required to request a final inspection. Theinspection will determine the condition of Council’s asset abutting the property and if damagehas occurred, a quotation will be forwarded to the owner stating the cost for Council toreinstate any identified damage or alternatively the owner may engage a contractor toreinstate Council’s assets. Once the assets have been reinstated the bond is returned.

The Asset Protection unit is also responsible for issuing permits under the Local Law forworks on Council land and within the Road Reserve such as a road opening, stormwaterconnection, footpath closure, vehicle crossover, drainage connection, and erecting ahoarding or other works associated with a new development. When a permit is issued worksmust be conducted in accordance with the conditions of the permit which include compliancewith appropriate standards of construction and usually require a traffic management plan. Afee is charged and a bond may be required as well as an inspection being undertaken.

Item: 4.2 Attachment 2: Occupation of Council Land


Att

ach

men

t2

4.2OCCUPATION OF COUNCIL LAND

Permit Type Location Legislation Considerations

CranePermit

Where theoccupation is on aroad or CouncilAsset

Road ManagementAct 2004

Public Safety & Asset Protection.Control the impact on residents androad users; ensure the works areundertaken safely.

ConcretePump

Where theoccupation is on aroad or CouncilAsset


Public Safety & Asset Protection.Control the impact on residents androad users; ensure the works areundertaken safely and the area is leftclean.

Hoarding Where theoccupation in on aCouncil Asset/Footpath

BuildingRegulations 2006

Public Protection as required underthe regulation 604 of the BuildingRegulations and deemed necessaryby the relevant Building Surveyor.

Work Area Where theoccupation of afootpath is requiredto undertake minorworks

DisabilityDiscrimination Act1992

Equal OpportunityAct 1995

Ensure works on a footpath areundertaken in a safe and compliantmanner and provide free andunencumbered access for pedestriansand those with disabilities.

Work Zone Provide TradeParking to BuildingSites and minordeliveries.

Road Safety Act1986

Victorian RoadRules

Ensure compliance with Parkingrestrictions and assist Developers andBuilders.

Gantry andScaffolds

Where theoccupation of afootpath is requiredto undertake majorworks or protectbuilding facade.

BuildingRegulations 2006

DisabilityDiscrimination Act1992

Equal OpportunityAct 1995

Public Protection as required underthe regulation 604 of the BuildingRegulations and deemed necessaryby the relevant Building Surveyor,protection of Heritage Buildings.

TempVehicleCrossovers

Entry and Egressfrom sites


Control the damage to council assetsand maintain the safe integrity of thefootpath for pedestrian usage.

Item: 4.2 Attachment 3: Construction Management Plans


Att

ach

men

t3

4.2 Construction Management Plans

The intent and extent of the Construction Management Plan (CMP) is to ensure that theprocess of construction has minimal impact upon neighbouring land uses and Council'sinfrastructure. The CMP effectively summarises how it is that the developer and the builderare to comply with relevant requirements of the Local Law, the Building legislation and theEPA legislation throughout the construction phase. Although from time to time a view hasbeen expressed that the CMP could be required to be more restrictive than this legislation,there would appear to be no mechanism to require it to be so.

The origin of the practice of requiring a CMP as a condition on a planning permit is unclear,however it raises a number of issues:

• The preparation and approval of a CMP provides a mechanism for a developer to thinkthrough the implications of their construction activity on the lives of surroundingproperty owners and occupiers. Ideally, they should be considering issues such asasset protection, deliveries (hours, means of access, storage), and constructionactivity (hours, facilities provided to staff on site, parking of staff vehicles). Many ofthese issues are separately controlled by the relevant Building Surveyor, the EPA orCouncil through its Local Law.

• A planning permit is a convenient place to draw a permit holder (and subsequentlydevelopers) attention to this requirement, and linking the approval of the CMP to thecommencement of the works should mean that all issues are appropriately addressed,and all relevant approvals given, prior to commencement.

• The purpose of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (P&E Act) is to regulate theuse and development of land, not the construction process. As any permit conditionsmust relate to the nature of the approval being given, conditions should not generallyseek to control the construction process. However there will be instances when theconstruction process will impact upon, or have the potential to impact upon, existinguse and development, or result in actions which require a planning permit in their ownright (eg. The construction of an extension to an existing medical centre may result in atemporary reduction in car parking below the standard Planning Scheme requirement,or building activity on a site near a waterway may result in the temporary provision offill within land affected by an Inundation or Special Building Overlay).

• The fines associated with a Planning Infringement Notice (5 penalty units for a naturalperson and 10 for a body corporate, currently $758.35 and $1516.70 respectively) areequivalent in value to those associated with an Infringement Notice under the LocalLaw (5 or 10 penalty units each for matters associated with construction sites, withdifferent penalties for different offences).

• The application of a CMP condition on planning permits has been ad-hoc, withindividual planning officers differing in when and how the requirement is imposed.Similarly, assessment of the suitability of any submitted CMP has differed from officerto officer, with differing levels of involvement of both Local Laws officers and/or AssetProtection officers in this process.

There are issues with requiring CMP’s as a planning permit requirement. These aresummarised as follows:

1 The purpose of the planning function: A CMP seeks to provide a summary of controlsthat are, for the most part, outside of the purpose of the planning function;



Att

ach

men

t3

4.22 The location of the matter sought to be controlled: Many of the controls captured within

a CMP are concerned with off-site activities whereas the scope of assessment of anydevelopment permit is legally limited to the title boundaries of the planning parcel;

3 The enforceability of the permit condition: Any failure to provide a CMP prior to thecommencement of works or to comply with the requirements may not be able to besuccessfully enforced through the provisions of the Act as a result.

The purpose of the planning function

It is acknowledged that the overall planning function is focused on the use and developmentof land. However for the purpose of clarity the term ‘use’ is not relevant to any requirementfor a CMP (as ‘use’ alone does not involve construction).

Notwithstanding that the term ‘development’ has a broad meaning under the Act, it isconsidered that the term ‘development’ in the context of the planning permit function shouldbe read as a noun – not a verb. Development is a thing – not a doing. If such a contextualinterpretation is accepted then the term ‘development’ refers to the completed construction –not the process of construction.

This interpretation is evidenced by analysis of the objectives of planning in Victoria (asdefined within the Act) and the decision guidelines within the planning scheme.The objectives of planning in Victoria are set out in Section 4(1) of the Act, as follows:

• To provide for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use anddevelopment of land.

• To provide for the protection of natural and man-made resources and themaintenance of ecological processes and genetic diversity.

• To secure a pleasant, efficient and safe working, living and recreationalenvironment for all Victorians and visitors to Victoria

• To conserve and enhance those buildings, areas or other places which areof scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical interest, or otherwise ofspecial cultural value

• To protect public utilities and other assets and enable the orderly provisionand coordination of public utilities and other facilities for the benefit of thecommunity

• To facilitate development in accordance with the objectives set out in thepoints above

• To balance the present and future interests of all Victorians

The decision guidelines found at Clause 65.01 of the Banyule Planning Scheme provide:

Before deciding on an application or approval of a plan, the responsible authoritymust consider, as appropriate:

• The matters set out in Section 60 of the Act

• The State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning PolicyFramework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planningpolicies

• The purpose of the zone, overlay or other provision

• Any matter to be considered in the zone, overlay or other provision



Att

ach

men

t3

4.2 • The orderly planning of the area

• The effect on the amenity of the area

• The proximity of the land to any public land

• Factors likely to cause or contribute to land degradation, salinity or reducewater quality

• Whether the proposed development is designed to maintain or improve thequality of stormwater within and exiting the site

• The extent and character of native vegetation and the likelihood of itsdestruction

• Whether native vegetation is to be or can be protected, planted or allowedto regenerate

• The degree of flood, erosion or fire hazard associated with the location ofthe land and the use, development or management of land so as tominimise any such hazard

Conditions imposed on any permit issued must relate to those matters for which a permit isrequired, and the appropriate decision guidelines. Matters of construction management donot ordinarily fit within this scope, whether or not these matters are separately (oradequately) addressed by other legislation.

Further, whilst many developments require a planning, the relevant planning permit trigger isnot always associated with development and there may not have any development relatedconditions included within the permit. Therefore any system which relies on constructionmanagement plans should not rely on the planning permit system to require such plans.

The location of the matter sought to be controlled

The scope of assessment for a development permit is limited to buildings and works thattake place on the subject land. Where the subject land comprises of more than one lot thesite is referred to as the planning parcel.

Except in very limited circumstances, a planning permit cannot legally provide controls thatare applicable to adjoining land or public land. In the overwhelming majority of cases, theambit of discretion for a development permit does not extend beyond the title boundaries ofthe planning parcel. It is therefore inappropriate for a planning permit condition to seek tocontrol matters such as parking on nearby roads, proposed routes of access to and from thesite for deliveries, propping of concrete or delivery trucks on the road during construction orother similar matters.

As an aside - It is acknowledged that a ‘use’ permit will seek to control activities on the landthat have the potential to impact on the amenity of the environment such as operationalhours, noise levels and compliance with relevant SEPPs. However it is to be recognisedthat such controls are normally limited to ‘use’ permits and importantly are limited to activitiesthat take place on the land – not off-site.

The enforceability of the permit condition

It is recognised that any failure to submit a CMP prior to the commencement of works willconstitute a breach of a properly constructed planning permit condition. However such abreach would be an administrative breach only, in the same way as a failure to submitcondition 1 plans or a landscape plan for endorsement or any other subordinate instrument.The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal have consistently held that the failure tosubmit a subordinate instrument prior to the commencement of works does not invalidate thepermit – rather this omission simply constitutes a breach of the permit.



Att

ach

men

t3

4.2

Similarly, a complaint alleging matters such as ‘mud on the road’ or ‘dust emissions’ or‘construction working times’ are (if proven) breaches of the relevant legislation that controlsthat activity. Such allegations should not be seen as a breach of the planning permit (whichderives its authority from the planning legislation).

The following is a (limited) list of allegations that may be received by the Council during theconstruction phase which are outside of the planning legislation.

Issue Appropriate LegislationDust control Local Law and EPAConstruction site refuse Local LawConstruction site hours Local Law and EPADelivery times to construction site Local LawNoise from construction site EPA and HealthSpoil (mud) on roads from construction site Local LawOccupation of roads (i.e. queuing of trucks) Local LawObstruction of road Local LawDamage to a Council asset Local LawUnsightly land Local LawUnsafe vacant land/building Building and Local LawPotential fire hazard Local Law

The crossover – potentially relevant planning consideration

There are limited circumstances where some part of the construction phase may impactupon the existing permitted use of the land or some other control affecting the land. In suchcircumstances the planning function should consider whether or not it should exercise someform of control over the potential impact.

Potentially relevant planning considerations may include:

• A temporary reduction in approved car parking on the land for the period ofconstruction;

• The temporary storage of soil or materials on land affected by the LSIO, ESO orsimilar planning control; or

• The potential for damage to occur to heritage fabric during any partial demolitionphase.

Having regard to the above it is appropriate that any potentially relevant planningconsideration be provided for by conditions of permit.

Temporary signage displayed during construction may also require a planning permit or beprohibited by the Scheme, and has been the subject of complaints. The need to considerthe Planning Scheme requirements in this regard can be reinforced by amending thestandard signage note and including it on all permits issued for development.

However it is also recognised that from a whole-of-Council perspective there remains thedesire to ensure that the developer has focused their attention on the implications of theproposed construction activity on surrounding residents and infrastructure. This could beassisted by the inclusion of a new standard note on planning permits drawing thedeveloper’s attention to the need to appropriately manage construction. This is similar toexisting standard notes in relation to the need to obtain a building permit or consent forworks within an easement. There may also be the option of including a straight forward‘enabling’ permit condition which requires a CMP to be submitted to and approved by



Att

ach

men

t3

4.2 Council for larger developments but the responsibility for approving the CMP enforcing it

does not does not sit with the Development Planning Unit.

It is acknowledged that the scope of this note or condition would require the submission of asignificant number of Construction Management Plans each year. The resourcingimplications and criteria to establish when a Construction Management Plan should berequired is discussed later in this report.

An alternative to requiring CMP’s through Planning Permits

Under General Local Law No. 1 (2015), Part 3, Section 3.3, it is a requirement that an AssetProtection Permit is obtained prior to the commencement of building works. Once a BuildingPermit has been issued either through Council or through a Private Building Surveyor,Building and Civil Works Unit include the property owner onto the system for an AssetProtection Inspection and notify them of this by letter. Following the inspection a report andinvoice is posted to them.

An alternative and practical approach to construction management would appear to be toprovide information and a pro-forma Construction Management Plan which encouragesthose undertaking construction activity to both think about the management of this activityand submit a plan in the weeks prior to the commencement of construction.

A pro forma checksheet could be prepared with an aim to achieve a balance betweeninformation to builders on Council requirements and a simple but reasonably thoroughchecklist for them to complete. Once finalised, it could readily be enclosed with the letterprovided to the property owner, or included in the Asset Protection Inspection Request formon Council’s website. A more targeted approach would be to forward it to the buildingcontractor, rather than the property owner, however this would require modified or additionaladministrative processes.

Item: 4.3 Attachment 1: Planning Policy


Att

ach

men

t1

4.3P1260/15 – 44 TURNHAM AVENUE ROSANNA – ATTACHMENT

PLANNING CONTROLS

The following planning controls are relevant to the assessment of application:

COMMERCIAL 1 ZONE

The purpose of this zone is:

• To create vibrant mixed use commercial centres for retail, office, business,entertainment and community uses.

• To provide for residential uses at densities complementary to the role and scaleof the commercial centre.

A planning permit is not required for the use of the land for a Supermarket (Shop) as nomaximum leaseable floor area is specified within the schedule to this zone.

However, planning approval is required for buildings and works within this zone.

MIXED USE ZONE


• To provide for a range of residential, commercial, industrial and other uses whichcomplement the mixed-use function of the locality.

• To provide for housing at higher densities.

• To encourage development that responds to the existing or preferredneighbourhood character of the area.

• To facilitate the use, development and redevelopment of land in accordance withthe objectives specified in a schedule to this zone.

A planning permit is required for the use of the land for a Supermarket (Shop) as theleaseable floor area will exceed 150m2. A permit is therefore required for the associatedbuildings and works (confined to the car park on this portion of the site).

VEGETATION PROTECTION OVERLAY (VPO5)


• To protect areas of significant vegetation.

• To ensure that development minimises loss of vegetation.

• To preserve existing trees and other vegetation.

• To recognise vegetation protection areas as locations of special significance,natural beauty, interest and importance.

• To maintain and enhance habitat and habitat corridors for indigenous fauna.

• To encourage the regeneration of native vegetation.

A permit is required to remove, destroy or lop those trees which meet either of the following:

• Has a height of 12 metres or more, or



Att

ach

men

t1

4.3 • Has a trunk or stems that collectively are more than 400mm in diameter,

measured at 1400mm above the base of the tree.

The Vegetation Protection Overlay only applies to a small portion of the south eastern part ofthe site which contains no protected trees. However, the VPO5 covers trees within theTurnham Avenue Road Reserve at the front of the site where two trees are proposed to beremoved – trees 2 and 7. Of these trees, tree 2 exceeds 12 metres in height and is thereforeprotected under this overlay. Tree 7 is less than 12 metres in height and is therefore notprotected.

CLAUSE 52.06 – CAR PARKING

The purpose of this clause is:

To ensure the provision of an appropriate number of car parking spaces havingregard to the demand likely to be generated, the activities on the land and the natureof the locality.

To support sustainable transport alternatives to the motor car.

To promote the efficient use of car parking spaces through the consolidation of carparking facilities.

To ensure that car parking does not adversely affect the amenity of the locality.

To ensure that the design and location of car parking is of a high standard, creates asafe environment for users and enables easy and efficient use.

A permit is required to reduce (including reduce to zero) the number of car parking spacesrequired under Clause 52.06-5. A planning permit is required in this instance as the proposalseeks to reduce the number of on-site parking spaces.

Table 1 of this clause sets out the car parking requirement that applies to a use listed in thetable. The table specifies a rate for supermarket of 5 spaces to each 100m2 of leaseablefloor area. The proposal includes 2702m2 of leaseable floor area.

The car parking requirements, provision and shortfall are set out in the table below.

Use Spaces required Proposed Shortfall

Supermarket 135 (2702m2 x 5) 86 49

CLAUSE 52.07 – LOADING AND UNLOADING OF VEHICLES

The purpose of this clause is:To set aside land for loading and unloading commercial vehicles to prevent loss ofamenity and adverse effect on traffic flow and road safety.

This clause specifies that:No building or works may be constructed for the manufacture, servicing, storage orsale of goods or materials unless:

• Space is provided on the land for loading and unloading vehicles as specified inthe table below.

• The driveway to the loading bay is at least 3.6 metres wide. If a drivewaychanges direction or intersects another driveway, the internal radius at thechange of direction or intersection must be at least 6 metres.



Att

ach

men

t1

4.3• The road that provides access to the loading bay is at least 3.6 metres wide. A

permit may be granted to reduce or waive these requirements if either:

• The land area is insufficient.

• Adequate provision is made for loading and unloading vehicles to the satisfactionof the responsible authority.

Floor areFloor area of building Minimum loading bay dimensions

2,600 sq m or less in singleoccupation

Area 27.4 sq mLength 7.6 mWidth 3.6 mHeight clearance 4.0 m

For every additional 1,800 sq m orpart

Additional 18 sq m

A planning permit is not required for the proposed loading bay as it satisfies the aboverequirements.

CLAUSE 52.34 –BICYCLE FACILITIES

Clause 52.34 states that a new use must not commence or the floor area of an existing usemust not be increased until the required bicycle facilities and associated signage has beenprovided on the land.

The table below outlines the proposed provision of bicycle parking on site

Use Spaces required Proposed Shortfall

Supermarket(Shop)

4 (Employees) 10 05 (Visitors) 8 0

Total 9 18 0

The proposal includes 5 double sided bicycle parking spaces at the rear of the site in the carpark and 4 double sided spaces are shown adjacent to the footpath next to the entrance atthe front of the site.

POLICIES CONSIDERED

STATE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

The following policy is relevant to the assessment of the proposal and is outlined below andexpanded on where considered appropriate:

Settlement

Clause 11.01- Activity Centre policy seeks to build up activity centres as a focus for high-quality development, activity and living for the whole community by developing a network ofactivity centres. Policies on Metropolitan Melbourne also seek to encourage housingaffordability and choice, job creation and liveable communities.

Built Environment and Heritage

Clause 15.01-1 and 15.01-2 (Urban Design and Urban Design Principles) seeks tocreate urban environments that are safe, functional and provide good qualityenvironments with a sense of place and cultural identity and achieve architectural and



Att

ach

men

t1

4.3 urban design outcomes that contribute positively to local urban character and enhance

the public realm while minimising detrimental impact on neighbouring properties.

Strategies:

Apply the following design principles to development proposals for non-residentialdevelopment or residential development not covered by Clause 54, Clause 55 orClause 56:

Context• Development must take into account the natural, cultural and strategic context of

its location.

• Planning authorities should emphasise urban design policies and frameworks forkey locations or precincts.

• A comprehensive site analysis should be the starting point of the design processand form the basis for consideration of height, scale and massing of newdevelopment.

The public realm• The public realm, which includes main pedestrian spaces, streets, squares, parks

and walkways, should be protected and enhanced.

Safety• New development should create urban environments that enhance personal

safety and property security and where people feel safe to live, work and move inat any time.

Landmarks, views and vistas• Landmarks, views and vistas should be protected and enhanced or, where

appropriate, created by new additions to the built environment.

Pedestrian spaces• Design of interfaces between buildings and public spaces, including the

arrangement of adjoining activities, entrances, windows, and architecturaldetailing, should enhance the visual and social experience of the user.

Light and shade• Enjoyment of the public realm should be enhanced by a desirable balance of

sunlight and shade.

• This balance should not be compromised by undesirable overshadowing orexposure to the sun.

Energy and resource efficiency• All building, subdivision and engineering works should include efficient use of

resources and energy efficiency.

Architectural quality• New development should achieve high standards in architecture and urban

design.



Att

ach

men

t1

4.3• Any rooftop plant, lift over-runs, service entries, communication devices, and

other technical attachment should be treated as part of the overall design.

Landscape architecture• Recognition should be given to the setting in which buildings are designed and

the integrating role of landscape architecture.

Clause 15.01-5 seeks to recognise and protect cultural identity, neighbourhood characterand sense of place.

Clause 15.02-1 seeks to encourage energy and resource efficiency.

Economic Development

The objective under Clause 17.01-1 for commercial activity is to encourage developmentwhich meet the communities’ needs for retail, entertainment, office and other commercialservices and provides net community benefit in relation to accessibility, efficientinfrastructure use and the aggregation and sustainability of commercial facilities.

LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

Municipal Strategic Statement

Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement sets the direction for land use and development inBanyule by identifying key planning elements for consideration and nominating a series ofobjectives and strategies for each. The overarching vision of the Municipality is:

Banyule will be regarded as a city offering a range of quality lifestyles in an urbansetting enhanced by the natural environment, and served by an efficient andcommitted Council.

The relevant objective encompasses Environmental Management.

Commercial Land Use

The three main objectives of clause 21.04-2 are outlined below:

Commercial Economic Development

To support a diversity of viable, high-quality Activity Centres and Neighbourhood Centresoffering a range of retail, business, entertainment, community and tourist-related goods,services and employment. Strategies to achieve this objective include:

• Reinforce the existing hierarchy of retail and commercial centres in Banyule byallowing the development of existing centres to provide an improved andcompetitive level of service wherever this is supportable in terms of market(resident) demand and commercial viability.

• Define a primary retail core for each major centre and discourage theestablishment of non-retail uses at ground-floor level.

• Enhance Banyule’s identified tourist assets.

• Encourage leisure and entertainment facilities in association with key ActivityCentres and Neighbourhood Centres, in particular, the provision of a regionalaquatic and leisure centre within the Greensborough Activity Centre.



Att

ach

men

t1

4.3

Consolidation of commercial uses

To consolidate and enhance of the existing role of commercial centres in the municipality.Strategies to achieve this objective include:

• Reinforce the regional status of Greensborough Activity Centre as the mainshopping, business and entertainment centre, serving the north-east region ofouter metropolitan Melbourne.

• Encourage businesses to fully utilise existing office space.

• Encourage larger-scale office development to locate in nominated areas withinthe Greensborough, Heidelberg and Ivanhoe Activity Centres.

• Facilitate projects that will support business growth, employment and servicedelivery.

• Encourage smaller office development in centres in such a way that retail rolesare not fragmented.

Commercial uses outside of Activity Centres

To provide appropriate opportunities for business activities outside Activity Centres.Strategies to achieve this objective include:

• Encourage tourism-related businesses based on Banyule’s competitive strengths.

• Protect residential areas from unsuitable intrusions of non-residential uses thatmay have a detrimental impact on residential amenity.

• Encourage residents to work from home where the amenity of the neighbourhoodwill not be adversely affected.

• Identify large main road sites that may offer opportunities for new, regional retailfunctions which cannot be accommodated easily or economically in existingcentres.

• Investigate alternative use or redevelopment of commercial centres which nolonger perform a viable retail or service function.

• Encourage the transition of small, unviable shopping centres to non-retail uses –including office, service business and residential uses – where appropriate.

Built environment

The three main objectives of clause 2.06 relevant to the assessment of this application areoutlined below:

Safe, attractive and high quality built environment

To provide a safe, attractive and high-quality built environment. Strategies to achieve thisobjective include:

• Encourage uniform signage and shop frontage, particularly within strip shoppingcentres.

• Encourage high standards of design for buildings, works, signage andlandscaping.



Att

ach

men

t1

4.3• …

• Encourage the viability and enhancing the local character of strip shoppingcentres.

• Encourage high quality architecture and urban design.

• Encourage development to have active frontages and direct pedestrian access toabutting parklands.

• Ensure that off-site stormwater discharges are controlled.

• Ensure that off-site waste water discharges are eliminated.

• Ensure that flood risk and fire hazard are considered in relation to land use anddevelopment.

Character and identity

To ensure that development respects and contributes to the desired future character ofresidential neighbourhoods and the identity of Activity Centres and Neighbourhood Centres,in a manner that supports varying degrees of housing change. Strategies to achieve thisobjective include:

• Work towards undergrounding all telecommunication and electric cables.

• Encourage residents to care for street trees in consultation with Council.

• …

• Encourage the retention and planting of significant trees, substantial trees andother vegetation to protect and improve the landscape character, streetscapes,habitat links and biodiversity of the area.

• Support the removal of environmental weeds with replacement planting that isconsistent with the landscape character of the area.

• …

Sustainable design

To encourage a built form that delivers more environmentally sustainable construction.Strategies to achieve this objective include:

• Encourage energy and resource efficiency, sustainable transport, pollutionreduction, waste management, and improved stormwater quality for buildingdesign and site layout, building, infrastructure and landscaping.

• Minimise the potential impacts of water, air and noise pollution on Banyule’senvironment.

• …

• Support the retention of significant trees and the planting of trees and othervegetation.

• Encourage environmentally sustainable design principles in new buildings, worksand refurbishments.



Att

ach

men

t1

4.3 • Encourage tree protection and the planting of trees in locations that help to

minimise the urban heat island effect by providing shade and shelter for dwellingsand public spaces.

Environmentally Sustainable Design

The overarching objective is that development should achieve best practice inenvironmentally sustainable development from the design stage through to construction andoperation.

In the context of this policy best practice is defined as a combination of commercially proventechniques, methodologies and systems, appropriate to the scale of development and sitespecific opportunities and constraints, which are demonstrated and locally available andhave already led to optimum ESD outcomes.

Best practice in the built environment encompasses the full life of the build. It is a policy toencourage innovative technology, design and processes in all development, which positivelyinfluence the sustainability of buildings. The following objectives should be satisfied whereapplicable:

Energy performance

• To improve the efficient use of energy, by ensuring development demonstratesdesign potential for ESD iniatives at the planning stage.

• To reduce total operating greenhouse gas emissions.

• To reduce energy peak demand through particular design measures (eg.appropriate building orientation, shading to glazed surfaces, optimise glazing toexposed surfaces, space allocation for solar panels and external heating andcooling systems).

Water resources

• To improve water efficiency.

• To reduce total operating potable water use.

• To encourage the collection and reuse of stormwater.

• To encourage the appropriate use of alternative water sources (eg. greywater).

Indoor Environment Quality

• To achieve a healthy indoor environment quality for the wellbeing of buildingoccupants, including the provision of fresh air intake, cross ventilation, andnatural daylight.

• To achieve thermal comfort levels with minimised need for mechanical heating,ventilation and cooling.

• To reduce indoor air pollutants by encouraging use of materials with low toxicchemicals.

• To reduce reliance on mechanical heating, ventilation, cooling and lightingsystems.

• To minimise noise levels and noise transfer within and between buildings andassociated external areas.

Stormwater Management

• To reduce the impact of stormwater run-off.



Att

ach

men

t1

4.3• To improve the water quality of stormwater run-off.

• To achieve best practice stormwater quality outcomes.

• To incorporate the use of water sensitive urban design, including stormwater re-use.

Transport

• To ensure that the built environment is designed to promote the use of walking,cycling and public transport, in that order.

• To minimise car dependency.

• To promote the use of low emissions vehicle technologies and supportinginfrastructure.

Waste management

• To promote waste avoidance, reuse and recycling during the design, constructionand operation stages of development.

• To ensure durability and long term reusability of building materials.

• To ensure sufficient space is allocated for future change in waste managementneeds, including (where possible) composting and green waste facilities.

Urban Ecology

• To protect and enhance biodiversity within the municipality.

• To provide environmentally sustainable landscapes and natural habitats, andminimise the urban heat island effect.

• To encourage the retention of significant trees.

• To encourage the planting of indigenous vegetation.

• To encourage the provision of space for productive gardens, particularly in largerresidential developments.

Item: 4.3 Attachment 2: Rosanna Library car park and footpath remodelling concept plan


Att

ach

men

t2

4.3

Item: 4.3 Attachment 3: Plans


Att

ach

men

t3

4.3

Item: 4.4 Attachment 1: Attachment 1 - Background information


Att

ach

men

t1

4.4

29 Howard Street GREENSBOROUGH &2-6 Stubley Court GREENSBOROUGH Attachment 1

PROPOSAL IN DETAIL

The proposal incorporates the removal of 30 trees to facilitate the construction of a car park oneach property. Details of existing vegetation on the land is as follows:

Tree#

Species Common NameHeight

(m)Spread

(m)DBH(cm)

Retention

RatingSRZ(m)

TPZ(m)

Stubley Court

1 Brachychiton acerifolius Illawarra Flame Tree 8 3 23 Low 1.8 2.8

2 Betula pendula Silver Birch 10 5 28 Remove 1.9 3.4

3 Quercus palustris Pin Oak 15 12 50 High 2.5 6.0

4 Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle 5 3 20 Remove 1.7 2.4

5 Fraxinus excelsior 'Aurea' Golden Ash 10 14 50 Low 2.5 6.0

6 Quercus palustris Pin Oak 14 14 60 High 2.7 7.2

7 Pittosporum undulatum Sweet Pittosporum 9 9 45 Remove (weed) 2.4 5.4

8 Eucalyptus bicostata Eurabbie 16 16 110 High 3.4 13.2

9 Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven 10 8 38 Remove (weed) 2.2 4.6

10 Corymbia maculata Spotted Gum 16 8 40 High 2.3 4.8

11 Eucalyptus camaldulensis River Red Gum 12 4 40 Poor 2.3 4.8

12 Eucalyptus camaldulensis River Red Gum 12 8 49 Poor 2.5 5.9


14 Corymbia maculata Spotted Gum 17 10 70 High 2.8 8.4

15 Grevillia robusta Silky Oak 15 10 58 Medium 2.6 7.0

16 Magnolia grandiflora Bull Bay 6 5 17 Low 1.6 2.0

17 Nerium oleander Oleander 4 2 20 Street tree 1.7 2.4

18 Nerium oleander Oleander 5 3 30 Street tree 2.0 3.6



Howard Street

21 Fraxinus angustifolia ssp.angustifolia

Desert Ash 9 8 31 Street tree 2.0 3.7

22 Fraxinus angustifolia ssp.angustifolia

Desert Ash 9 11 40 Street tree 2.3 4.8

23 Callistemon sp. Bottlebrush 5 3 15 Low 1.5 2.0





28 Acer palmatum Japanese Maple 4 4 10 Low 1.5 2.0



Att

ach

men

t1

4.4




32 Lophostemon confertus Brush Box 9 5 33 Medium 2.1 4.0

33 Lophostemon confertus Brush Box 6 4 24 Low 1.8 2.9

Trees 3, 5, 6, 8, 10-15 and 20 are protected by the Vegetation protection Overlay which affects 2-6Stubley Court. The proposal incorporates the removal of all but Trees 2, 13 and 14 from theStubley Court properties and all vegetation from the Howard Street property.

PLANNING CONTROLS IN DETAIL

ACTIVITY CENTRE ZONE SCHEDULE 1

The land use and development objectives to be achieved by the Zone include:



Att

ach

men

t1

4.4

Landscaping

• To create a greener Greensborough by providing landscaped spaces, plazas andother open spaces within and around the Activity Centre.

• To ensure landscaping is integrated with the design of the development andcomplements the landscaping of any adjoining public realm.

• To ensure development is well landscaped, including canopy trees wherepossible.

Transport and access

• To promote a safe, convenient and sustainable traffic and transport network thatassists walking, cycling and public transport use and maximises mobility for all.

• To ensure the design of parking and access areas is safe, practical, easilymaintained and allows for use of car parking space for multiple purposes.

• To design any car parking within the centre to facilitate its use for multiplepurposes throughout the week.

• To improve directional signage and way finding measures for users of the activitycentre.

• To ensure key community nodes and Key Pedestrian Areas have good access tosunlight, weather protection and clear pathways which link elements throughoutthe activity centre.

Whilst a planning permit would ordinarily be required to use the land for a Car Park, Clause 4.1to Schedule 1 of the Activity Centre Zone provides that “A permit is not required to use land forthe purpose of Local Government providing the use is carried out by, or on behalf of, the publicland manager.” The use of the land for a car park in association with the Activity Centre isconsistent with the role of Local Government as outlined by the Local Government Act 1989, andwith the objectives of the Zone.

No planning permit is required for works associated with the car park pursuant to the Zone, as thedevelopment is to be conducted by Council and the cost of works is less than $1 million.

VEGETATION PROTECTION OVERLAY

A planning permit is required to remove, lop or destroy trees on the Studley Court properties whichhave a height of 12m or more and a trunk circumference of more than 400mm. A planning permitis required for the proposed removal of Trees 3, 5, 6, 8, 10-12, 15 and 20.

REFERRAL COMMENTS

DEVELOPMENT PLANNING ARBORIST

Council’s Development Planning Arborist has advised that, of the trees of high retention value thatare nominated for removal, Tree 3 is the most appropriate to retain, given existing site conditionsand its ability to withstand the proposed construction.

Item: 4.4 Attachment 2: Attachment 2 - Advertised plans


Att

ach

men

t2

4.4

Item:4.5

Attachment 1: Draft Banyule Surveillance Policy


Att

ach

men

t1

4.5

Surveillance in Public Places

POLICY

Banyule City Council

Item: 4.5 Attachment 1: Draft Banyule Surveillance Policy


Att

ach

men

t1

4.5 Contents

DEFINITIONS

1 Policy Definitions .................................................................................................3

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES.................................................. 3

2 Purpose .................................................................................................................33 Objectives .............................................................................................................4

SCOPE...................................................................................... 4

4 Scope of Policy.....................................................................................................4

POLICY ..................................................................................... 4

5 Network Principles ...............................................................................................46 Decision to Implement surveillance systems ..................................................57 Documentation of Management Systems..........................................................68 Requests for Digital Images / Footage...............................................................79 Standard Operating Procedures and Training .................................................710 Signage .................................................................................................................811 Collection of Surveillence Data ..........................................................................812 Privacy...................................................................................................................813 Inappropriate Use and Complaint Management................................................814 Governance Evaluation and Monitoring ............................................................9

RELATED DOCUMENTS .......................................................... 9

15 Council Documents .............................................................................................916 Legislation ..........................................................................................................1017 Other Reference Material...................................................................................11

RESPONSIBILITY ....................................................................11

18 Responsible Officer ...........................................................................................11

REVIEW ...................................................................................11

19 Requirement to Review Policy..........................................................................11

APPENDIX 1 – Human Rights Charter – Assessment of Compatibility……………………….12



Att

ach

men

t1

4.5DEFINITIONS

1 Policy Definitions

CCTV Closed circuit television.Surveillancerecords/footage

Any information that is recorded or unrecorded that istaken from a surveillance system including any data, stillimages or moving images.

Steering Committee The committee established by Council to oversee theoperation of a system.

System A surveillance system in which a number of cameras areconnected through a closed circuit. The footage taken bythe cameras is sent to a television monitor or recorder.These systems consist of cameras, monitors, recorders,interconnecting hardware and support infrastructure.

Council Banyule City CouncilCouncil Audit & RiskCommittee

The Council committee for the ongoing management ofsystems. A function of the committee will be to upholdthe integrity of Council systems and ensure they operatewithin this policy

Department of Justice’sGuide

Guide to Developing for Public Safety in Victoria,Department of Justice, August 2011

FOI Freedom of Information (in reference to the Freedom ofInformation Act 1982 (Vic))

IPP Information Privacy Principles (from Schedule 1 of theInformation Privacy Act 2000 (Vic))

Public place Any place to which the public has access as of right or byinvitation, whether expressed or implied and whether ornot a charge is made for admission to the place.

A public place relevant to Council can include, but is notlimited to, public streets, public malls, shopping centres,Council car parks, open space parks or reserves; Councilmanaged public buildings or areas.

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES

2 Purpose

The purpose of this Policy is to assist Council to regulate the operation and management ofCouncil-owned surveillance systems which have been (or which in the future may be) installedfor use in public places.

The Policy enables Council to fairly, appropriately and reasonably perform its functions andexercise its powers in connection with public place surveillance throughout the Banyulemunicipality.

Amongst other relevant material, the Policy takes account of (and acknowledgement is given to)the Victorian Ombudsman’s Guidelines for developing Closed Circuit Television policies forVictorian Public Sector Bodies, November 2012.

The Policy will be freely available to Council staff and the public generally by being included onCouncil’s Internet website and a hard copy can be provided on request.

As well as being a general Policy document, the Policy includes the detail of Council’s audit andevaluation mechanisms and its complaint handling process. The Policy is intended to act as acode of practice for Council staff. Additionally, those members of Council staff working withCouncil systems will be expected to undertake their duties in accordance with the Policy.



Att

ach

men

t1

4.5 3 Objectives

The objectives of this Policy are:

• To ensure that systems are installed for a lawful and proper purpose that has thebenefits of increasing safety and security for people in Banyule and/or allow for Councilfunction use

• To ensure Council systems are compliant with relevant legislation and other laws;• To ensure that management of records/footage is appropriate, including in relation to

use, retention, security, privacy, access, disclosure, storage and disposal; and• To ensure there is appropriate and ongoing monitoring and evaluation of systems

SCOPE

4 Scope of Policy

This policy applies to all Council-owned systems installed in public places that have the purposeof public surveillance. They will be located in general public areas or Council managedbuildings.

The Policy does not apply to surveillance systems used by Council where public access isrestricted. The Policy does not apply where surveillance is for council operations for its ownassets, such as Waste Truck operations and road and pathway condition reports. However,any incidental footage captured by this surveillance that is requested through a formal channel,e.g., Victoria Police, is included in the scope of this policyThe Policy also does not apply to systems that are used by Council staff or its contractors fordrainage inspections.

POLICY

5 Network Principles

Council surveillance systems will be operated and managed in accordance with the followingprinciples:

• All aspects will be operated and managed with integrity and will be compliant with theall relevant legislation, standards, codes and guidelines as outlined in this Policy andotherwise in force from time to time;

• All aspects will be operated and managed with due regard to the privacy and respectfor the human rights of individual members of the public;

• Monitoring and access to surveillance records/footage will be controlled and managedin accordance with operating procedures of each system;

• Each system will be regularly monitored and evaluated to ensure that the purposes andobjectives of each system are being achieved; and

• The public will be provided with clear and easily accessible information in relation toexisting unmanned surveillance systems, including processes to request or to viewsurveillance records/footage.



Att

ach

men

t1

4.56 Decision to Implement surveillance systems

Council will, in making decisions affected by this Policy, utilise and take into account all relevantmaterial, including the Department of Justice’s CCTV Guide, in the development andimplementation of a system.

Any decision to implement a new (or retain an existing) Council-owned system will be assessedbased on meeting the following categories:

Purpose:

• To improve actual and perceived levels of safety;

• To reduce levels of graffiti and other forms of vandalism;

• To reduce anti-social behaviour e.g., the surveillance may have a preventative effect,or Council can use it to respond strategically to issues

• To reduce incidents of serious criminal offences and/or

• To reduce illegal behaviour such as rubbish dumping, or damage to Council property

• To improve Council’s facility supervision

• To monitor levels of activity at Council’s facilities

• Contractor monitoring at Council’s facilities

Criteria:

• Council owned land, or

• assess capacity for landowner to install where private property faces on to Council land;

• Meets legislative requirements;

• Meets cost benefit analysis;

• Fits in with councils broader strategic objectives for that site;

• Broader community safety and/or crime prevention initiatives are in place or planned forthis site to complement

• It benefits the broader community rather than individuals

• Needs and priorities have been considered and compared to other sites in Banyule

Supporting evidence

• Expert advice

• Qualified statistical data specific to the site and/or

• Council requests through its Customer Records Management (CRM) system

Operating management responsibility

• The ownership is determined to be council

• Where Police access and monitor data, a written agreement is put in place with Counciland Victoria Police about roles and accessing footage, or where an external companyaccess and monitor data, a licence agreement is in place.

The relevant use must be specifically stated for each system and such use must be inaccordance with the IPP 1: Collection (Information Privacy Principles from Schedule 1 of thePrivacy & Data Protection Act 2014. In accordance with IPP 2, any use for a purpose other



Att

ach

men

t1

4.5 than the primary purpose must be precluded or limited to exceptional circumstances, as

determined by Council and in accordance with the legislation.

Council will consult with its community, the wider public and other relevant stakeholders prior toestablishing a fixed surveillance system. The Victoria Police will be specifically consulted wherethe purpose of a surveillance system in a public place is to manage high crime locations andmatters of public order or safety. Council will otherwise consult with such other stakeholders asrequired in relation to the performance of a particular function. This may include utilitycompanies, private property owners and local traders.

The use of mobile cameras will not be subject to external consultation however they will beinstalled with signage to inform the community that they are there.

Council-owned systems will only be used as part of a range of strategies to improve communityoutcomes in that space, e.g., a public awareness campaign.

7 Documentation of Management Systems

In most cases, Council systems in public places will be owned, installed and maintained byCouncil. The responsibility for the operation and monitoring of the system will typically be by theVictoria Police, a private contracting company or a nominated member of Council staff.

Council owned with Victoria Police operating and monitoringWhere Victoria Police have direct access to view or download footage for a Council ownedsystem, Council and Police will have an agreement to share footage as required and where itcomplies with legislation

Externally operated and monitoredWhere a Council system is operated and monitored by a private contracting company, Councilwill enter into a Licence Agreement (or similar type of agreement) that will cover the keyconsiderations listed above.

Council operated and monitored systemsWhere a Council system is operated and monitored by Council, Council will prepare a StandardOperating Procedures Manual for each system that will cover the following:

• Confirmation that it meets the requirements section 6 of this Policy “Decision toimplement surveillance systems:

• Camera locations including number of cameras within one system

• Technical data including installation date, product specifications, manufacturers details,warranty information, technical drawings,

• Hours of operation

• purpose of system e.g. main function is Local Laws

• Type of monitoring – active, passive or retrospective (determined by the purpose)

• Maintenance – schedule, responsibility and budget

• Authorised users: nominated positions for operation, extraction, viewing, storage andanalysis of the data. Images/footage recorded is only able to be downloaded, viewed,copied and managed by the authorised officers.

• Training for operators of the system

• Data retention – recording should be kept for a minimum of 30 days and all retentionschedules longer than this will be recorded here. Where a Freedom of Information(FOI) request is made prior to deletion of data, the data will be retained longer than the30 days where possible, while waiting for a formal request/subpoena to arrive.

• Data that is used for evidential purposes will be securely stored and passwordprotected limiting access to approved and authorised officers only.



Att

ach

men

t1

4.5• Incident response – this will detail the responsibilities of reporting incidents that are

viewed on footage whether related to its main function or outside of main function, e.g.crimes recorded and viewed must be referred to police

8 Requests for Digital Images / Footage

Banyule City Council is committed to ensuring the right to privacy of individuals is respectedand honoured. This document is intended to ensure the privacy of individuals undertakinglawful activity is protected and to govern the manner in which data collected through theoperation of this system is maintained.

Digital images/footage captured will only be made available to the following external parties:

• An individual captured in the footage

• An authorised Police member in relation to an offence or suspected offence

• An external Enforcement agency where an exemption under the Information PrivacyAct 2000 applies or a Court Order via Subpoena

Access to CCTV footage will only be considered for the above if one of the following authorisedconditions is met:

• There is a foreseeable threat to Council property or staff (active viewing);

• It is required as a preventative measure to dissuade or arrest anti-social or criminalbehaviour (active viewing);

• It is used to monitor and enhance delivery of a Council service. (active viewing);

• Where damage to council property or injury to Council staff, visitors, members of thepublic has occurred (passive review of incidents);

• Where evidence is required in which to investigate or prosecute a suspected or allegedcrime (passive review); or

• Where otherwise authorised by law, such as a Freedom of Information request (FOI) orSubpoena

The decision as to whether access to footage is approved under the above authorisedconditions can only be made by a Council authorised officer.

All other requests will require an application for a Freedom of Information (FOI) request.Information on FOI applications can be found on Council’s website or by calling Council on9490 4222.

Footage provided to an agency by Banyule City Council will be managed in accordance withrelevant legislation and standards.

9 Standard Operating Procedures and Training

When a new system is installed, Council will provide the operators of the system with therequired training and support to accompany the Standard Operating Procedures Manual.



Att

ach

men

t1

4.5 10 Signage

Council will advise the community by installing appropriate signage to indicate that they are inan area of a system where they may be observed or recorded. Signage will be placed so as tocomply with relevant Australian Standards in force from time to time and will comply with thefollowing requirements:

• Signs will be placed at each main access to the coverage area where the members ofthe public are reasonably entitled to use and be monitored;

• Signs will be prepared so as to be easily understood by members of the public,including people who are from non-English speaking backgrounds. Signs will include amix of text and symbols;

• Signs will be clearly visible, distinctive and located in areas with good lighting, placedwithin normal eye range and large enough so that any text can be read easily;

• Signs will identify Council as the owner of the system;

• Signs will include details of who to contact for any queries about the system; and

• Signs will be checked regularly for damage and theft, and replaced where required.

11 Collection of Surveillance Data

Council will ensure that its record keeping practices comply with the Public Records OfficeStandards for the management of public records, Public Records Office Specifications and thePublic Records Act 1973 (Vic). In general, camera footage is temporary and may be destroyedwhen any relevant administrative use has concluded.

Where footage has been provided to a third party (e.g. Victoria Police) it will be the third party’sresponsibility to retain the records/footage in accordance with the disposal authority that coverstheir agency’s functional responsibilities.

12 Privacy

Council will balance the need for surveillance against the right for privacy of members of thepublic. Council staff that use surveillance systems are required to act responsibly and considerthe reasonable expectations of the privacy of individuals. All Council staff that use surveillancesystems will undertake the training on privacy and understand the contents of this Policy,including the legislative requirements to ensure that the requirements of privacy are understood.Information gathered by Council as a result of a system will only be shared with its staff on aneed to know basis and in line with Council’s Privacy Policy.

13 Inappropriate Use and Complaint Management

Council staff who work with surveillance systems are to comply with the requirements of thisPolicy. Where a Council staff member is in breach of this Policy, there will be an internal reviewand appropriate action will be taken.

Any public complaints in relation to any aspect of a system relating to Council must be made inwriting to:Banyule City CouncilPO Box 51Ivanhoe 3087Or

[email protected]

Any member of the public that is dissatisfied with the outcome of their complaint to Council alsohas the right to complain to the Victorian Ombudsman using the following contact details:

mailto:[email protected]



Att

ach

men

t1

4.5

Victorian OmbudsmanLevel 9, 459 Collins Street (North Tower)Melbourne Victoria 3000Email: [email protected]: (03) 9613 6222

Any complaints that are made by members of the public to Council relating to the policies andprocedures of Victoria Police or to members of Victoria Police may be referred to the:

• Representative of Victoria Police;

• Officer in Charge for the Police station

• Victoria Police Professional Standards Command; or

• (Assuming jurisdiction) The Independent Broad-Based Anti-Corruption Commission.

14 Governance Evaluation and Monitoring

Council will establish a Surveillance Policy Steering Committee that is chaired by a Councilrepresentative and will be responsible to oversee the implementation of this Policy and itsongoing management;The first rigorous evaluation of a new system will occur between 12 and 18 months following thefull commissioning of the system.

The Surveillance Policy Steering Committee has the responsibility to uphold the integrity ofCouncil surveillance systems. The Surveillance Policy Steering Committee will be responsibleto:

• Report on the management of systems;

• Ensure adherence to the Standard Operating Procedures and , Council policies and thelaw;

• Promote public confidence in systems by ensuring its operations are transparent andsubject to public scrutiny; and

• Make recommendations to improve the integrity of systems.

RELATED DOCUMENTS

15 Council Documents

This Policy is supplemented by a number of Council documents that relate to surveillancesystems that include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Standard Operating Procedure Manuals developed for various surveillance systems;Operations and maintenance manuals developed for various systems;

• Council’s Privacy Policy ; and

• Council’s Corporate Information Management Policy

• Register of Councils surveillance systems

The implementation of Council surveillance systems supports the objectives, role and functionsof Council under the Local Government Act 1989 (Vic) and the goals and objectives of thefollowing Council strategic documents:

• Council Plan 2013-2017

mailto:[email protected]



Att

ach

men

t1

4.5 16 Legislation

Council surveillance systems are to be operated and managed in accordance with all relevantCommonwealth and State legislation. The list below is not complete and is a guide onlybecause legislation continually changes and new legislation is continually being applied.

State of VictoriaPrivacy & Data Protection Act2014

Regulates the collection, use and disclosure of‘personal information’ (other than health information)about individuals, including -captured information thatis recorded and which a person is potentiallyidentifiable. This legislation is to be considered whendetermining:

• How to protect privacy of individuals.• How to protect information which may confirm

the identity of an individual, for examplevehicle licence plates.

• How records are to be disclosed inaccordance with the Information PrivacyPrinciples from Schedule 1 of the Act.

• How footage will be protected from misuse,loss, unauthorised access, modification anddisclosure.

Public Records Act 1973 Provides requirements for the capture, access to,control, records management, storage and disposal ofinformation. This legislations is to be considered whendetermining:

• The circumstances records/footage isconsidered a public record.

• How long public records must be kept.• How public records must be maintained.• How public records are to be disposed of.

Private Security Act 2004 Provides a requirement of being granted a privatesecurity licence on the successful completion oftraining in relation to each activity for which thelicence is granted. This legislation is to be consideredto ensure Council’s employees and contractors actingas a control room operator or monitoring meet thelicensing requirements.

Charter of Human Rights andResponsibilities Act 2006 (theCharter)

Makes it unlawful for public authorities to act in a waythat is incompatible with human rights listed in theCharter, including the right not to have privacyarbitrarily interfered with. Requires any interference(such as through surveillance, recorded orunrecorded) to be demonstrably justifiable.

Freedom of Information Act1982

Provides the community with the right to requestinformation about the activities of Council, includingrecords/footage.

Evidence Act 2008 Establishes the legal standard for the admissibility ofevidence including records/footage.



Att

ach

men

t1

4.517 Other Reference Material

Council will ensure that their surveillance systems are operated and managed in accordancewith all relevant industry standards and guidelines including, but not limited to:

• Victorian Ombudsman’s Guidelines for developing Closed Circuit Television policies forVictorian Public Sector Bodies, November 2012.

• Guide to Developing CCTV for Public Safety in Victoria, the Department of Justice,August 2011;

• AS4806 Set-2008 Australian Standard Closed circuit television (CCTV) Part 4: remotevideo;

•

• Surveillance in Public Places, Final Report 18, the Victorian Law Reform Commission,May 2010; and

• Privacy Information Sheet 03.12, Privacy Victoria, March 2012.

RESPONSIBILITY

18 Responsible Officer

To be reviewed

REVIEW

18 Requirement to Review Policy

To be reviewed



Att

ach

men

t1

4.5 Appendix 1

HUMAN RIGHTS CHARTER – ASSESSMENT OFCOMPATIBILITY

In accordance with section 28 of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, thisstatement of compatibility is made with respect to Banyule City Council’s Surveillance in PublicPlaces Policy

This Policy is compatible with the human rights protected by the Charter.

ObjectivesBanyule’s Surveillance in Public Places Policy has been developed to apply to all surveillancesystems operating within Banyule. The policy is based on the Victorian Ombudsman’s ClosedCircuit Television in Public Places Guidelines – November 2012.

Human Rights Assessment

What humanrights areimpacted?

Will any personfeel their rightsare limited andwhy?

What are the interestsyou have to balance?

Is thelimitationreasonable?

What practical solutionsare available to reducethe limitation? If a limitedright is not reasonable,ensure comment madethat the document wasamended so the right iseither not limited orreasonably limited.

1 A right toPrivacyandReputation

Yes. Personscaptured on CCTVfootage may feelthat being filmed isan invasion of theirpersonal privacyand would beconcerned abouthow the footage willbe used and bywhom.

Protection of personalprivacy needs to bebalanced against thecommunity’s expectationof Council to deliver onits City Plan priorities

The City Plan 2013 – 17key directions thatsurveillance canpositively impact include

- develop andpromote,safety andresilience inthecommunity,

- avoid wastegeneration,and

- deliver bestvalue servicesand facilities

Limitation isreasonable asthe wholepurpose of thepolicy is toensure thesafeguard ofpersonalprivacy andthe handling ofpersonalinformation.

The policy puts in placeprotections for thecapture, access, storageand retention of the CCTVto mitigate any breachesof privacy. Access willonly be available forlawful usage.

Item: 6.4 Attachment 1: Safe Schools Program - Senator James Mcgrath


Att

ach

men

t1

6.4

Item: 6.4 Attachment 2: Safe Schools Program - Bill Shorten


Att

ach

men

t2

6.4

Item: 6.4 Attachment 3: Safe Schools Program - Senator Carol Brown


Att

ach

men

t3

6.4

Item: 6.4 Attachment 4: Safe Schools Program - Senator Marise Payne


Att

ach

men

t4

6.4

Item: 6.4 Attachment 5: Safe Schools Program - Department of Education and Training (onbehalf of the Minister for Education and Training and the Minister for Social

Services)


Att

ach

men

t5

6.4

Item: 6.4 Attachment 6: Safe Schools Program - Tanya Plibersek MP


Att

ach

men

t6

6.4

Item: 6.4 Attachment 7: Safe Schools Program - Senator Sarah Hason-Young


Att

ach

men

t7

6.4

Item: 6.4 Attachment 8: Safe Schools Program - Senator Ricky Muir


Att

ach

men

t8

6.4

Item: 6.4 Attachment 9: Safe Schools Program - Senator Eric Abetz


Att

ach

men

t9

6.4

Item: 6.4 Attachment 10: Safe Schools Program - Warren Truss MP


Att

ach

men

t10

6.4

Item: 6.4 Attachment 11: Safe Schools Program - Senator Glen Lazarus


Att

ach

men

t11

6.4

Item: 6.4 Attachment 12: Safe Schools Program - Clive Palmer MP


Att

ach

men

t12

6.4

Item: 6.4 Attachment 13: Safe Schools Program - Senator Fiona Nash


Att

ach

men

t13

6.4

Item: 6.4 Attachment 14: Safe Schools Program - Senator Claire Moore


Att

ach

men

t14

6.4

Item: 6.4 Attachment 15: Safe Schools Program - Julie Owens MP


Att

ach

men

t15

6.4

Item: 6.4 Attachment 16: Banyule Environmental Banyule Environmental AdvisoryCommittee (BEAC) Meeting Notes June 2016


Att

ach

men

t16

6.4

Item: 6.6 Attachment 1: Proposed Planning and Subdivision Fee Changes


Att

ach

men

t1

6.6

Item: 6.6 Attachment 2: Submission on Proposed Planning and Environment (Fees)Regulations and Subdivision (Fees) Regulations


Att

ach

men

t2

6.6

Submission by Banyule City Council with respect tothe proposed Planning and Environment (Fees)Regulations and Subdivision (Fees) Regulations

Council welcomes the review of the planning and subdivision fees as outlined in theRegulatory Impact Statement, and is supportive of a user-pays system with some subsidiesfor single dwellings. Council would suggest that this subsidy also be extended tobusinesses and others conducting small-scale development.

Feedback in relation to the specific items outlined in page 14 of the RIS is as follows:

The proposed fees seek to recover the fullcost to councils (on average), however feesfor permits related to single dwellings andlow value developments are set below thefull cost recovery level. Is it reasonable toapply discounts for these applications? Isthe size of the proposed discountappropriate? Are the development valuethresholds at which they are proposedappropriate? Please explain your views.

Council supports the setting of fees at alevel which will generally provide full costrecovery to councils, so as to result in amore equitable funding of the planningsystem. However, due to relatively high thecost of providing this service for smallermatters when compared to the cost of thedevelopment proposed, it is considered thatdiscounts should be provided for singledwellings up to $1 million in value (ratherthan $2 million as currently proposed) andlow cost developments. Council is of theview that the $186 fee represents anappropriate discount. However, a greaterdiscount should be provided for low cost“other” developments, and would suggest:

• That a fee of $186 be applied todevelopment up to $10,000 across allcategories;

• That consideration be given as to what isan appropriate fee for “other”development with a value of $10,000 -$100,000 (currently no fee is indicated)

It is considered that this represents a moreequitable approach to the provision of adiscount, and will result in lower instances ofitems such as signage being erected withoutthe requisite planning permit.

The proposed fees for applications forsubdivision permits introduce a fee basedon the number of lots to be created. As thedata collected on subdivisions had only asmall number of applications for permitswith more than 100 lots, the department hasrelied on the advice of councils from thestakeholder reference group to propose a

Council supports the submission of theMunicipal Association of Victoria in relationto this matter, noting that it currently doesnot receive a significant number ofapplications exceeding 100 lots.



Att

ach

men

t2

6.6 fee for 100 lot increments. Is this

reasonable? Please explain your views.



Att

ach

men

t2

6.6In recognition that VicSmart offers a

streamlined permit decision process, theproposed planning regulations include newfee categories for VicSmart applications.These are for VicSmart permits:

• for use or development up to $10,000in value, including non-monetary valueapplications. This fee category is setat around 50 per cent of the actualcost to councils; and

• for developments over $10,000 forwhich the fee is set to recover the fullcost.

Bearing in mind that currently VicSmartpermits only relate to low impact application,including minor building or works of up to$50,000, as well as some small subdivisionmatters, are these categories appropriate?

Council supports the discounting of fees forsimple and low-value applications, and theprovision of a step in fees at a developmentcost of $10,000 is considered to beappropriate.

The proposed fee for each satisfactionmatter is $300. What impact would this haveif there are a large number of satisfactionmatters (e.g. conditions on a permit) or thesame matter is considered at differentstages of the development? Please explainyour views.

Council supports the submission of theMunicipal Association of Victoria that thismatter requires clarification. To dateCouncil has not been in the practice ofcharging applicants a fee for mattersrequiring its satisfaction pursuant to a permitcondition, save for the consideration ofamended plans under ‘secondary consent’and requests for extension of time topermits. The consideration and consent ofmatters pursuant to sections of the PlanningScheme and to permit conditions representsa significant amount of work which iscurrently not funded directly by the permitapplicant. However, it is understood thatthere are a number of interpretations of theapplication of the regulation amongstcouncils.

Council supports the quantum of the feeoutlined, and is of the view that asatisfaction fee is most appropriatelycharged on a per-condition, rather than per-matter basis. The requirement to provide afee, including discretion to require paymentof an additional fee where matters are notadequately addressed upon initialsubmission would assist in ensuring thatpermit applicants provide appropriatedocumentation at the outset.



Att

ach

men

t2

6.6 Under regulation 8 of the Subdivision (Fees)

Interim Regulations 2015 (fee for supervisionof works), a council or referral authority maycharge a fee of up to 2.5 per cent of theestimated cost of constructing the workswhen they supervise the construction ofworks. Is the level of this fee appropriate? Isit likely to over-recover costs? Please explainyour views.

Council supports the retention of a fee forsupervision of subdivision works of up to2.5% of the cost of works, however wouldsubmit that:

• It may be appropriate to provide someguidance as to where a lowerrequirement may be appropriate, or toprovide for payment in two or morestages. Council currently experiences arange of costs in supervising works,which is based upon the number of timesstaff are required to attend the site and isnot always reflective of the cost ofdevelopment.

• For councils in established areas, themajority of works being supervised relateto the construction of multi dwellingdevelopments ahead of any approval tosubdivide the land. In thesecircumstances there is no mechanism forcouncil to recover the costs associatedwith the supervision of works. Thisrepresents an inequity based upon thetiming of lodgement of a subdivisionapplication, and it is submitted that someconsideration of these factors should beconsidered in a review of the planningand subdivision fees.

The proposed Regulations retain the currentapproach to fee waivers and rebates; that iscouncils may only provide waivers or rebatesin limited, defined circumstances and will nothave a general discretion to charge a lowerfee. Where the department believes there isa basis for some fee categories to be set atless than full cost recovery to reflectconsiderations of ability to pay, these areincluded within the proposed fee schedules,rather than in the ability of councils to reducefees, to ensure that the approach toaffordability is applied consistently across thestate. Do you agree with the approach?

Council supports the approach outlined in theproposed Regulations.

In addition Council would provide the following:

Fees for multiple simultaneous requests

• Retention of the current system of charging 50% of the scheduled fee for applicationsseeking both use and development approval is considered to be appropriate. Councilwould support this also extending to include satisfaction matters (eg. a combined



Att

ach

men

t2

6.6application for use of land, development at a cost of $250,000 and consent under

Clause 52.06 having a fee of $2182.50, being $1425 plus half of $1213 and half of$300).

• In consideration of the nature of assessment of joint applications for planning schemeamendments and planning permits, it is considered that the discounting of the permitapplication fee by 50% is not appropriate.

Fees for planning scheme amendments

Council generally supports the submission of the Municipal Association of Victoria inrelation to fees for planning scheme amendments, with the following additional comments:

• Council supports the use of the number of submissions as a mechanism for determiningfees associated with a planning scheme amendment. Whilst pro-forma submissionsmay result in a narrower set of issues to be addressed, each submission needs to beaddressed, which requires officer time.

• Council considers that the provision of pre-lodgement fees, or higher fees prior to publicexhibition of an amendment would be appropriate in order to ensure a truly user-payssystem, and that as such Fee Option 2 is preferable to Option 3. For example:

o Council has been conducting ongoing discussions with an owner of a specific parcelof land, with a view to rezoning the land. To date, these discussions have utilised inexcess of 50 hours of officer time, however no amendment request has beenlodged. This represents a significant cost burden on council which will not berecouped if the proponent decides not to proceed.

o Some agency-led amendments may not result in significant numbers ofsubmissions, but raise complex issues which are time consuming to assess.

• As the purpose of the changes in the fees is to ensure that local government isappropriately funded in a user-pays model for its planning functions, the fees charged tolocal government should not rise as a result of the proposed fee increases.

Other requests

• Council supports the setting of a fee as anticipated by section 178A(2)(c) of the Planningand Environment Act 1987. Council has received a number of requests in the previous 12months, and our experience is that consideration of such a request is similar in terms ofwork involved to a request to vary or remove a restrictive covenant, and would submit forthe purposes of ensuring a use-pays system, and also for a simplification of the feestructure, a corresponding fee of 89 fee units ($1,213) should be applied.

• Council’s experience is that a request for a Certificate of Compliance involves significantlymore work than the 2.5 hours anticipated within the RIS, and that officer time taken issimilar to an application for a planning permit for Change of Use. Requests also oftennecessitate Council obtaining specialised legal advice. It is suggested that a fee of 89 feeunits ($1,213) should be applied, as being both reflective of the work involved for counciland providing a more simplified fee structure for users.

Subdivision fees

Council would support combining the Statement of Compliance fee with the Certificationapplication fee, so as to minimise administrative costs to both applicants and councils.

Service improvements



Att

ach

men

t2

6.6 The increase in planning fees foreshadowed by the RIS would allow Council to implement a

number of service improvements, including:

• Further developing the ability for planning applications to be lodged online and a shifttowards electronic processing of applications. This has the potential to save applicantsboth time and money in the processing of applications.

• An ability to provide more targeted pre-application advice to clients through theappointment of additional staff.

• The provision of more support staff so as to reduce administrative delays in the planningprocess.

• The provision of additional resources to areas of Council directly impacted by planning andsubdivision applications. This may include engineering services, supervision of works, andenforcement.

Fee expiry and review

Council supports a continued review of fees, and in particular completion of the review andpublication of new fees well in advance of the proposed 2026 expiry of the fees currentlybeing considered.