banyule council meeting 17 february 2014 agenda

Ordinary Meeting of Council Council Chambers, Service Centre

275 Upper Heidelberg Road, Ivanhoe

17 February 2014 commencing at 7.45

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

AGENDA

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

Apologies and Leave of Absence

Confirmation of Minutes Ordinary Meeting of Council held 3 February 2014

Disclosure of Interests

1. Petitions Nil

REPORTS:

2. People – Community Strengthening and Support Nil

3. Planet – Environmental Sustainability 3.1 Municipal Wide Flood Mitigation Strategy ............................................................... 3

4. Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment 4.1 Potential parking demand changes in Heildelberg West, Bellfield

and Heidelberg Heights ........................................................................................ 11 4.2 Ivanhoe Grammar School Resident Interest Group - Replacement

Member ................................................................................................................ 18

AGENDA (Cont’d)

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 17 February 2014

4.3 Subdivision at 2 Orr Lane and 1 & 1A Cressy Street and Reserve Status of Harrington Reserve Montmorency. ........................................................ 22

5. Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life 5.1 Ward Fund Allocations .......................................................................................... 33

6. Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely 6.1 Assembly of Councillors ........................................................................................ 37

7. Sealing of Documents Nil

8. Notices of Motion 8.1 Support for Banyule's Multicultural Communities .................................................. 41 8.2 Transport - Project 10,000 .................................................................................... 43 8.3 State Election 2014 Candidate Debate - Public Meeting with

Melbourne Transport Forum ................................................................................. 46 8.4 Main Road and Para Road Intersection, Lower Plenty - Pedestrian

Crossing Concerns ............................................................................................... 48

9. General Business

10. Urgent Business

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

11. Confidential Matters 11.1 Any other matter which the Council or special committee considers

would prejudice the Council or any person 11.2 Contractual matters 11.3 Contractual matters 11.4 Contractual matters 11.5 Contractual matters 11.6 Any other matter which the Council or special committee considers

would prejudice the Council or any person

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

Closure of Meeting

3.1

Planet – Environmental Sustainability


3.1 MUNICIPAL WIDE FLOOD MITIGATION STRATEGY

Author: Tim Partridge - Team Leader Developments & Drainage, City

Development

File: F2013/619 SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to introduce Council to a municipal stormwater mitigation strategy. The report discusses:

The major causes of property inundation in Banyule. The findings of a Stormwater Capacity Analysis and Municipal Wide Flood

Mitigation study which recommends a shortlist of costed and prioritised stormwater mitigation works across 8 major drainage catchments and 60 individual locations.

The appropriateness of investing in stormwater mitigation works to address stormwater inundation associated with minor rainfall events.

The appropriateness of the development and implementation of a Special Building Overlay into the Banyule Planning Scheme to better plan for development in areas identified in the Municipal Wide Flood Mitigation study.

OFFICER DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST

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

CITY PLAN

This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction to “conserve water and improve stormwater quality and impact”.

BACKGROUND

In 2012 Banyule City Council in consultation with Melbourne Water developed the Banyule Flood Management Plan to implement the objectives of the Port Phillip and Westernport Region Flood Management and Drainage Strategy (Melbourne Water, 2007). The Banyule Flood Management Plan aims to assist the Banyule City Council and Melbourne Water in undertaking catchment management responsibilities and ensuring that suitable measures have been (or are being) implemented where possible to manage the existing risks associated with overland stormwater flows. The Banyule Flood Management Plan identified a series of key improvement plan actions to reduce stormwater inundation risk. Some of the key actions of that plan are as follows;

3.1

Planet – Environmental Sustainability MUNICIPAL WIDE FLOOD MITIGATION STRATEGY cont’d


Melbourne Water and Banyule City Council to explore opportunities for joint flood

mapping. Banyule City Council complete pilot flood modelling and mapping studies of

priority areas, and establish a long term flood modelling program. BCC to assess potential use of flood modelling outputs to inform development of Planning Scheme flood overlays.

Banyule City Council review existing Banyule Planning Scheme flood overlays based on existing information.

Banyule City Council prepare a business case to assess requirements for additional funding for drainage upgrades.

Develop a community education program. The Municipal Wide Flood Mitigation Study was undertaken to address these key actions.

CURRENT CAUSES OF INUNDATION IN BANYULE

In a conventional drainage network, the minor drainage system is usually an underground pipeline with sufficient capacity to contain runoff from frequent, low rainfall intensity storms. The minor network is intended to prevent stormwater entering properties and limit the frequency and quantity of surface water on roadways to a level that is safe and acceptable to the community. The minor network is typically designed to cater for flows up to a five (5) year Average Recurrence Interval (ARI). By current best practice the 5 year ARI is widely considered the absolute minimum standard for local drainage design and protection. The major drainage system is designed to cater for infrequent higher intensity storms that produce higher peak flows than that for which the minor drainage system has been designed. During a 100 year rainfall event, stormwater is expected to flow overland and the major drainage system is designed to convey these flows safely. A roadway, a drainage channel in a reserve, a pipeline or a combination of the above may form part of the 100 year drainage system. The majority of the underground drainage network that serves the Banyule community has been built up over many years under the supervision of various past authorities including the former City of Heidelberg, the former Shire of Diamond Valley and the former Shire of Eltham. The standards at which drainage capacity was designed for have also varied widely generally according to the age of the system. There are limited records which detail exactly what those capacity standards may have been at any given time in the past. One of the major causes of property inundation in older subdivisions is that drainage systems constructed in areas developed before the late 1970s were not designed with appropriate overland flow paths for stormwater generated by major rainfall events, or those rainfall events beyond the 5 year ARI classification. Typically road alignments and residential layouts are such that dwellings are located in low points of gullies where it would have been more suitable for a roadway or drainage reserve. In other words, there is no major drainage system. After major widespread flooding in 1973, 1974 and 1975, the Victorian Government introduced the Drainage of Land Act in 1975 (later replaced by the Water Act 1989),

3.1



which enabled authorities to control development on flood-prone land by the end of that decade. Subdivisions developed under the new standards incorporated drainage systems that could safely accommodate overland flows from a 100-year storm event. The storms of December 2003 and December 2011 caused some of the worst flash flooding the City of Banyule and the surrounding region has experienced. Many of the worst affected areas were those established before the late 1970s.

CATCHMENT ANALYSIS

In order to help establish the current capacity of Councils underground drainage network, Council put aside funds in its 2012/2013 budget to commence a study into the network capacity and to establish which parts of the existing Banyule drainage network are most at risk from the effect of overland stormwater flow. The purpose of the study was to identify the parts of the network that experience overland stormwater flows during minor rainfall events (up to a 1 in 5 year classification by today’s standards) as well as areas which experience overland stormwater flows during major rainfall events (beyond the 5 year ARI and up to a 1 in 100 year classification). Two sets of overland stormwater mapping data have been produced, the 5 year inundation extents and the 100 year inundation extents. These maps are shown in Attachment A. These plans are draft issue and are reduced in quality due to their size. A Municipal Wide Flood Mitigation Study was commissioned in November 2013 to assess the stormwater mapping data and identify locations where the drainage network was shown to have insufficient capacity by today’s minimum standards. This document forms Attachment B and the findings of this assessment are discussed further. Appendices to this document are not currently available pending a review of this data by the regional drainage authority, Melbourne Water. MINOR DRAINAGE SYSTEM (UNDERGROUND DRAINAGE NETWORK) While there is limited obligations on Council to upgrade the existing drainage network beyond the current capacity, particularly for those networks established prior to the late 1970’s, it is considered reasonable that Council endeavour to provide 5 year stormwater protection to residential properties in line with current industry accepted minimum standards. This consideration must have regard to resource considerations and the priorities identified in the Flood Mitigation Assessment. Areas that have been identified as experiencing moderate to high overland stormwater flows during minor rainfall events (up to a 1 in 5 year classification) have been short listed for further investigation to determine what measures are needed to mitigate or possibly eliminate the occurrence of overland flows affecting properties and habitable dwellings in line with Councils desirable minimum standard for drainage protection. A total of 60 locations have been identified of varying size and severity. A preliminary total cost of these mitigation works is $17.8 million. These locations are shown in the Flood Mitigation Assessment under Section 4 - Summary, and have been included in this report separately as Attachment C.

3.1



The investigation work that has been undertaken thus far has provided Council with a short list of locations that are susceptible to inundation during minor rainfall events and prioritised based on their relative cost-benefit ratings. It is intended that a priority list will evolve as more information is collected relative to the site conditions, floor level surveys and more detailed assessment of the full benefit of mitigation works. It is important to note that while some of these locations identified in the priority list score highly in terms of the cost-benefit rating, the full benefits of mitigation works may not be realised due to downstream capacity constraints. The ability of the Council drainage network to convey stormwater flows may be limited by the downstream capacity of the receiving stream, creek or Melbourne Water underground drainage network, therefore rendering any mitigation works at these locations as ineffective. The conditions at each location need to be fully understood through detailed hydraulic modelling of each mitigation scenario before Council commits to mitigation works. FUNDING IMPLICATIONS AND TIMELINES Table 1.1 outlines the recommended minimum funding allocation per budget cycle for stormwater drainage mitigation works over the next ten year capital works program. This structure requires funding to be made available over a two (2) year period involving a planning, design and investigation component (Stage 1) and an implementation / construction stage for the following year (Stage 2). Table 1.1

Capital Works Budget Item Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

2014/2015 2015/2016 2016/2017 2017/2018 2018/2019

Investigation, Design and Development of mitigation works in line with priority listing in as identified in Attachment C

$40,000.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00

Construction of Stormwater Mitigation works in line with priority listing in as identified in Attachment C

$100,000.00 $400,000.00 $400,000.00 $400,000.00 $400,000.00

Capital Works Budget Item Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10

2019/2020 2020/2021 2021/2022 2022/2023 2023/2024

Investigation, Design and Development of mitigation works in line with priority listing in as identified in Attachment C

$40,000.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00

Construction of Stormwater Mitigation works in line with priority listing in as identified in Attachment C

$400,000.00 $400,000.00 $400,000.00 $400,000.00 $400,000.00

Where individual project costs exceed the proposed annual funding contribution, it is proposed to stage projects over multiple years.

3.1



MAJOR DRAINAGE SYSTEM (UNDERGROUND DRAINAGE NETWORK) As recent storm events of significance have shown us, storms approaching 1 in 100 year magnitude produce enormous amount of water that can have devastating consequences. The sheer volume of water that is generated by a 100 year storm event makes it practically impossible to design an underground system with enough capacity to capture and convey these flows within the local drainage network. In addition, the economic benefit of investing in such infrastructure that theoretically will only be utilised on average once every 100 years is the reason the majority of all local drainage networks are not designed for 100 year storm event capacity. Instead, subdivision designers and planners utilise natural features of the land, roadways, parklands and drainage reserves to convey these huge flows. Unfortunately the practice of considering the 100 year storm event during subdivision design was not prevalent prior to the late 1970’s. Existing subdivisions could be ‘retrofitted’ with a drainage system that has capacity for a 100 year storm event, however this would involve considerable expense, likely compulsory acquisition of land for creation of overland drainage paths, reserves or redevelopment and take many years to implement. It is considered that addressing the 100 year stormwater inundation risk legacy of past subdivision design through mitigation works is not as cost-effective as ensuring the risks are addressed through the planning process when these properties are re-developed. The obvious drawback to this solution is that properties that are currently susceptible to inundation during large storm events will remain so until a time that they are redeveloped. Notwithstanding the above, it should be noted that any mitigation works that reduce or eliminate the 5 year inundation extents, will also have a positive effect on reducing the 1 in 100 year inundation extents in the same location. Areas that have been identified as experiencing overland stormwater flows during major rainfall events (those beyond the 5 year ARI and up to a 1 in 100 year classification) should be considered for inclusion in a Special Building Overlay (SBO) within the Banyule Planning Scheme. The SBO will complement the existing Melbourne Water SBO in the Banyule Planning Scheme and provide Council with a mechanism to guide appropriate outcomes for redevelopment of properties within known overland stormwater flow areas through a Planning Permit process. SPECIAL BUILDING OVERLAY PROCESS The implementation of a Special Building Overlay is a lengthy process that could take many years to fully implement. This process will involve consultation with property owners and other stakeholders including the regional catchment management authority Melbourne Water. As a key stakeholder to the overall successful implementation of a Special Building Overlay, Melbourne Water must firstly review the stormwater mapping methodology and data that has been prepared before Council can fully engage with other affected stakeholders.

3.1



This review process may involve further refinement of the overland stormwater mapping data.

PROPOSED CONSULTATION

Community consultation is proposed to include: Development of key stormwater education messages that are geographically

targeted towards effected residents and reinforced on a regular basis. This would include updates in relation to mitigation works that Council is undertaking or planning to undertake.

Specific notification in relation to properties that will be included in the Special Building Overlay.

CONCLUSION

It is considered appropriate that Council continue to progress the actions set out in the Banyule Flood Management Plan. The protection of properties which are currently susceptible to water ponding and stormwater overland flows can be enhanced through: Augmentation of the drainage network in accordance with the areas identified

in the Flood Mitigation Assessment. Preparation of a Special Building Overlay. An ongoing education program for residents in identified properties. RECOMMENDATION

That Council,

1. Consider funding of stormwater mitigation works at locations identified in Attachment C of this report as part of annual capital works programs including a future program within the 10 year capital plan.

2. Investigate the preparation of a Special Building Overlay for future inclusion in the Banyule Planning Scheme to guide more appropriate development within stormwater inundation areas.

3. Continue discussions with stakeholders including Melbourne Water in relation to the municipal wide stormwater mapping and the implications of a Special Building Overlay.

4. Support an ongoing education program commencing in 2014/2015 for

residents in identified properties including pre-consultation for the Special Building Overlay.

3.1



ATTACHMENTS No. Title Page 1 Attachment A - 5 & 100 Year ARI Stormwater Inundation Extents 53 2 Attachment B - Municipal Wide Flood Mitigation Assessment 69 3 Attachment C - Municipal Wide Flood Mitigation Assessment - Section 4 103

4.1

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment


4.1 POTENTIAL PARKING DEMAND CHANGES IN HEILDELBERG WEST, BELLFIELD AND HEIDELBERG HEIGHTS

Author: Ana Caicedo - Project Engineer, City Development

Ward: Olympia


The Northern Melbourne Institute of TAFE (NMIT) has advised Council that it will commence charging for the use of its car park at its Heidelberg campus, located on the corner of Bell Street and Waterdale Road, Heidelberg West. With the installation of paid parking at the NMIT campus it is likely that a significant parking displacement by NMIT students and staff will occur if alternate free all day parking remains available in areas such as the Bell Street Mall and the nearby streets. Consequently, it is suggested that subject to further consultation with the Bell Street Mall traders association, the current parking restrictions in the Bell Street Mall car park are revised to maximise parking for the Bell Street Mall customers and traders. In addition, consultation will be undertaken to inform surrounding local residents of NMIT’s paid parking proposal and the potential parking impact this may have in their area. During consultation, Council will gain an understanding whether the community requires the parking restrictions in the area to be reviewed to minimise the loss of parking for residents prior to the implementation of NMIT’s paid parking scheme. OFFICER DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST


CITY PLAN

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

BACKGROUND

The Northern Melbourne Institute of TAFE (NMIT) has approached Council to inform of changes that will be implemented to the management of their parking facilities in all campuses. This includes the Heidelberg campus on the corner of Bell Street and Waterdale Road, Heidelberg West. Figure 1 highlights the location of the NMIT Campus in Heidelberg.

4.1

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment POTENTIAL PARKING DEMAND CHANGES IN HEILDELBERG WEST, BELLFIELD AND HEIDELBERG HEIGHTS cont’d


From July 2014, the use of the car park at NMIT will be charged to all users including staff and students. The cost for the first 5 hours will be $2.80, and the daily fee will be $4.80. Annual and 6 month permits will also be available for staff and students.

Locality Plan

Figure 1: Locality Plan

CURRENT PARKING ARRANGEMENTS

The NMIT campus currently accommodates around 413 parking spaces. These spaces are available and signed for a number of uses. In 2012, parking surveys of the NMIT campus showed that parking occupancy was as high as 91%. Recent anecdotal advice suggests this has not changed. Discussions with NMIT staff have highlighted that current parking demand on site is high from around 8am through to 3-4pm most teaching days; in line with the teaching program. The surrounding commercial area west to the NMIT campus includes two major car parking areas: the Bell Street Mall car park with around 314 spaces; and the Aldi car park with approximately 140 spaces. Additionally, the angled car parking bay along Coomalie Crescent has the capacity to accommodate 72 vehicles. The Bell Street Mall car park currently has the following car parking restrictions in place:

2-hour parking in the area at the corner of Bell Street and Oriel Road, unrestricted parking in the areas close to Tobruk Avenue, and 4-hour parking restrictions in all other car parking areas.

4.1



The angled parking bays along Coomalie Crescent, between Bell Street and Tobruk Avenue have a 4-hour parking restriction in place. Refer to Attachment 1 for existing parking restrictions in the area. Although no parking bays are marked in the area, it is estimated that approximately 206 spaces are available for on street parking in residential areas. At the moment, the residential area west to Waterdale Road does not have any timed parking restrictions in place, while some streets in the residential area east to Waterdale Road have 2-hour parking restrictions during weekdays. Parking Occupancy Surveys Parking occupation surveys were conducted between 18 September 2012 and 20 September 2012, when NMIT’s officers first contacted Council regarding their intentions to introduce paid parking in the Heidelberg Campus. Figure 2 shows the areas where the survey was conducted. For the full survey results, please refer to Attachment 2.

Figure 2. Parking survey areas

The parking occupancy in residential areas was the lowest with 12%, while the parking occupancy for the NMIT parking area was the highest at 82% of the spaces occupied over the survey period. The commercial areas had an average occupancy rate of 48%.

4.1



Although no parking occupancy data is available for the Aldi car park on the corner of Bell Street and Oriel Road, discussions with the Bell Street Mall traders association and anecdotal evidence suggests that its occupancy rate is around 40%-50%. It should be noted that this is a private car park and Banyule City Council has no authority over parking within this car park. It is understood that the Bell Street Mall traders association has had discussions with Aldi regarding NMIT’s proposal.

NMIT PARKING PROPOSAL

NMIT is proposing to charge for the use of all spaces on the campus. Students, staff and visitors will be required to pay for parking onsite. Six month and annual permits will be available, nevertheless given the nature and length of the courses offered at NMIT it is unlikely that a large amount of the car park users will apply for one. Payment will be made via phone or via a small number of onsite payment machines. Annual permits will also be available for staff and students. NMIT will be enforcing the car park via a mobile number plate recognition system.

LIKELY IMPACTS OF PAID PARKING INTRODUCTION

Bell Street Mall Car Park Following the installation of paid parking at the NMIT campus, the free parking surrounding NMIT campus at Bell Street Mall and residential streets will be an attractive alternative to paid parking for NMIT staff and students. Therefore it is likely that significant parking displacement will occur from the NMIT car park. This is likely to impact on parking demand and availability at the adjacent Bell Street Mall Shopping Centre and nearby residential streets. It is anticipated that if no alterations are made to the existing parking restrictions near to the NMIT campus staff and students will seek to utilise these areas to park in lieu of the NMIT paid parking areas. This is not considered to be desirable for a number of reasons, such as:

1. Parking at NMIT is provided to cater for staff and students in line with planning requirements and should be utilised;

2. The parking at the adjacent commercial areas is provided for visitors and traders; and

3. On-street parking availability for residents and their visitors will be reduced. With the current parking arrangement, the traders from the Bell Street Mall use the unrestricted parking spaces inside the mall car park. If the restrictions in these areas remain unchanged it is expected that NMIT students and staff will seek to use these spaces once the paid parking scheme is implemented. In turn pushing the traders vehicles into residential streets, where no parking restrictions currently apply. To reduce the attractiveness of the area to potential visitors to the NMIT and taking into account that the occupation rate of the Bell Street car park is low (less than 60%), it is suggested that a 3-hour parking restriction be installed in the unrestricted parking areas of The Mall.

4.1



Council does not normally support trader permits as attached in ‘Banyule’s Activity Centre Car Parking Policy’. However, given the proximity of the large NMIT campus and the implementation of the paid parking scheme at the facility, it is suggested that the Bell Street Mall traders association manage a limited number of parking permits that allow traders and employees of the Mall to be exempt from the restrictions in the area. These permits are to be administered by the traders association in consultation with Banyule City Council’s Local Laws and Transport Departments. Council will be given the opportunity to consider any future variations recommended by officers to this scheme. With the aim of securing parking for visitors to the Bell Street Mall, it is recommended that the existing 4-hour parking restrictions be changed to 2-hour parking restrictions, and that the 2-hour parking restrictions are modified to allow for 1-hour parking (see Table 2). This will improve opportunities for enforcement and further discourage NMIT staff and students from parking in the area. Please refer to Attachment 3 to see the proposed parking restrictions in the area. Table 2. Existing and proposed parking restriction in the Bell Street Mall car park area

EXISTING RESTRICTIONS PROPOSED RESTRICTIONS

No Restrictions

3-hour Parking Monday to Friday 9am to 6pm (Exceptions apply)

4-hour Parking Monday to Friday 9am to 6pm




On 27th November 2013, Council staff had a meeting with traders association representatives, Ward Councillor and NMIT representatives to discuss the potential impacts of proposed NMIT parking scheme and mitigation methods to retain parking for traders and the Bell Street Mall customers. All attendees agreed that the implementation of parking restrictions in the Bell Street Mall car park would be the most desirable and amicable approach. Further consultation will be undertaken with the Bell Street Mall traders Association in order to discuss the details of the parking restrictions including operation times, days, and parking bays to be affected. Residential Streets It is envisaged that once paid parking is introduced at NMIT and parking restrictions are modified and introduced at the Bell Street Mall car park, parking occupancy in the surrounding residential streets will increase significantly. Consultation will be undertaken informing surrounding local residents of NMIT’s paid parking proposal and the potential parking impact this may have in their area. Residents will be informed of Council’s mechanisms to alleviate these effects, where Council will gain an understanding as to whether the community would require the

4.1



parking restrictions in the area be reviewed to minimise the loss of parking for residents prior to the implementation of NMIT’s paid parking scheme.

As part of the consultation process, residents will be informed that should parking restrictions be implemented, residents can be exempt from the restrictions should they purchase a residential parking permit as detailed in Banyule’s Residential Parking Permit Policy.

RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS

Enforcement Currently, parking officers enforce the parking restrictions throughout the municipality especially in areas where the demand for parking spaces is high and parking turnover must be encouraged. The introduction of the paid parking scheme in the NMIT campus and the possible modification of parking arrangements in the Bell Street Mall car park should be supported by an increase of patrolling during the parking restriction times. Parking restriction sign modifications costs The existing parking restriction signs will need to be removed and new signs will be installed once the introduction and modification of parking restrictions in the Bell Street Mall car park take place. Taking into account the extent of the area and the number of signs needed to cover the zone, it is estimated that this process will cost approximately $2,500. The cost associated with the installation of parking restrictions in residential streets will be ascertained following the consultation process with residents as mentioned above. Customer enquiries management An increase in the number of customer enquiries related to parking restrictions implementation investigations is anticipated. As stated, it is recommended that letters are circularised to all properties surrounding the NMIT Heidelberg Campus. It is expected that this action will reduce the number of community enquiries regarding the changes about to take place in the area and will aim to clarify Council’s process when investigating the implementation of parking restrictions.

CONCLUSION

It is envisaged that once paid parking is introduced at NMIT and parking restrictions modified and introduced at the Bell Street Mall car park, parking occupancy in the surrounding residential streets will increase significantly. Therefore following consultation with the traders association, it is proposed that the increase in the parking restrictions in the Bell Street Mall car park are implemented as outlined in Table 2. In addition, consultation will be undertaken to inform surrounding local residents of: NMIT’s paid parking proposal;

4.1



the potential parking impact this may have in their area; and establish whether the community would desire parking restrictions in the area be

reviewed, possibly increased to minimise the loss of parking for residents prior to the implementation of NMIT’s paid parking scheme.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Consult with the Bell Street Mall traders association to consider the modification of parking at the Bell Street Mall and subject to support from the Bell Street Traders Association, implement the changes which include: a) The existing 4-hour parking restrictions at the Bell Street Mall car park to

be 2-hour restrictions. Days and times of restrictions to remain unchanged.

b) The existing 2-hour parking restrictions at the Bell Street Mall car park to be 1-hour restrictions. Days and times of restrictions to remain unchanged.

c) Install parking restrictions at the existing unrestricted parking areas of the Bell Street Mall car park to be 3-hour parking, Monday to Friday, 9am to 6pm. Exceptions to apply to vehicles holding a Bell Street Mall staff parking permit.

2. Authorise the administration of traders parking permits by the Bell Street Mall

Traders Association in consultation with Council’s Local Laws department.

3. Consult with residents in the area surrounding the Northern Melbourne Institute of TAFE Heidelberg campus regarding the requirement for restrictions in their street.

4. Monitor the parking availability in the area surrounding the Northern Melbourne Institute of TAFE Heidelberg Campus after the implementation of the parking charging scheme inside its campus.

ATTACHMENTS No. Title Page 1 Existing car parking restrictions 110 2 NMIT Car Parking Results 111 3 Proposed car parking restrictions 112

4.2



4.2 IVANHOE GRAMMAR SCHOOL RESIDENT INTEREST GROUP - REPLACEMENT MEMBER

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

Ward: Griffin

File: P777/1999 SUMMARY

This report relates to the selection of a replacement resident due to a resignation from the Ivanhoe Grammar School Resident Interest Group who represented residents from the east precinct.

Planning Permit Application: P777/1999

Development Planner: Andy Wilson

Address: 41 The Ridgeway, Ivanhoe

Proposal: Development Plan approval

Existing Use/Development: Ivanhoe Grammar School

Applicant: Ratio Consultants

Zoning: Residential 1 Zone

Overlays: HO69, ESO1, ESO4, DPO4, LSIO, SLO2, VPO3,

Ward: Griffin This report outlines a recommendation to appoint a replacement resident to join the Ivanhoe Grammar School Resident Interest Group following the resignation of a member of the group from the east of the school. This will ensure the number of residents on the group remains 10 and a balance is maintained of at least three residents from the south, east and west.

OFFICER DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST


BACKGROUND/HISTORY

At its ordinary meeting of 26 August 2013, Council resolved (amongst other things) that:

An Expression of Interest process be undertaken for the Resident Interest Group, whereby all submitters, attendees of the consultation session and owner / occupiers previously contacted in this Development Plan approval process be given an opportunity to nominate. The Resident Interest Group

4.2

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment IVANHOE GRAMMAR SCHOOL RESIDENT INTEREST GROUP - REPLACEMENT MEMBER cont’d


is to be made up of six people, with selection to be two persons per general geographic area to the west, south and east of the school;

In addition, at its ordinary meeting of 23 September 2013, Council resolved (amongst other things) that:

The proposed resident interest group include 10 residents instead of the 6 initially proposed

4.2



Figure 1: Locality Plan

Following the Council resolution of 26 August 2013, an Expression of Interest process was undertaken for the Resident Interest Group, whereby all submitters, attendees of the consultation session and owner / occupiers previously contacted in this Development Plan approval process were given an opportunity to nominate. As a result, in excess of 40 submissions were received.

To assist with the process of selection, those who submitted were then given an opportunity to provide a written statement about themselves to indicate their suitability to represent the wider community on the issues raised by residents. A number of residents took the opportunity to provide a written statement about themselves. Residents who provided a written statement were then shortlisted and grouped according to their geographical location. Residents were also filtered based on the skills they were willing to contribute to the group, the level of participation they have made to the consultation process thus far, ability to represent the views of the wider community and achieving a gender balance. In addition it is considered that there should be a mix of residents who were and were not part of the previous ‘Working Group’.

Through this selection process, Council selected 10 residents for inclusion within the Ivanhoe Grammar School, Resident Interest Group at its meeting on 16 December 2013. The group has met three times to date with Council officers and representatives of Ivanhoe Grammar School to discuss matters relating to the proposed Development Plan.

SELECTION OF A REPLACEMENT RESIDENT

Following the same process, a new resident should be selected from the general geographical region to the east of the school. This will ensure that the total number of residents remains 10 and that at least three residents from the east are included.

A replacement resident should be selected from the group of residents who previously submitted an Expression of Interest to join the group and who have submitted a written statement about themselves indicating their suitability to represent the wider community and who have outlined the skills and background that they are willing to offer to the group. Each of the residents who had initially made an Expression of Interest and who reside within the general geographical region to the east were recently contacted to determine if they were still interested to join the group. Only residents who confirmed their ongoing interest have been considered. For privacy reasons the list of candidates for consideration have been circulated separately to Councillors. The final candidate selected will be included in the Council resolution.

It is noted that residents who have not been nominated will still have the ability to represent themselves through the usual consultation and assessment process. This is particularly relevant for those residents who are more immediately affected by the changes proposed in the Development Plan. It is expected that those residents will

4.2



be given substantial opportunities to discuss key concerns with Council officers throughout the process.

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the two Council resolutions of 26 August 2013 and 23 September 2013, a total of 10 residents from the general geographical areas to the East, South and West are to be selected to form a Resident Interest Group. Therefore a replacement resident should be selected to ensure 10 residents remain on the group and that at least three residents are selected from the general geographical area to the east. In addition the resident selected should be based on the skills they are willing to contribute to the group, the level of participation they have made to the consultation process thus far, ability to represent the views of the wider community, achieving a gender balance and resulting in a mix of residents who were and were not part of the previous Ivanhoe Grammar Development Plan ‘Working Group’ RECOMMENDATION

That Council select a replacement resident (to be confirmed at the meeting) from the general geographical area to the east and based on the skills they are willing to contribute to the group, the level of participation they have made to the consultation process thus far, ability to represent the views of the wider community, achieving a gender balance and resulting in a mix of residents who were and were not part of the previous Ivanhoe Grammar Development Plan Working Group.

ATTACHMENTS Nil

4.3



4.3 SUBDIVISION AT 2 ORR LANE AND 1 & 1A CRESSY STREET AND RESERVE STATUS OF HARRINGTON RESERVE MONTMORENCY.

Author: Georgia Coulson - Planning Technical Officer, City Development

Ward: Hawdon

File: P1087/13, P1088/13 & P1089/13 SUMMARY

This report considers a number of permit issues sought by Council in relation to two separate matters. The first matter relates to land at 2 Orr Lane, 1 and 1A Cressy Street Montmorency where both a three lot and two lot subdivision is necessary to enable the sale of land (previously considered by Council). The second matter relates to land at 20 Sackville Street known as Harrington Reserve. The proposed changes to Harrington Reserve is to accurately reflect Orr Lane as a road reserve on title and ‘tidy up’ a number of redundant easements. OFFICER DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST


CITY PLAN

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

Subdivision at Orr Lane and 1 & 1A Cressy Street

Figure 1 below depicts land at 2 Orr Lane, 1 and 1A Cressy Street Montmorency where a three and two lot subdivision is proposed.

4.3

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment SUBDIVISION AT 2 ORR LANE AND 1 & 1A CRESSY STREET AND RESERVE STATUS OF HARRINGTON RESERVE MONTMORENCY. cont’d


Figure 1: 2 Orr Lane, 1 and 1A Cressy Street Montmorency

Figure 2: Step 1 (Three Lot Subdivision) Figure 3: Step 2 (Two lot subdivision)

In relation to the sequence of subdivisions proposed, figure 2 shows the proposed lot boundaries for the three lot subdivision. This plan creates Orr lane as Road on title, and creates new lots to enable the sale of the land. Figure 3 shows the proposed lot boundaries for the two lot subdivision which in turn results in a section of discontinued road (purple in the above map) being consolidated with the existing lot at 1 Cressy Street (blue in the above map).

4.3



Figure 4: Step 3 (Consolidation) Figure 5: Final lot configuration

Figure 4 shows the newly configured lot to be known as 1 Orr Lane which will be sold by Council and the final lot configuration as a result of the subdivision is shown in figure 5 which enables the sale of the land. Land outside of the three resulting lots will be identified as Road Reserve. Detailed consideration of the proposal is included in Attachment 1.

Reserve Status of Harington Reserve

Figure 6 - P1089/13 - 20 Sackville Street Montmorency (known as Harrington Reserve)

Currently the land known as Harrington Reserve (20 Sackville Street) is set aside on title as a Drainage, Sewerage and Park Reserve. Part of this reserve has 004Frr

4.3



Lane constructed over it. It is proposed to remove the Reserve status from this Reserve to enable the creation of Road R1 on PS 712884M (Attachment 4). This Road R1 will be created over the existing road known as Orr Lane. Reserve No. 2 will then be created to cover the remainder of the existing reserve known as Harrington Reserve.

There are a number of redundant easements which are to be removed in accordance with the details on the attached Plan of Removal of Easement (Attachment 5). Most of these easements are being replaced where relevant drains and sewers have been located to ensure that existing assets are protected.

BACKGROUND

It was resolved at the Ordinary Council Meeting on 21 October 2013 that the land known as no’s 1 & 2 Orr Lane are surplus to Council’s and the Community’s needs, therefore authorisation was given by Council for the signing and sealing of the necessary documentation to effect the sale and transfer of the land at the appropriate time. Subsequently three planning applications have been lodged to facilitate the sale of this land and formalise Orr lane as road on title.

HUMAN RIGHTS CHARTER

In developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered to determine if it raises any human rights issues. In particular, whether the scope of any human right established by the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities is in any way limited, restricted or interfered with by the recommendations contained in this report. It is considered that the subject matter does not raise any human rights issues. PLANNING CONTROLS Control Clause Public Conservation and Resource Zone 36.03 Residential 1 Zone 32.01 Design and Development Overlay (DDO8) 43.02 Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO5) 42.02

POLICIES CONSIDERED Policy Clause State Planning Policy Framework Settlement 11 Local Planning Policy Framework Land Use – Housing, Commercial 21.04 Neighbourhood Character Policy 22.02

4.3



PUBLIC NOTIFICATION The applications were advertised by mail to adjoining property owners and occupiers. A total of 3 objections have been received for the application affecting Harrington Reserve and the removal of its Reserve Status (P1089/13). Grounds of objection are summarised as follows:

Concern that the removal of easements on Harrington Reserve is unnecessary and could lead to future subdivision of the site.

Lack of clarity of process, community consultation and notification. Lack of definition regarding the change to Orr lane. The proposal of the application is misleading as it does not reference the

proposed replacement of the Drainage and Sewerage easement over the asset.

CONSULTATION

A consultation meeting was held on 23 December 2013 with the three objectors and Council officers. Further discussions were held at this meeting, and clarification of the process was provided. Further consultation by written correspondence was undertaken to all residents originally notified of the application for P1089/13 and the three objectors to provide clarity as to the current zoning of the land and Council’s intention to ensure that this remains parkland into the future. No objections have been withdrawn as a result of the consultation process however the objectors indicated a better understanding of the proposal and Council’s intentions. REFERRAL COMMENTS The applications were referred to the relevant Referral Authorities, who had no objection to the proposals subject to conditions. The application was also internally referred to Council’s Engineering Department whom had no objection to any proposal and required no conditions to be included on the permit.

RESPONSE TO POLICY FRAMEWORK

It is considered that the character of the area will be maintained and as such the proposal is consistent with State and Local Policy.

TECHNICAL CONSIDERATION

P1088/2013– Two Lot Subdivision & P1087/2013– Three Lot Subdivision The proposed subdivision of this land will result in the re-subdivision of the three lots and section of discontinued Road located on the corner of Cressy Street and Orr Lane. The proposed changes are not considered to cause any material detriment to any person and formalises the access arrangements for the residential dwelling at 1 Cressy Street Montmorency.

4.3



The land to be known as 1 Orr Lane is vacant land that may be sold at a future time. As resolved at the Ordinary Council meeting on 21 October 2013, the contract of sale for No. 1 Orr ( Lot 2 on PS712879E) land will require the purchaser to enter into a Section 173 Agreement restricting any future residential development of the land to no more than one dwelling. It is further noted that the lot is less than 500m2 in size therefore the construction of any dwelling on this site will trigger the need for a planning permit. It is not considered appropriate to require any further restrictions on this Lot as the relevant considerations will be captured in a future planning permit application. The contract of sale for No.2 Orr Lane ( Lot 1 on PS712879E) (existing residential dwelling) will also require the purchaser to enter into a Section 173 Agreement restricting any future residential development of the land to no more than two dwellings. It is again not considered necessary to require any further restrictions on this land as any future multi dwelling application will be subject to a planning permit, where a detailed assessment of any neighbourhood character implications can be carried out. No objections have been received in relation to the above proposals. P1089/2013 - Removal of the Drainage, Sewerage and Park Reserve Status on LP13612, Removal of Drainage and Sewerage Easements. PS712884M facilitates the creation of Orr Lane as Road on title. This is to be located over the existing constructed road and simply formalises the existing conditions on site. As discussed previously, to enable this to happen the Reserve status needs to be removed from the whole of the land at 20 Sackville Street however will be reinstated once the road is created on title. The Reserve status will be returned to the whole of the land (with the exception of Orr Lane) known as Harrington Reserve. Further reserve status protection is proposed to be created on the vacant parcel of Council owned land located at the end of Orr lane (Lot 342 on LP13616). As part of this process it is also proposed to remove the ‘blanket’ easement that exists on the land at Harrington Reserve, and other redundant easements noted in the Removal of Easement Plan (Attachment 4). New easements will be created over the existing assets contained on site. Three objections have been received for this application with emphasis on the proposed removal of Easement E2 located over approximately half of Harrington Reserve and its potential to enable future development of the site. It is considered that the current zoning of the land and minor changes to the property at Harrington Reserve support Council’s intention to maintain this important reserve into the future. Figure 7 below identifies the land as being zoned PCRZ – Public Conservation and Resource Zone. This zone represents the highest order of protection for parks and reserves under the Banyule Planning Scheme. Its purpose is:

to protect and conserve the natural environment and natural processes for their historic, scientific, landscape, habitat or cultural values and;

4.3



to provide facilities which assist in public education and interpretation of the natural environment with minimal degradation of the natural environment or natural processes.

Figure 7: Zoning of Harrington Reserve

Any removal of the Reserve Status of the land and rezoning of the PCRZ land for other purposes is a significant process which involves extensive consultation before any development of the land could be considered. It is further noted that the proposed removal of easements is considered to be a ‘tidy up’ on title to reflect the correct location of assets within Harrington Reserve. Objectors also had concern with a lack of clarity and consultation of the process, however it is considered that Council officers have taken all actions to ensure that all residents affected by this proposal have be adequately informed of the proposed changes including the additional actions detailed in the consultation section of this report. PUBLIC OPEN SPACE In relation to the Three Lot Subdivision proposed as part of P1087/13, the requirement for public open space has been considered having regard to Council’s Public Open Space Strategy and Section 18 of the Subdivision Act 1988. The land is currently comprised of 2 lots and is proposed to be re-subdivided into 3 lots. This results in increase on one new lot to the area, however Lot 3 on PS712879E will be consolidated with 1 Cressy Street in the future, therefore there will be no net increase in the number of lots as a result of this subdivision. It is further noted that the future purchaser of 2 Orr Lane (Lot 1 on PS712879E) will be restricted to building no more that one additional dwelling on the site. As this will only result in one additional lot to the area, it is considered appropriate to not require a public open space contribution.

In relation to the Two Lot Subdivision proposed as part of P1088/13, two lot subdivisions are exempt from a public open space requirement under Section 18(8) of the Subdivision Act 1988 unless Council considers that the land may be further subdivided in the future. It is not considered that this land can be further subdivided in the future.

4.3



CONCLUSION

The proposed subdivision is in accordance with the requirements of the Banyule Planning Scheme and on this basis warrants conditional support. RECOMMENDATION

PART A

P1087/13

That Council having complied with Section 52, 58, 60, 61 and 62 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, resolves that a Planning Permit be issued in respect of Application No. P1087/2013 for a Three Lot Subdivision at 2 Orr Lane MONTMORENCY, 1A Cressy Street MONTMORENCY subject to the following conditions: (1) The subdivision as shown on the endorsed plan shall not be altered or

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

(2) The owner of the land must enter into agreements with the relevant authorities for the provision of water supply, drainage sewerage facilities, electricity and gas services to each lot shown on the endorsed plan in accordance with that authority’s requirements and relevant legislation at the time.

(3) All existing and proposed easements and sites for existing or required utility services and roads on the land must be set aside in the plan of subdivision submitted for certification in favour of the relevant authority for which the easement or site is to be created.

(4) The plan of subdivision submitted for certification under the Subdivision Act

1988 must be referred to the relevant authority in accordance with Section 8 of that Act.

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

A telecommunications network or service provider for the provision of

telecommunication services to each lot shown on the endorsed plan in accordance with the provider’s requirements and relevant legislation at the time; and

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

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

subdivision under the Subdivision Act 1988, the owner of the land must

4.3



provide written confirmation from:

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

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

Time Limit (7) In accordance with section 68 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, this

permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies: The plan is not certified within two years of the date of this permit; or

A Statement of Compliance is not issued within five (5) years of the date of certification.

The Responsible Authority may extend the permit if a request is made in writing in accordance with, and within the timeframes specified, in Section 69 of Planning and Environment Act 1987.

PERMIT NOTE

(1) Street Numbering Please note that property addresses are allocated by Council. This is usually formalised at the time of the issue of a certified plan, however it is Council’s intention to number the proposed allotments as follows: Lot 1 2 Orr Lane Montmorency Lot 2 1 Orr Lane Montmorency Lot 3 1 Cressy Street Montmorency

PART B P1088/13 That Council having complied with Section 52, 58, 60, 61 and 62 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, resolves that a Planning Permit be issued in respect of Application No. P1088/2013 for Two Lot Subdivision at 1 Cressy Street MONTMORENCY, 1A Cressy Street MONTMORENCY subject to the following conditions: (1) The subdivision as shown on the endorsed plan shall not be altered or


(2) The owner of the land must enter into agreements with the relevant

4.3



authorities for the provision of water supply, drainage sewerage facilities, electricity and gas services to each lot shown on the endorsed plan in accordance with that authority’s requirements and relevant legislation at the time.








PART C P1089/13 That Council having complied with Section 52, 58, 60, 61 and 62 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, resolves that a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit be issued in respect of Application No. P1089/2013 for Removal of the Drainage, Sewerage and Park Reserve Status on LP13612, Removal of Sewerage Easement on Lot 342 and Drainage and Sewerage Easements on part of Lots 349, 350, 355 and 371 on LP13612 at 20 Sackville Street MONTMORENCY subject to the following conditions: (1) The subdivision as shown on the endorsed plan shall not be altered or


(2) The owner of the land must enter into agreements with the relevant authorities for the provision of water supply, drainage sewerage facilities, electricity and gas services to each lot shown on the endorsed plan in accordance with that authority’s requirements and relevant legislation at the time.


4.3









ATTACHMENTS No. Title Page 1 Application Proposal 113 2 Plan of Subdivision PS712879E 115 3 Plan of Subdivision PS712891Q 117 4 Plan of Subdivision PS712884M 119 5 Removal of Easement Plan 123

5.1

Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life


5.1 WARD FUND ALLOCATIONS Author: Sue Sayle - Executive Assistant CEO & Councillors, Executive


To consider three Ward Fund Allocation applications which have been submitted in line with the Banyule Council Ward Fund Policy. OFFICER DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST


CITY PLAN

This report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction to “enable good governance and accountability with minimal risk”.

POLICY

Council allocates funds from its annual budget to provide an avenue throughout the year for Council to allocate small grants to groups and individuals, or towards projects or events that benefit the Banyule Community. The allocation of these ward funds is subject to the requirements of the Banyule Council Ward Fund Policy. Council recognises that there are community needs and requests, on a small scale, which occur throughout the year, which merit consideration and funding. These requests are usually not known at the time of the adoption of the budget. The establishment of the Banyule Council Ward Fund Policy allows Council the opportunity to fund those grant applications which meet the criteria of the Policy, and in accordance with the procedures set out in the Policy. A key requirement of the Policy is that all applications must support the delivery of the City Plan, be consistent with Council’s strategic directions and provide benefit to Banyule residents and community.

HUMAN RIGHTS CHARTER

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

5.1

Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life WARD FUND ALLOCATIONS cont’d


APPLICATIONS The following ward fund application/s have been received, and having received the support of the respective ward Councillor/s are submitted for approval by Council:

1 Councillor Name: Cr Steven Briffa Ward: Hawdon Funding Recipient: Viewbank PreSchool Association Inc. Amount Requested by Applicant: $1,133.92 Ward Fund Contribution: $1,133.92 Purpose/Reason: Garden Landscaping for the Pre-school.

2 Councillor Name: Cr Rick Garotti Ward: Grimshaw Funding Recipient: St Damian’s Junior Football Club Amount Requested by Applicant: $1,496 Ward Fund Contribution: $1,496 Purpose/Reason: Covering for exposed coaches boxes at Binnak Park.

3 Councillor Name: Cr Craig Langdon Ward: Olympia Funding Recipient: Hope Springs (Rosanna Uniting Church) Amount Requested by Applicant: $420 Ward Fund Contribution: $420 Purpose/Reason: Cover cost of printing for flyers and brochures for Hope Springs.

Please Note: Copy of application forms and supporting documentation provided attached (refer Attachment 1).

5.1



QUARTERLY WARD FUND BALANCES Council adopted the Banyule Council Ward fund Policy at its meeting on 18 March 2013. Clause 6.4 of the Policy requires Expenditure of Ward Funds per Councillor to be reported quarterly to Council and is to include balances for each fund. The report includes the total expenditure allocated by Council at its meetings from 1/10/2013 to 31/12/2013 inclusive, being the second quarter of the financial year ending 30/6/2014.

Councillor / Ward Ward Funds Balance unspent as at 30/9/2013

Ward funds Allocated for

quarter

Ward funds Balance unspent as at 31/12/2013

Cr Phillips – Beale $ 38,494.90 $3,250.00 $ 35,244.90 Cr Mulholland - Griffin

$ 28,500.18

$3,864.03

$ 24,636.15

Cr Langdon - Olympia

$ 19,348.31

$9,498.02

$9,850.29

Cr Di Pasquale - Bakewell

$ 27,252.36

$ 7,344.30

$ 19,908.06

Cr Garotti - Grimshaw

$31,390.00

$15,681.58

$ 15,708.42

Cr Melican - Ibbott $ 40,000.00 $ 0 $ 40,000.00 Cr Briffa - Hawdon $ 23,680.89. $ 4,929.05 $ 18,751.84

CONCLUSION The ward fund application/s submitted for consideration in this report have been determined by the supporting Councillor to meet the criteria of the Banyule Council Ward Fund Policy. In accordance with the Policy, Council must decide at a Council meeting to approve or reject the application/s. RECOMMENDATION

“That:

1. Council, having considered the Ward Fund applications in line with the Banyule Ward Fund Policy, approve the following applications for payment, subject to all acquittal documentation being provided:

View Bank Pre-School Association Inc. $1,133.92 St Damians Junior Football Club $1,496.00 Hope Springs (Rosanna Uniting Church) $ 420.00

2. The beneficiaries be notified of Council’s decision. 3. The Quarterly Ward Fund Balances for the period 1/10/2013 – 31/12/2013 be

noted.”

ATTACHMENTS

5.1



No. Title Page 1 Ward Fund Allocation No 1 125 2 Ward Fund Allocation No 2 127 3 Ward Fund Allocation No 3 129

6.1

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely


6.1 ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS Author: Emily Outlaw - Governance Officer, City Development


Under the Local Government Act 1989 an Assembly of Councillors is defined as: A meeting of an advisory committee of the Council, if at least one Councillor is present or; A planned or scheduled meeting of at least half of the Councillors and one member of Council staff which considers matters that are intended or likely to be- a) the subject of a decision of the Council or; b) subject to the exercise of a function, duty or power of the Council that has been delegated to a person or committee. In accordance with Section 80A of the Local Government Act 1989 Council is required to report as soon as possible to an Ordinary Meeting of Council a record of any assemblies of Councillors held. Below is the latest listing of notified assemblies of Councillors held at Banyule City Council. RECORD OF ASSEMBLIES 1 Date of Assembly: 29 January 2014

Type of Meeting: Councillor Briefing

Matters Considered: New Residential Zones Development Planning Customer Questionnaire Community Information & Support Services Review

Councillors Present: Steven Briffa Rick Garotti Craig Langdon Tom Melican Jenny Mulholland Wayne Phillips

Staff Present: Simon McMillan, Chief Executive Officer Allison Beckwith, Director – Community Programs Scott Walker, Director – City Development Geoff Glynn, Director – Assets & City Services Keith Yeo, Director – Corporate Services Daniel Kollmorgen, Acting Manager Strategic & Economic Development Michael Hutchison, Projects Co-Ordinator – City Development Shaun Barber, Manager – School Sites Redevelopment Giovanna Failla, Manager – Youth & Family Services Frances Gianinotti, Co-Ordinator – Youth & Community Partnerships

Others Present: Janine Haddow - Consultant

Conflict of Interest: Nil 2 Date of Assembly: 28 January 2014

6.1

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS cont’d


Type of Meeting: Confidential Councillor Briefing

Matters Considered: Confidential Matters – Property and Proposed Developments

Councillors Present: Steven Briffa Rick Garotti Craig Langdon Tom Melican Jenny Mulholland Wayne Phillips

Staff Present: Simon McMillan, Chief Executive Officer Allison Beckwith, Director – Community Programs Scott Walker, Director – City Development Geoff Glynn, Director – Assets & City Services Keith Yeo, Director – Corporate Services Daniel Kollmorgen, Acting Manager Strategic & Economic Development Michael Hutchison, Projects Co-Ordinator – City Development Shaun Barber, Manager – School Sites Redevelopment

Others Present: Nil

Conflict of Interest: Nil 3 Date of Assembly: 3 February 2014

Type of Meeting: Strategic Property Group

Matters Considered: Confidential Matters – Property and Proposed Developments

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

Staff Present: Scott Walker, Director – City Development Daniel Kollmorgen, Acting Manager Strategic & Economic Development Michael Hutchison, Projects Co-Ordinator – City Development Shaun Barber, Manager – School Sites Redevelopment

Others Present: Nil

Conflict of Interest: Nil 4 Date of Assembly: 3 February 2014

Type of Meeting: Councillor Briefing

Matters Considered: Items on the Council Agenda for the Ordinary Meeting of 3 February 2014 (excluding confidential items) 4.1 Plenty Road Precinct Development Opportunities 4.2 Greensborough Principal Activity Centre Review of Heights and

Setback Requirements 4.3 Multi Unit Development at 19 Magnolia Road, Ivanhoe 4.4 Notice of Intention to Sell Land: 33-35 Elwers Street Watsonia

North,

6.1

Performance - Use Our Resources Wisely ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS cont’d


1-3 McKenzie Court Greensborough & 3 Sommerleigh Crescent Greeensborough

4.5 Notice of Intention to Sell Land: 52 Haig Street Heidleberg Heights

6.1 Assembly of Councillors 7.1 Sealing of Documents 8.1 Accessibility and Amenity of Watsonia Station for People with

Disabilities 8.2 Emergency Markers - Darebin Creek Trail 8.3 Australian Made Campaign 8.4 Live Streaming of Council Meetings 8.5 Half Masting of Flag at the Municipal Offices, Town Hall

Ivanhoe Councillors Present: Steven Briffa

Mark Di Pasquale Rick Garotti Craig Langdon Tom Melican Jenny Mulholland

Staff Present: Simon McMillan, Chief Executive Officer Allison Beckwith, Director – Community Programs Scott Walker, Director – City Development Geoff Glynn, Director – Assets & City Services Keith Yeo, Director – Corporate Services Gina Burden, Manager – Governance, Information and Laws Vivien Ferlaino, Governance & Information Co-Ordinator Daniel Kollmorgen, Acting Manager – Strategic & Economic Development Joel Elbourne, Acting Manager – Development Services Shaun Barber, Manager – School Sites Redevelopment

Others Present: Nil

Conflict of Interest: Nil

RECOMMENDATION

That the Assembly of Councillors report be received.

ATTACHMENTS Nil

8.1

Notice of Motion


8.1 SUPPORT FOR BANYULE'S MULTICULTURAL COMMUNITIES

Author: Cr Rick Garotti

File: F2013/947 TAKE NOTICE that it is my intention to move: “That Council:

1. Explore developing a relationship and referral process with the Department of

Immigration and Border Protection. This will enable Council to appropriately refer residents with immigration related visa enquiries to the relevant section of the Federal Government during the appropriate stages of their applications.

2. Work with the Department of Immigration and Border Protection to explore the option to host a community forum to highlight existing visa application and processing procedures.

3. Liaise with the office of The Honourable Jenny Macklin MP on this matter for advice and assistance."

Explanation Banyule is a diverse community made up of people from a variety of cultures and backgrounds. A significant number of Banyule residents have arrived in the municipality by means of various immigration visas, with many now calling Banyule home as Australian citizens. As a Councillor, I have often been approached to assist residents to enquire about visa applications, to help in getting visas processed or to help where there have been lengthy delays in visa processing. This can often occur when residents attempt to assist family members to immigrate to Australia via family or spousal visas. This complex area of Government is not normally the expertise of local elected officials or Council generally and predominantly is a function dealt with by the Federal Government. Whilst Council does not deal directly in this area of government, we do work to actively advocate on key issues of concern for our community to other levels of government. Banyule likewise adheres to the Victoria Charter of Human Rights and works for its community to this end to ensure our community members’ human rights are upheld. It would, however, be beneficial to establish a working relationship with the relevant Government Department so as to enable residents’ concerns to be referred back to the most appropriate source. Additionally, it has been raised by both individual residents and community leaders that there is considerable uncertainty regarding the various processes and procedures surrounding visa applications. This already complex area has been further complicated by changes in immigration policy. With this in mind, it is proposed that Council work with the Department of

8.1

Notice of Motion SUPPORT FOR BANYULE'S MULTICULTURAL COMMUNITIES cont’d


Immigration and Border Protection to explore the feasibility of hosting a community forum that clarifies existing visa processing arrangements and seeks to better inform residents and community leaders about these processes and avenues for enquiry regarding individual visa applications. While visa application and processing is a function controlled by the Federal Government, it is an issue that impacts greatly on members of our local community. This notice of motion seeks to extend support to our local residents by exploring the options presented above. CR RICK GAROTTI Grimshaw Ward

ATTACHMENTS Nil

8.2

Notice of Motion


8.2 TRANSPORT - PROJECT 10,000 Author: Cr Craig Langdon

Ward: Olympia

File: F2013/947 TAKE NOTICE that it is my intention to move: “That: 1. Council write to the State Opposition Leader seeking an explanation of the

Oppositions Policy named "Project 10,000." 2. Council notes correspondence circulated by The Hon Jenny Mikakos MP where

she states the Opposition alternative transport (Project 10,000) "will dramatically improve road safety and reduce congestion around the State" by undertaking the following:

- Remove our 50 worst level crossings including seven in the Northern

Suburbs (Bell Street, Coburg, Bell Street, Preston, Camp Road, Campbellfield, Glenroy Road, Glenroy, High Street, Reservoir, Moreland Road, Brunswick & Lower Plenty Road, Rosanna;

- Build the Melbourne Metro Rail; - Double the City Loop and build 5 new train stations; - Streamline traffic on Hoddle Street; - Get 5,000 trucks a day off the West Gate Bridge; - Widen the Tullamarine Freeway to six lanes and; - Spend $2 Billion on our roads. 3. Council expresses its concern that much of "Project 10,000" will have minimal

impact on traffic congestion within the City of Banyule and also raises the issue of funding implications on other important state transport projects, such as:

A. The Doncaster Rail Project; B. The Airport Rail Project; C. The North East Link Project - with direct connection from M80 to EastLink in Ringwood; D. Incremental improvements to the Hurstbridge Rail Line, including duplication

of the line between Rosanna and Heidelberg and from Greensborough to Eltham;

E. South Morang extension to Mernda and Whittlesea; and F. The connection of the South Morang line from Clifton Hill to Southern Cross Station. 4. Council further notes that Ms Mikakos' letter does not mention the 24hour public transport on Friday and Saturday nights. 5. Council has further concerns that the individual projects within "Project 10,000 have not been considered against other projects and may not represent the best benefit for all of Melbourne. 6. The State Opposition as the alternative Government should provide a

8.2

Notice of Motion TRANSPORT - PROJECT 10,000 cont’d


commitment, timeline and funding model for the delivery of these other projects as well as details of removing the Rosanna Railway crossing and how the nearby parklands and businesses of the Rosanna Shopping Centre will be protected. Explanation The State Opposition has recently released an alternative transport proposal for Melbourne, entitled “Project 10,000”. The proposal is intended to help tackle road safety and congestion concerns within the state and puts forward a list of projects to address this. In the north of Melbourne these projects include:

Remove our 50 worst level crossings including seven in the Northern Suburbs (Bell Street, Coburg, Bell Street, Preston, Camp Road, Campbellfield, Glenroy Road, Glenroy, High Street, Reservoir, Moreland Road, Brunswick & Lower Plenty Road, Rosanna;

Build the Melbourne Metro Rail; Double the City Loop and build 5 new train stations; Streamline traffic on Hoddle Street; Get 5,000 trucks a day off the West Gate Bridge; Widen the Tullamarine Freeway to six lanes and; Spend $2 Billion on our roads.

The proposal also seeks to introduce 24hour public transport on Friday and Saturday nights. Council has concerns that much of "Project 10,000" will have minimal impact on traffic congestion within the City of Banyule and also raises the issue of funding implications on other important state transport projects, such as: A. The Doncaster Rail Project; B. The Airport Rail Project; C. The North East Link Project - with direct connection from M80 to EastLink in Ringwood; D. Incremental improvements to the Hurstbridge Rail Line, including duplication of

the line between Rosanna and Heidelberg and from Greensborough to Eltham; E. South Morang extension to Mernda and Whittlesea; and F. The connection of the South Morang line from Clifton Hill to Southern Cross

Station. Council has further concerns that the individual projects within "Project 10,000 have not been considered against other projects and may not represent the best benefit for all of Melbourne. Council believes that the State Opposition as the alternative Government should provide a commitment, timeline and funding model for the delivery of these other projects as well as details of removing the Rosanna Railway crossing and how the nearby parklands and businesses of the Rosanna Shopping Centre will be protected.

8.2

Notice of Motion TRANSPORT - PROJECT 10,000 cont’d


CR CRAIG LANGDON Olympia Ward

ATTACHMENTS Nil

8.3

Notice of Motion


8.3 STATE ELECTION 2014 CANDIDATE DEBATE - PUBLIC MEETING WITH MELBOURNE TRANSPORT FORUM

Author: Cr Tom Melican

Ward: Ibbott

File: F2013/947 TAKE NOTICE that it is my intention to move: “That Council works with the Melbourne Transport Forum (MTF) to organise a public meeting to be held at the Centre Ivanhoe with all candidates in the November State Election. This meeting will occur on a suitable night in August or September.” Explanation In 2010, the MTF worked with Fairfax community newspapers and member councils to hold a series of town hall candidate debates on public transport. Meetings were held in September at town halls in Whitehorse, Maribyrnong, Melbourne, Port Phillip, Yarra, Moreland, Darebin (October) and Glen Eira. Most of the meetings were hosted by the mayor and featured local candidates from the ALP, Liberals and Greens. After an introduction from the Mayor, the candidates spoke about transport for 10 minutes each and then took questions. In 2014, the MTF is planning to host a program of Town Hall candidate meetings focused on transport issue during August and September. We are asking member councils to volunteer to host a candidate forum in a town hall or similar venue. The MTF will organise the speakers and publicity, the host council will provide the venue, chairperson and local publicity support through regular channels. The events will be branded as MTF / Leader candidate forums to discuss transport issues. In 2010, this branding made it easier for councils to be involved given it was not their event as such. The presence of a public audience in an old style town hall meeting prompted the speakers to add local issues to the discussion. The challenge in 2014 will be securing the participation of government candidates. We will need to emphasise that the meetings will be a fair platform with the MTF and councils acting as facilitators rather than advocates. As with many things in politics, timing is crucial and here are some considerations: The campaign does not really get moving until after the AFL Grand Final. With

October and November the most intense campaign period. The official caretaker period will be 4 November–29 November 2014. The parties are yet to finalise their local candidates.

8.3

Notice of Motion STATE ELECTION 2014 CANDIDATE DEBATE - PUBLIC MEETING WITH MELBOURNE TRANSPORT FORUM cont’d


State Parliament sitting Tuesday – Thursday on the following dates 5-7 August, 19-21 August, 2-4 September, 16-18 September, 14 – 16 October. There are no sitting days in July.

Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights not convenient, 7 pm – 8.15 pm Monday-Wednesday evenings suitable (except for CBD meeting which start at

5.30 pm). Key factors are availability of candidates, venues and mayors. CR TOM MELICAN Ibbott Ward

ATTACHMENTS Nil

8.4

Notice of Motion


8.4 MAIN ROAD AND PARA ROAD INTERSECTION, LOWER PLENTY - PEDESTRIAN CROSSING CONCERNS

Author: Cr Steven Briffa

Ward: Hawdon

File: ST5805 and ST4685 TAKE NOTICE that it is my intention to move: “That: 1. Council write to VicRoads requesting they undertake a comprehensive

investigation of the pedestrian crossing concerns raised at Main Road and Para Road intersection, including undertaking of a ‘road safety audit’.

2. The Minister for Roads and Public Transport, The Hon Terry Mulder MP, and all local State Members of Parliament be advised of this resolution.”

Explanation I have been contacted by a resident in relation to pedestrian crossing concerns at the intersection of Main Para, Lower Plenty. There are existing ‘pedestrian operated signals’ to assist the pedestrians crossing the ‘left turn slip lane’, which links Main Road and Para Road. Concerns raised relate to vehicles entering Para Road from Main Road via the ‘left turn slip lane’ on a ‘red signal’, whilst pedestrians are crossing at the ‘pedestrian operated signals’. The matter has been raised with Council previously on four different occasions, between February 2012 to July 2013. As VicRoads is the road authority for Main Road and Para Road, concerns were forwarded to VicRoads on all occasions. On two occasions, VicRoads indicated to Council that plants and shrubs at the intersection required trimming/removing in order to improve sight distance. On both occasions Council’s Parks Department was contacted to carry out the trimming/removing of plants and shrubs, as required. These works were immediately carried out by Council’s Parks Department. Whilst trimming/removing of plants and shrubs has improved the visibility of pedestrians crossing in this location, the instances of vehicles driving through on a red signal still remains a concern. Residents have also expressed that there could be some confusion with the ‘Give Way’ sign installed at the end of the ‘left turn slip lane’, which controls the intersection with Para Road.

8.4

Notice of Motion MAIN ROAD AND PARA ROAD INTERSECTION, LOWER PLENTY - PEDESTRIAN CROSSING CONCERNS cont’d


CR STEVEN BRIFFA Hawdon Ward

ATTACHMENTS Nil

ATTACHMENTS

ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 17 FEBRUARY 2014

3.1 Municipal Wide Flood Mitigation Strategy Attachment 1 Attachment A - 5 & 100 Year ARI Stormwater Inundation

Extents ............................................................................................ 53 Attachment 2 Attachment B - Municipal Wide Flood Mitigation Assessment .......... 69 Attachment 3 Attachment C - Municipal Wide Flood Mitigation Assessment

- Section 4 ..................................................................................... 103

4.1 Potential parking demand changes in Heildelberg West, Bellfield and Heidelberg Heights Attachment 1 Existing car parking restrictions ..................................................... 110 Attachment 2 NMIT Car Parking Results ............................................................. 111 Attachment 3 Proposed car parking restrictions .................................................. 112

4.3 Subdivision at 2 Orr Lane and 1 & 1A Cressy Street and Reserve Status of Harrington Reserve Montmorency. Attachment 1 Application Proposal ...................................................................... 113 Attachment 2 Plan of Subdivision PS712879E .................................................... 115 Attachment 3 Plan of Subdivision PS712891Q .................................................... 117 Attachment 4 Plan of Subdivision PS712884M .................................................... 119 Attachment 5 Removal of Easement Plan ........................................................... 123

5.1 Ward Fund Allocations Attachment 1 Ward Fund Allocation No 1 ............................................................ 125 Attachment 2 Ward Fund Allocation No 2 ............................................................ 127 Attachment 3 Ward Fund Allocation No 3 ............................................................ 129

Atta

chm

ent 1

3.

1

Item: 3.1 Attachment 1: Attachment A - 5 & 100 Year ARI Stormwater Inundation Extents


Atta

chm

ent 2

3.

1

Item: 3.1 Attachment 2: Attachment B - Municipal Wide Flood Mitigation Assessment


Atta

chm

ent 3

3.

1

Item: 3.1 Attachment 3: Attachment C - Municipal Wide Flood Mitigation Assessment - Section 4


Atta

chm

ent 1

4.

1

Item: 4.1 Attachment 1: Existing car parking restrictions


Atta

chm

ent 2

4.

1

Item: 4.1 Attachment 2: NMIT Car Parking Results


Atta

chm

ent 3

4.

1

Item: 4.1 Attachment 3: Proposed car parking restrictions


Atta

chm

ent 1

4.

3

Item: 4.3 Attachment 1: Application Proposal


Atta

chm

ent 2

4.

3

Item: 4.3 Attachment 2: Plan of Subdivision PS712879E


Atta

chm

ent 3

4.

3

Item: 4.3 Attachment 3: Plan of Subdivision PS712891Q


Atta

chm

ent 4

4.

3

Item: 4.3 Attachment 4: Plan of Subdivision PS712884M


Atta

chm

ent 5

4.

3

Item: 4.3 Attachment 5: Removal of Easement Plan


Atta

chm

ent 1

5.

1

Item: 5.1 Attachment 1: Ward Fund Allocation No 1


Atta

chm

ent 2

5.

1



Atta

chm

ent 3

5.

1



banyule council meeting 17 february 2014 agenda

Documents

contractual matters

person matters

following confidential

public forum

people community

wurundjeri people

support nil

nil reports