4.2 - Banyule City Council

Ordinary Meeting of CouncilCouncil Chambers, Service Centre275 Upper Heidelberg Road, Ivanhoe18 March 2013 commencing at 7.45pmFollowing the public forum commencing at approximately7.30pm and may be extended to 8pm if necessary.AGENDAThe Mayor’s Acknowledgement of the Wurundjeri People“Our Meeting is being held on the traditional lands (country) of the Wurundjeri peopleand I wish to acknowledge them as the traditional owners and pay my respects totheir Elders.”Apologies and Leave of AbsenceConfirmation of MinutesOrdinary Meeting of Council held 4 March 2013Disclosure of Interests1. Petitions1.1 Alfred Street, Heidelberg Heights - Proposed Traffic Management ......................... 3REPORTS:2. People – Community Strengthening and Support2.1 St Helena Road, Greensborough Investigation into PedestrianCrossing Facilities ................................................................................................... 93. Planet – Environmental SustainabilityNil4. Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment4.1 Residential Vehicle Crossing Policy ...................................................................... 154.2 'C86' Combined Planning Scheme Amendment and PlanningPermit Application ................................................................................................ 184.3 Vesting of Reserves into Council's name .............................................................. 23

AGENDA (Cont’d)4.4 Your Community Heritage Grant Program 2012 - 2013 -Impressionist Lab Design. ..................................................................................... 275. Prosperity – Prosperous and Sustainable Local EconomyNil6. Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life6.1 MAV Membership ................................................................................................. 316.2 Ward Fund Allocations .......................................................................................... 367. Strategic Resource Plan - Use Our Resources Wisely7.1 Assembly of Councillors ........................................................................................ 378. Sealing of Documents8.1 Sealing of Documents .......................................................................................... 419. Notices of Motion9.1 Redman Court Wetlands Study ............................................................................. 439.2 Preserving Neighbourhood Character in Banyule ................................................. 449.3 Cost Shifting onto Council .................................................................................... 459.4 Fire Services Property Levy .................................................................................. 469.5 Banyule Council Ward Fund Policy ....................................................................... 479.6 Funding Application - Ivanhoe Library - Regional DevelopmentAustralia Fund Grants ........................................................................................... 4810. General Business11. Urgent BusinessClosure of Meeting to the PublicThat in accordance with Section 89(2) of the Local Government Act 1989, Councilclose the Meeting to members of the public and adjourn for five minutes to allow thepublic to leave the Chamber prior to considering the following confidential matters.12. Confidential Matters12.1 contractual matters12.2 contractual matters12.3 contractual mattersMatters Discussed in CameraThat all confidential matters and reports related to the above items remainconfidential unless otherwise specified.Closure of MeetingOrdinary Meeting of Council - 18 March 2013 Page 2

Petitions1.1 ALFRED STREET, HEIDELBERG HEIGHTS -PROPOSED TRAFFIC MANAGEMENTAuthor:Ward:File:Justin Dynan - Senior Transport Engineer, City DevelopmentOlympiaST01801.1A petition with 30 signatures has been received from residents of Alfred Street,Heidelberg Heights.The petition prayer is as follows:‘We the residents of Alfred Street Heidelberg Heights Victoria 3081 sign below, insupport of a round-about at the intersections of Alfred Street and Montgomery StreetHeidelberg Heights, instead of the current proposal by Banyule Council. Date 26February 2013’The covering letter received from residents gave the following reasons for supportingthis prayer:• That it would control both Alfred Street and Montgomery Street thoroughfare,whereas speed humps would only control Alfred Street.• It would resolve issues relating to the location of speed humps within AlfredStreet• Roundabouts offer better noise minimisation than speed humpsA copy of the petition covering letter is provided in Attachment 1.LOCATION MAPAlfred Street is a local residential street that is about 700m in length between BellStreet and Altona Street. A roundabout exists at the intersection with St HellierStreet. The petition was received from residents in a 450m length of Alfred Street,between Bell Street and St Hellier Street, of which Montgomery Road is anintersecting road. A locality plan of Alfred Street is shown below in Figure 1.SUBJECTSITEFigure 1 – Location PlanOrdinary Meeting of Council - 18 March 2013 Page 3

PetitionsALFRED STREET, HEIDELBERG HEIGHTS - PROPOSED TRAFFICMANAGEMENT cont’dTable 2 – Alfred Street Survey ResponseResponse Surveys Received PercentageYes 15 71 %Neutral 0 0 %No 6 29 %1.1As can be seen from the results of the survey, there was good support for theproposed traffic management strategy. However, particular concerns were raisedabout the proposed location of the road hump immediately south of MontgomeryStreet. Therefore, based on the feedback received, a revised concept plan was sentto residents on 15 February 2013, with the southern road hump relocated toimmediately north of Thames Street. The revised concept plan is provided asAttachment 3.Residents were advised in writing of Council’s intention to proceed with theinstallation of the two (2) road humps as per the revised concept plan, given the levelof support from the survey.After this letter and revised plan were circulated, the petition was then received fromresidents requesting a roundabout at the intersection of Alfred Street andMontgomery Street, instead of the proposed road humps.DISCUSSIONAs part of the current 2012-13 budget there is $40,000 allocated for road humps inthe Olympia Ward. This funding has been assigned for the installation of two (2) roadhumps in both Alfred Street and Dresden Street, Heidelberg Heights. From theresidential survey there was generally good support for the proposal.A review of VicRoads CrashStats data found there have been two (2) reportedcasualty crashes in the past five (5) years in Alfred Street, between Bell Street and StHellier Street. One (1) of these crashes occurred at the intersection of Alfred Streetand Montgomery Street, as a result of a vehicle failing to give way.Currently there are splitter islands on both approaches in Montgomery Street, withtraffic in Alfred Street having right of way. There is ‘Give Way’ signage on the easternapproach and ‘Stop’ signage on the western approach in Montgomery Street, withgood sight distance for motorists on both approaches.The most recent speed and volume survey for Montgomery Street was conductedapproximately 100 metres west of Alfred Street in June 2008. The results of thesurvey are shown below in Table 3.Table 3 – Traffic Speed and Volume Data – June 2008LocationAverage DailyTraffic Volume85 th PercentileSpeedMontgomery Street – approximately100m west of Alfred Street 888 vehicles 45.7km/hOrdinary Meeting of Council - 18 March 2013 Page 5

PetitionsALFRED STREET, HEIDELBERG HEIGHTS - PROPOSED TRAFFICMANAGEMENT cont’dATTACHMENTSNo. Title Page1 Alfred Street Petition - Cover Letter 502 Council Letter and Survey 523 Revised Concept Plan 551.1Ordinary Meeting of Council - 18 March 2013 Page 7

People – Community Strengthening and Support2.1 ST HELENA ROAD, GREENSBOROUGHINVESTIGATION INTO PEDESTRIANCROSSING FACILITIESAuthor:Ward:File:Sanjev Sivananthanayagam - Transport Engineer, City DevelopmentBealeST68802.1SUMMARYFollowing a resolution to consider the possible installation of pedestrian crossingfacilities in St Helena Road, Greensborough, between Karingal Drive and AnthonyBeale Reserve, an investigation has been undertaken.It is noted that south of Anthony Beale Reserve, there are no major pedestriangenerators such as bicycle / walking trails, shopping precincts or schools which havea direct access off St Helena Road.However, minor pedestrian movements have been observed in the vicinity of theaccess road which leads into Anthony Beale Reserve. It is expected that apedestrian crossing to the facilities at Anthony Beale Reserve will unlock the latentdemand within the local community and encourage walking to these facilities.Pedestrian count data obtained at this location indicates that the warrants for theinstallation of a signalised pedestrian crossing or zebra crossing are not met.Given the busy nature of the road, the pedestrian movements observed and thepotential latent pedestrian demand in the vicinity of the access road into AnthonyBeale Reserve the installation of a refuge island on St Helena Road is consideredhighly worthwhile in this area. This will improve the safety of pedestrians by breakingthe crossing into two stages.OFFICER DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTERESTSection 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.Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest inthis matter.CITY PLANThis report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction of "promote communitysafety".BACKGROUNDAt its meeting of 17 December 2012, Council considered a Notice of Motionregarding St Helena Road, Greensborough. At the meeting, Council resolved:Ordinary Meeting of Council - 18 March 2013 Page 9

People – Community Strengthening and SupportST HELENA ROAD, GREENSBOROUGH INVESTIGATION INTO PEDESTRIANCROSSING FACILITIES cont’dThe road width of this section of the street is varying, with approximately a minimumof 8.2m and a maximum of 9.6m measured between the kerbs. Most residentialproperty crossovers are only accessible via the one-way service roads on both sidesof the streets. Some residents have access directly off St Helena Road, with a fewaccessing off two-way service roads.2.1Traffic counts conducted in 2011 highlight the busy nature of this road with trafficvolumes of around 13,000 vehicles per day in the vicinity of Anthony Beale Reserveand the 85 th percentile speed (the speed at which 85% of the vehicles are travellingat or below) was 65 km/h. St Helena Road has a speed limit of 60km/h.There are footpaths along the service roads on both sides and some sections of StHelena Road.Currently the only existing formalised pedestrian crossing facility in the Councilowned section of St Helena Road is at the signalised intersection of St Helena Roadand Karingal Drive. There is also a school crossing located at the northern end, in thevicinity of Wallowa Road.The 518 bus route runs along this section of St Helena Road. There are five (5) busstops on the western side of the street and four (4) on the eastern side of the streetbetween Karingal Drive and Wallowa Road. Eight (8) out of the nine (9) bus stops areindented. The bus stops have a footpath access linking from the service road.The access road which leads into Anthony Beale Reserve provides access to severalsport facilities (Cricket and Basket Ball), Greensborough Junior Football Club, Park /BBQ Area, Play Equipment, St Katherines Anglican Church, St Helena Maternal andChild Health Centre and Wahroonga Preschool.South of Anthony Beale Reserve, there are no other major pedestrian generatorssuch as bicycle / walking trails, shopping precincts or schools which have a directaccess off St Helena Road.INVESTIGATIONSAn investigation has been undertaken in St Helena Road, between Karingal Driveand Anthony Beale Reserve for possible installation of pedestrian crossing facilities.The investigation included several site observations and two (2) pedestrian crossingcounts, in the morning and in the afternoon.Site ObservationsSeveral site inspections were undertaken on different days, times and locations alongSt Helena Road, between Karingal Drive and Anthony Beale Reserve.During the times of observations at all locations, no pedestrians were observedcrossing St Helena Road, except for the location in the vicinity of Anthony BealeReserve, shown in figure 2.Ordinary Meeting of Council - 18 March 2013 Page 11

People – Community Strengthening and SupportST HELENA ROAD, GREENSBOROUGH INVESTIGATION INTO PEDESTRIANCROSSING FACILITIES cont’dPedestrian count data obtained at this location indicates that the warrants for theinstallation of a signalised pedestrian crossing or zebra crossing are not met.2.1Given the busy nature of the road, the pedestrian movements observed and thepotential latent pedestrian demand in the vicinity of the access road into AnthonyBeale Reserve the installation of a refuge island on St Helena Road is consideredhighly worthwhile in this area. This will improve the safety of pedestrians by breakingthe crossing into two stages.RECOMMENDATIONThat Council consider funding the installation of a refuge island, including theinstallation of kerb ramps and footpaths on both sides to link to the existing footpathon the south side and the service road and the access road on the north side, as partof the 10 year Capital Works Program.ATTACHMENTSNo. Title Page1 Concept Plan 56Ordinary Meeting of Council - 18 March 2013 Page 14

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment4.1 RESIDENTIAL VEHICLE CROSSING POLICYAuthor:File:Fae Ballingall - Strategic Planner, City DevelopmentBS16/070/0854.1SUMMARYTo update Councillors on progress being made for a Residential Vehicle CrossingPolicy in the Banyule Planning Scheme.OFFICER DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTERESTSection 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.Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest inthis matter.CITY PLANThis report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction of "support the character ofneighbourhoods and guide growth to accessible places".BACKGROUNDA Residential Vehicle Crossing Policy was adopted in May 2012 by Council to guidedecision making for new or modified crossings in residential areas. Council is nowworking toward achieving a stronger policy approach at the local level of the PlanningScheme to achieve better design outcomes, protect Banyule’s highly valued treedstreetscapes and, provide for the preferred character of Banyule’s neighbourhoods.Council has prepared a proposal, Amendment C84, for a new local planning policythat is consistent with the objectives, siting and design of residential vehiclecrossings in the Council Policy. The proposal will also introduce the Council Policy asa reference document to support the new local planning policy.On the 5 December 2011 Council resolved to send the proposal to the Minister forPlanning. Authorisation was received by the Minister for Planning on the 23 February2012 with the condition that the proposed policy be refined in accordance with theState practice note ‘Writing a Local Planning Policy’, before public exhibition. Thepolicy was then amended in accordance with this practice note. At its meeting on the12 May 2012 Council approved the refined local planning policy ‘Residential VehicleCrossings and Driveways’ and the public exhibition of Amendment C84.HUMAN RIGHTS CHARTERIn developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered todetermine if it raises any human rights issues. In particular, whether the scope ofany human right established by the Victorian Charter of Human Rights andResponsibilities is in any way limited, restricted or interfered with by therecommendations contained in this report. It is considered that the subject matterdoes not raise any human rights issues.Ordinary Meeting of Council - 18 March 2013 Page 15

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built EnvironmentRESIDENTIAL VEHICLE CROSSING POLICY cont’dThe Council Policy should be consistent with any changes to the local planningpolicy. This will involve adjustments to the structure, some additional content toreflect the recent analysis work and, inclusion of the engineering standards forcrossings as an Appendix. The proposed update is in Attachment 3.CONCLUSION4.1Council is now positioned to approve both an updated local Planning Scheme Policyand, an updated Council Policy for Residential Vehicle Crossings as shown inAttachments 2 and 3. The intent of the policies are not changed, however furtherrevisions will improve operational clarity and better guide decision-making. This willalso support Council at a Panel Hearing for Amendment C84 by demonstrating itscommitment to introduce an effective local policy for residential vehicle crossoversinto the Banyule Planning Scheme.RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:1. Write to the Minister for Planning to request the appointment of a PlanningPanel.2. Adopts the (attached) updated Banyule Residential Vehicle Crossing Policy3. Approves the (attached) Residential Vehicle Crossings and Driveways LocalPlanning Policy.ATTACHMENTSNo. Title Page1 Summary of Submissions 572 C84 Local Planning Policy (updated) 613 Residential Vehicle Crossing Policy (updated) 65Ordinary Meeting of Council - 18 March 2013 Page 17

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment'C86' COMBINED PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT AND PLANNING PERMITAPPLICATION cont’d• The planning permit application (ref: P484/11) is for a permit for theredevelopment of the land for a residential aged care facility, comprising 178beds, an adult day care centre and associated car parking, and vegetationremoval.At that meeting, Council resolved to seek authorisation from the Minister for Planningto prepare and exhibit the combined Amendment C86 and permit applicationP484/11. It was also resolved that an information session be held to complement thenotification process.4.2Locality PlanTHE EXHIBITION PROCESSAuthorisationAuthorisation was given by the Minister for Planning to prepare a combined planningscheme amendment and planning permit application. This authorisation recognisedthat there may be benefit in updating the Urban Design Guidelines to guide the futurebuilt form of the site. The authorisation was also conditional on the following, that:• Relevant information from the revised Urban Design Guidelines be includedwithin Schedule 10 to the Design and Development Overlay (DDO10) prior toexhibition; andOrdinary Meeting of Council - 18 March 2013 Page 19

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment'C86' COMBINED PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT AND PLANNING PERMITAPPLICATION cont’d4.2• Council must inform the applicant that a planning scheme amendment is notrequired in order to apply for a planning permit for a residential aged care facilityat 250 Waterdale Road, Ivanhoe.Modifications to C86 and P484/11 documents prior to exhibitionIn accordance with the above conditions, some modifications were made to DDO10.Modifications were also made to the revised Urban Design Guidelines to include thefollowing:• Minor language changes to ensure consistency with the Banyule PlanningScheme.• Appropriate reference to the site being within an ‘Incremental Area’ and aStrategic Redevelopment Site in the Residential Area’s Framework under Clause21.06 of the Banyule Planning Scheme.• Added emphasis on the need for future development to have regard to the designoutcomes sought for the Garden Suburban Precinct 5 in the ResidentialNeighbourhood Character Policy under Clause 22.02 of the Banyule PlanningScheme.The draft planning permit that formed part of the earlier report to Council was alsoupdated to correct a number of minor errors, including clarification of the permittriggers, and minor rewording of the conditions.A copy of the updated C86 documents is given in the following attachments:• DDO10 – attachment 1.• Revised Urban Design Guidelines – attachment 2.• Draft Planning Permit – attachment 3.Further refinements may be made to DDO10 to ensure consistency with currentpractice note guidance in preparation for a planning panel.ExhibitionPublic exhibition of Amendment C86 and P484/11 occurred for five weeks, between15 November 2012 and 24 December 2012. Notice was given by:• Writing to the Minister for Planning, other relevant Ministers, public authoritiesand Councils• Writing to owners and occupiers of properties affected by the amendment• Giving public notice in the Government Gazette• Giving public notice in the Heidelberg Leader• Using Council’s website to give information throughout the exhibition periodOwners and occupiers of properties affected by the amendment and permitapplication were also invited to a public information session which was held on28 November 2012. One resident attended the session and was generally supportiveof the proposals.Exhibition resulted in four submissions to the combined C86 and P484/11. Now thatexhibition has been done, no further submissions can be made to the amendments.Ordinary Meeting of Council - 18 March 2013 Page 20

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment'C86' COMBINED PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT AND PLANNING PERMITAPPLICATION cont’dCouncil Officers have been considering the submissions received and have donefurther consultation with submitters.SUBMISSIONSIssues raised in the four submissions are summarised as follows:• The revised urban design guidelines are not considered as effective as theexisting guidelines, as they:o Will result in a worse built form outcome compared with the existingguidelines;o Will not protect some existing trees on site; ando Do not protect neighbourhood character in terms of building height,massing and building materials.• Insufficient detail has been provided with the planning permit application toensure a quality architectural and landscape outcome.• The proposed development will result in inappropriate levels of traffic andincreased noise from vehicles, rubbish collection, ambulances, fire trucks,delivery trucks etc.• The proposed large scale residential aged care facility is at odds with newgovernment and health care initiatives to encourage the elderly to remain in andbe cared for in their own houses.• The site is located too far away from a Major Activity Centre and public transportroutes.4.2Following the exhibition period, officers met with three of the four submitters. Thefourth submitter did not wish for further discussion. These discussions provided forbetter appreciation of concerns and an avenue for clarification and giving furtherinformation. A summary of these discussions is in attachment 4. All foursubmissions may now be referred to a Planning Panel for independent consideration.WHERE TO NEXTNow that public exhibition of combined C86 and P484/11 is done and discussionscompleted with submitters, Council may now write to the Minister for Planning torequest the appointment of a Planning Panel for the unresolved submissions.If a Panel is appointed, a Council submission would pursue an outcome that isconsistent with the C86 and P484/11 proposals that have emerged from publicexhibition, shown in attachments 1, 2 and 3. Any further refinements may improveclarity for seeking restricted hours of deliveries to the site.Following consideration of C86 and P484/11 by a Planning Panel, Council willreceive a further report to consider the Panel’s recommendations.CONCLUSIONFour submissions were received for the combined C86 and P484/11 proposal. Thesesubmissions can now be referred and considered by a Planning Panel that would beappointed by the Minister for Planning. Council will also make a submission at thePanel, as would the proponent.RECOMMENDATIONOrdinary Meeting of Council - 18 March 2013 Page 21

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment'C86' COMBINED PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT AND PLANNING PERMITAPPLICATION cont’dThat Council:4.21. Note that exhibition of the combined Amendment C86 and Permit ApplicationP484/11 is completed. No new submissions can be considered.2. Write to the Minister for Planning to request appointment of a Planning Panel toconsider unresolved submissions for the combined C86 and P484/11 proposal.3. Support the following documents being used in Council’s submission at aPlanning Panel for the combined C86 and P484/11 proposal:• DDO10 – attachment 1.• Revised Urban Design Guidelines – attachment 2.• Draft Planning Permit – attachment 3.ATTACHMENTSNo. Title Page1 DDO10 852 Revised Urban Design Guidelines 863 Draft Planning Permit 1174 Summary of Submissions 125Ordinary Meeting of Council - 18 March 2013 Page 22

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment4.3 VESTING OF RESERVES INTO COUNCIL'SNAMEAuthor:Ward:File:Jeanette Kringle - Property Co-ordinator, City DevelopmentBakewell Beale Griffin Grimshaw Hawdon Ibbott OlympiaBS28/040/0014.3SUMMARYTo consider the vesting into Council’s name the titles to reserves currently in thename of the original subdivider.OFFICER DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTERESTSection 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.Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest inthis matter.CITY PLANThis report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction of "protect and developpublicly used assets".BACKGROUNDCouncil officers have identified approximately 100 parcels of land, the titles to whichare still registered in the name of the original subdivider and are reserved formunicipal, drainage or similar purposes (the land). Until the introduction of theSubdivision Act in 1988, there was no automatic recording on title by Land Registryof Council’s entitlement to be registered as proprietor of such reserves.For all intents and purposes the reserves are parcels of land for which Council actsas the owner. In most instances, Council maintains the reserves as part of itscyclical maintenance program.LEGAL CONSIDERATIONThere are various pieces of legislation that provide Council with mechanisms toachieve a transfer of legal ownership. These include Section 24A of the SubdivisionAct 1988 and Sections 45, 54, 59 and 60 of the Transfer of Land Act 1958. Thechoice is generally dictated by the status of the land (on title) and what (if any) statuteor statutory procedures have vested the land in Council’s name or common law rightswhich may have accrued in favour of Council.STATUTORY PROCEDURESSubdivision Act 1988 and Planning and Environment Act 1987Section 24A of the Subdivision Act 1988 confers on Council, amongst other things,the power to vest land shown or set aside as a reserve on a registered (but notOrdinary Meeting of Council - 18 March 2013 Page 23

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built EnvironmentVESTING OF RESERVES INTO COUNCIL'S NAME cont’dcertified) plan (of subdivision). However, before proceeding under Section 24A of theSubdivision Act 1988 a planning permit must be obtained, in accordance with Part 4of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, to authorise the vesting.4.3CURRENT SITUATIONThe current proposition is that Council should obtain title to reserves created insubdivisions prior to 1988 through procedures under s 24A of the Subdivision Act1988. The process is time consuming and costly.Simplistically, the process involves the following steps:1. Investigating the title2. Engaging a surveyor to prepare a draft plan under Section 24A of theSubdivision Act3. Applying for a planning permit4. Obtaining a planning permit with appropriate conditions5. Obtaining a certified plan6. Applying to the Land Registry for registration of the Plan.This process does not demonstrate the complexities of the problems that can beencountered in dealing with the vesting of titles. Consequently the vesting processrelating to the 100 or so reserves is proposed to be undertaken in phases. The firstphase involves obtaining title to the 23 reserves listed below.Address (Column 1) Purpose (Column 2)197A Banksia Street Ivanhoe Drainage Reserve31A Lorimer Street Greensborough Reserve No. 1 for Drainage and Sewerage PurposesReserve No. 1 for Drainage, Sewerage and Public12A George Court Greensborough Open SpaceReserve No. 1 for Drainage, Sewerage and Public171A Para Road Greensborough Open Space10 Gladman Street Greensborough Reserve for Public PurposesReserve No. 1 for Drainage, Sewerage and Public183A Para Road Greensborough Open Space9 Kalista Crescent Watsonia North Reserve No. 1 for Municipal Purposes6 Glengala Court Greensborough Recreation Reserve No 14A Abercorn Avenue Ivanhoe Drainage and Sewerage Reserve4A Abercorn Avenue Ivanhoe Drainage and Sewerage Reserve1 Lawson Court Watsonia North Reserve No. 1 for Drainage and Sewerage Purposes14A Bannerman AvenueGreensboroughReserve No. 1 for Drainage and Municipal PurposesReserve No. 2 for Drainage, Sewerage and27 Dunbarton Drive Eltham North Municipal PurposesReserve No. 1 for Drainage, Sewerage and134 Weidlich Road Eltham North Municipal Purposes38 Sherlowe Crescent Viewbank Reserve No. 1 for Drainage and Sewerage Purposes4 Dalvida Court Eltham North Reserve No 2 for Municipal Purposes211 Ryans Road Eltham North Reserve No. 1 for Plantation Purposes16 Eskdale Court Eltham North Reserve No 2 for Municipal Purposes219 Ryans Road Eltham North Reserve No. 1 for Plantation Purposes31 Wendover Place Yallambie Reserve No. 1 for Municipal Purposes39A Stonnington Drive Watsonia Nth Reserve No. 1 for Municipal PurposesOrdinary Meeting of Council - 18 March 2013 Page 24

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built EnvironmentVESTING OF RESERVES INTO COUNCIL'S NAME cont’d4 Milne Place Eltham North Reserve No. 1 for Drainage Purposes253A Greensborough HighwayMacleodDrainage ReserveHUMAN RIGHTS CHARTERIn developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered todetermine if it raises any human rights issues. In particular, whether the scope ofany human right established by the Victorian Charter of Human Rights andResponsibilities is in any way limited, restricted or interfered with by therecommendations contained in this report. Section 20 provides that “A person mustnot be deprived of his or her property other than in accordance with law.”4.3Despite Council’s legislative power to vest title to the land in its name, considerationhas been given to the owner’s rights under the Limitations of Actions Act 1958 andthe Human Rights Charter. In this instance the titles are registered in the names ofdeceased owners, deregistered companies or owners who are unable to becontacted. The Australian Securities & Investments Commission (ASIC) has noobjection to Council proceeding with the process so that titles to the reserves, insofaras it relates to the deregistered companies, can be issued in Council’s name.CONCLUSIONThe proposal to vest the land in Council’s name requires Council to form the viewthat the land is reasonably required for the purpose for which it is currently reserved.As earlier indicated, Council acts as owner of the land and, in most instances,maintains the reserves as part of its cyclical maintenance program. On that basis theproposal to vest the land in Council’s name should be supported.Council should now direct, by resolution, that the statutory procedures becommenced under Part 4 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and section 24Aof the Subdivision Act 1988 to authorise, by permit, the vesting in itself of the title tothe land and retaining the land for the purposes for which it is currently reserved orused.RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:1. Being of the opinion that land shown in column 1 of the table below is required for thecorresponding purpose shown in column 2 now directs that the statutory procedures becommenced under Part 4 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and section 24A ofthe Subdivision Act 1988 to authorise, by permit, the vesting of the land shown in column1 of the table below in Council’s name and retaining the land for the purposes shown incolumn 2.Address (Column 1) Purpose (Column 2)197A Banksia Street Ivanhoe Drainage Reserve31A Lorimer Street Greensborough Reserve No. 1 for Drainage and Sewerage PurposesReserve No. 1 for Drainage, Sewerage and Public12A George Court Greensborough Open SpaceReserve No. 1 for Drainage, Sewerage and Public171A Para Road Greensborough Open Space10 Gladman Street Greensborough Reserve for Public PurposesOrdinary Meeting of Council - 18 March 2013 Page 25

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built EnvironmentVESTING OF RESERVES INTO COUNCIL'S NAME cont’d4.3Reserve No. 1 for Drainage, Sewerage and Public183A Para Road Greensborough Open Space9 Kalista Crescent Watsonia North Reserve No. 1 for Municipal Purposes6 Glengala Court Greensborough Recreation Reserve No 14A Abercorn Avenue Ivanhoe Drainage and Sewerage Reserve4A Abercorn Avenue Ivanhoe Drainage and Sewerage Reserve1 Lawson Court Watsonia North Reserve No. 1 for Drainage and Sewerage Purposes14A Bannerman AvenueGreensboroughReserve No. 1 for Drainage and Municipal PurposesReserve No. 2 for Drainage, Sewerage and27 Dunbarton Drive Eltham North Municipal PurposesReserve No. 1 for Drainage, Sewerage and134 Weidlich Road Eltham North Municipal Purposes38 Sherlowe Crescent Viewbank Reserve No. 1 for Drainage and Sewerage Purposes4 Dalvida Court Eltham North Reserve No 2 for Municipal Purposes211 Ryans Road Eltham North Reserve No. 1 for Plantation Purposes16 Eskdale Court Eltham North Reserve No 2 for Municipal Purposes219 Ryans Road Eltham North Reserve No. 1 for Plantation Purposes31 Wendover Place Yallambie Reserve No. 1 for Municipal Purposes39A Stonnington Drive Watsonia Nth Reserve No. 1 for Municipal Purposes4 Milne Place Eltham North Reserve No. 1 for Drainage Purposes253A Greensborough HighwayMacleodDrainage ReserveATTACHMENTSNilOrdinary Meeting of Council - 18 March 2013 Page 26

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built Environment4.4 YOUR COMMUNITY HERITAGE GRANTPROGRAM 2012 - 2013 - IMPRESSIONIST LABDESIGN.Author:Ward:File:Samantha Walsh - Coordinator Leisure & Cultural Services, CommunityProgramsGriffinBS36/015/0264.4SUMMARYTo consider a funding submission to the Federal Government’s Department ofSustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities for the 2012/2013Your Community Heritage Program for the design phase of the Impressionist Lab.OFFICER DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTERESTSection 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.Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest inthis matter.CITY PLANThis report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction of "protect and developpublicly used assets".BACKGROUNDThe Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population andCommunities (Department) is providing funding through Your Community Heritage,a competitive grants program, to: help protect and conserve Australia’s nationallysignificant historic sites; honour eminent Australians who have made a significantcontribution to our nation; assist communities to tell their heritage stories andenhance community engagement in heritage through celebrations and events.The objectives of the Your Community Heritage program are:• to protect, conserve and enhance the values of significant historic heritage;• to enhance the resilience of heritage places to withstand naturaldisasters such as floods, bushfires, storms, and earthquakes;• to contribute to the management and the long term sustainability of significanthistoric heritage sites;• to commemorate eminent Australians;• to bring communities together, and to enhance communityidentity through sharing stories, including multicultural stories;andOrdinary Meeting of Council - 18 March 2013 Page 27

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built EnvironmentYOUR COMMUNITY HERITAGE GRANT PROGRAM 2012 - 2013 -IMPRESSIONIST LAB DESIGN. cont’d• to contribute to the preservation and understanding ofskills at risk of being lost.4.4In 2012–13, Your Community Heritage funding is available under five subprograms:• Protecting National Historic Sites;• Recovering from Natural Disasters;• Commemorating Eminent Australians;• Sharing Community Heritage Stories; and• Celebrating Community Heritage.The total funding appropriation for the Your Community Heritage program in 2012–13 is up to $7.42 million.Applications close on 21st March 2013.HUMAN RIGHTS CHARTERIn developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered todetermine if it raises any human rights issues. In particular, whether the scope ofany human right established by the Victorian Charter of Human Rights andResponsibilities is in any way limited, restricted or interfered with by therecommendations contained in this report. It is considered that the subject matterdoes not raise any human rights issues.CURRENT SITUATIONThe Impressionist LabThe Impressionist Lab concept responds to a long-held aspiration of the communityand the City of Banyule for a gallery that celebrates the region’s unique artistic andcultural heritage. Council’s connection to the Australian Impressionism through theHeidelberg School Artists offers the municipality an unrivalled claim to celebratethis rich and nationally significant cultural legacy.Council is supported by the Heidelberg School Art Foundation, which has alreadymade a significant investment by commissioning a Feasibility Study completed in2009, developing the concept for the Impressionist Lab and gathering support forthis innovative project. The concept has achieved strong momentum with inprinciplesupport from Parks Victoria for locating the centre in Yarra ValleyParklands, and from Melbourne Water which supports the alignment of theImpressionist Lab with its Banksia Wetland project, a stormwater harvesting projectplanned for Yarra Flats. The concept has also gained support from the localcommunity which is excited by the opportunity to enrich the City’s culturalattractions.Ordinary Meeting of Council - 18 March 2013 Page 28

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built EnvironmentYOUR COMMUNITY HERITAGE GRANT PROGRAM 2012 - 2013 -IMPRESSIONIST LAB DESIGN. cont’dThe Impressionist Lab will be an entrepreneurially-aware laboratory for ideas; it willrespond to its site context and will leverage Banyule’s rich artistic and culturalheritage to explore the relationship between people and environment in Australia.In 2011, further investment was made in developing a business case for theImpressionist Lab taking the work of the Feasibility Study to further refine asustainable solution for the interpretation of Australian Impressionist artworks in alandscape setting.4.4The project has involved significant collaboration between Council, and its partners,the Heidelberg School Art Foundation (HSAF), Parks Victoria and MelbourneWater. These parties have not only been engaged by the central idea andopportunity, but have also been keen contributors in identifying challenges andopportunities that are addressed by the Business Case.The Impressionist Lab Business Case provides a clear case for development andaims to inform the ongoing commitment and investment in the Impressionist Labproject by all stakeholders. The document will also provide the basis for ongoingdiscussion with potential sponsors and government stakeholders to bring thisunique opportunity into fruition. Ultimately this project will leverage a significantnational asset and resource to strengthen and maintain tourism and connectdiverse markets.DesignThe next stage in the development of the Impressionist Lab is to undertake thedesign phase of the project. This element of the project will fall into the YourCommunity Heritage Program Funding under the sub category of ‘ProtectingNational Historical Sites’.The local stretch of the Yarra River was made famous by the acclaimed ‘HeidelbergSchool’ artists which included Arthur Streeton, Tom Roberts, Louis Buvelot andWalter Withers.Funding available through this category is for projects ranging from $50,000 -$500,000 and must have a 50% local contribution towards the project. The projectmust be completed by 20 December 2014.The design phase of the project is considered to be $350,000 in total.FUNDING IMPLICATIONSThe proposed funding allocation for the project is:Banyule City Council $150,000Federal Government: $150,000HSAF: $ 50,000If the funding application is successful with the Department then Council’scontribution would need to be available in 2013/14 budget and considered as partof the upcoming budget process.This $150,000 would be made available as part of the prior commitment towardsthe Impressionist Lab project of $1Million, not as additional.Ordinary Meeting of Council - 18 March 2013 Page 29

Place – Sustainable Amenity and Built EnvironmentYOUR COMMUNITY HERITAGE GRANT PROGRAM 2012 - 2013 -IMPRESSIONIST LAB DESIGN. cont’dCONCLUSIONThe project cannot proceed any further without designs so this phase of the project isimportant.4.4RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:1. Support the application to the Department of Sustainability, Environment,Water, Population and Communities for the 2012/2013 Your CommunityHeritage Program for the design phase of the Impressionist Lab for $150,000.2. Consider funding of $150,000 towards the design phase project for theImpressionist Lab as part of the Capital Works Budget for 2013/14, subject tomatching funds being made available via $50,000 from the Heidelberg SchoolArtist Foundation and $150,000 from the Department of Sustainability,Environment, Water, Population and Communities.ATTACHMENTSNilOrdinary Meeting of Council - 18 March 2013 Page 30

Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life6.1 MAV MEMBERSHIPAuthor:File:Gina Burden - Manager Governance, Information & Laws, CityDevelopmentBS08/030/006Previous ItemsCouncil on 23 May 2011 (Item 6.2 - MAV Membership)6.1SUMMARYCouncil at its meeting on 27 August 2012, requested that officers undertake a costbenefit analysis of remaining a member of the Municipal Association of Victoria(MAV). This report provides some analysis and comment on the services providedby the MAV, its relevance to local government, and reports on a recent meeting heldbetween MAV representatives and Banyule Councillors in relation to the role andwork of the MAV. Based on the analysis, the report recommends that Councilcontinue to remain a member of the MAV.OFFICER DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTERESTSection 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.Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest inthis matter.CITY PLANThis report is in line with Council’s City Plan key direction of "advocate on behalf ofthe community".BACKGROUNDAt its meeting on 27 August 2012, just prior to the Council election period, Councilconsidered and approved a Notice of Motion put forward by former Councillor PeterMcKenna in relation to the possible cessation of membership to the MAV. Insummary, the resolution asked for Council to give consideration to the MAV’sfinancial performance and undertake a cost benefit analysis of remaining a memberof the MAV. The resolution also asked for an analysis of other costs associated withMAV membership, and determination of what benefits or detriments Banyule Councilhas derived from its membership, and if no adequate benefits are shown, thatconsideration be given to ceasing membership.The rationale provided with the Notice of Motion was that the MAV has not beeninforming its members effectively of matters that may affect local government, norhas it effectively and proactively represented local government on the biggest issuesaffecting the sector. This includes issues such as advocating against cost shifting,the Local Authorities Superannuation Fund Defined Benefits Scheme, and the lineclearance legislation.The resolution in August 2012 is not the first time Council has considered the issue ofthe feasibility of continuing its membership with the MAV. On 23 May 2011, CouncilOrdinary Meeting of Council - 18 March 2013 Page 31

Participation – Community Involvement in Community LifeMAV MEMBERSHIP cont’d6.1considered a report (attached) which was also in response to a previous Notice ofMotion, asking officers to review Council’s membership. A meeting was held with theMAV about issues of concern, and following that meeting Council resolved toapprove renewal of its membership to the MAV for the next financial year, being2011/12, and for subsequent years.ADVOCACYThe MAV is the peak representative and advocacy body for Victoria’s 79 councils.The MAV describes its role as being one of representing and advocating the interestsof local government, lobbing for a ‘fairer deal’ for councils, and raising the sector’sprofile, amongst other functions.The main way Council advocates through the MAV is by submitting motions to theMAV State Conference which is held twice per year (May and October). At theseconferences all Council members are able to submit their motions for action by theMAV and the motions must pertain to issues that impact across local government.Council’s MAV representatives (Crs. Mulholland and Melican) attend the conferencesand vote on the motions submitted. The MAV produces a report on an annual basiswhich follows up on the action taken in relation to the motions that were adopted atthe state conferences.FUNDING IMPLICATIONSBanyule’s current membership fee for the 2012/13 year, paid in July 2012, was$54,903.20. The next membership fee will be due in July of this year and is likely tobe increased by CPI at least.Further, as a member of the MAV, Council is able to take advantage of the MAVprocurements contracts, whereby the MAV undertake the tender process on behalf ofits members for goods or services that are commonly used by local government, forexample earth moving equipment or trucks. In the 2011/12 financial year, Councilprocured contracts worth a total of approximately $1.5 million through MAVProcurement.CONSULTATIONIn the preparation of this report, feedback was sought from all management areas ofCouncil on the benefits or otherwise that Council receives from its membership to theMAV. Also the MAV were consulted and of its two representatives, Rob Spence(CEO), and Allison Lyon (Deputy CEO), attended a meeting at Banyule CouncilOffices on 25 February 2013 and addressed the Councillors regarding the role of theMAV.DISCUSSIONBenefits or otherwise of membershipWhen seeking input from across Council on this issue, the following feedback wasprovided in relation to some of the ways in which the MAV interacts with or benefitsCouncil:• Access to free or discounted Councillor development and training as part ofthe membership fee.Ordinary Meeting of Council - 18 March 2013 Page 32

Participation – Community Involvement in Community LifeMAV MEMBERSHIP cont’d• The bi-yearly annual State Council Conference at which councils submit theirmotions for advocacy and action by the MAV on issues affecting localgovernment.• The MAV issues a weekly bulletin of key issues affecting local government.• MAV Procurement and access to MAV tendered contract services.6.1• MAV Insurance. The insurance arm of the MAV was established many yearsago as an initiative to help local government which was having difficultyobtaining affordable insurance from the private sector, as local government isseen as too high risk. A mutually funded scheme was therefore establishedand has operated very successfully. Through this scheme Banyule Councilhas cover for public liability, professional indemnity, and product liability.• Training and network groups for Council officers. For example the MAVcoordinate and facilitate a Governance Network which meets on a quarterlybasis. This network includes the Governance managers and senior staff fromacross councils, who are involved in information sharing and learning. Thisnetwork, for example, shares policies and other key resource material, whichis very useful given all councils are required to have the same complianceprograms in place. At the quarterly forums the MAV organises for relevantspeakers to address the Network on key governance issues. The last meetingincluded a presentation from the Ombudsman’s Office.• According to the Strategic Planning Unit, MAV membership gives an avenuefor Council to lobby on statutory and strategic land use planning issues. Forexample, the State’s announcement for new residential zones mobilised theMAV to work proactively for the benefit of the local government sector.Further, State Government Departments often liaise with the MAV to enablecommunication on emerging Planning Policy issues. This enables the MAV tothen host information sessions and workshops that benefit councils. TheMAV also produces a regular planning bulletin keeping members updated onissues.• In terms of environmental issues, the MAV have been proactive, evenleading, on greenhouse gas issues. They championed the ‘give our streetsthe green light’ campaign where over $200 million of government fundingpromises were made. Free of charge, they are running an optional tenderprocess for procurement of energy efficient streetlight luminaires.• The MAV also undertake advocacy in industrial relations matters, eg awardmodernisation, industrial disputes, changes in workplace legislation (orrelated training). However, in these areas the feedback is that theirleadership and initiatives have been very disappointing and lacking.Further discussion of the role of the MAV and the work it undertakes was highlightedin the previous report to Council on 23 May 2010.Meeting with MAV RepresentativesA request went out to the MAV earlier this year for representatives to again meet withCouncil to discuss some of the areas of concern. This meeting took place on 25February 2013, with the CEO and deputy CEO of the MAV.Ordinary Meeting of Council - 18 March 2013 Page 33

Participation – Community Involvement in Community LifeMAV MEMBERSHIP cont’d6.1The MAV representatives detailed the advocacy work and focus issues that havedominated the MAV efforts over the past 12 months which has included:constitutional recognition of local government; establishment of a taskforce to dealwith the Defined Benefits Superannuation Scheme, on which Cr. Tom Melican isrepresenting Banyule; and Cost Shifting issues including school crossing supervisorfunding and HACC funding. Also discussed were the many opportunities forCouncillor involvement, and the courses being offered for Councillors.OFFICER COMMENTMore regular information is probably needed for Banyule’s Councillors on theactivities of the MAV so that there is increased awareness of what the MAV has beendoing. While the Councillor MAV representatives are kept informed and updated ofthe work of the MAV and the actions being taken, particularly in relation to theoutcomes from the State Conferences, this is not necessarily the case for the otherCouncillors who would also benefit from being kept informed. As a minimum allCouncillors will from now on be forwarded a copy of the MAV State Conferencematerial.It should also be noted that of the 79 Councils in Victoria only one Council has everceased its membership with the MAV, being Melbourne City Council which did so afew years back. However, at the end of last year, the MAV announced that theCouncil has since rejoined the MAV, so that all 79 councils are now members.The MAV has also recently held its Board elections and Cr. Bill McArthur fromGolden Plains Shire has been re-elected as President for the next two years. Itwould be useful for Council to invite the President and the Deputy President(unknown at this stage) to meet with Council at a future date.CONCLUSIONOverall the feedback from within the organisation has been positive about theinteractions with the MAV and the support and advocacy they provide. The MAVhave always been happy to visit Banyule and discuss their work whenever they havebeen asked to do so.This latest request to review Council’s MAV membership seems to result from aperception that the MAV is not doing enough to support or advocate for localgovernment, however, this perception is most likely due to there being a lack ofinformation flowing through to Councillors on what exactly the MAV have beenachieving and the work they are undertaking.All 79 Victorian Councils are members of the MAV, and at this point in time it is thepeak body representing the interests of local government in Victoria and the bodythat the State Government turns to in seeking local government input. Thereappears to be no benefit in Banyule ceasing its membership of the MAV.RECOMMENDATIONThat:1. Council note the report and the update from the meeting with the MunicipalAssociation of Victoria (MAV) held on 25 February 2013;Ordinary Meeting of Council - 18 March 2013 Page 34

Participation – Community Involvement in Community LifeMAV MEMBERSHIP cont’d2. Council confirm its continued membership of the MAV;3. Council invite the President and Deputy President of the MAV to meet withBanyule representatives at a later date; and4. In future, all Banyule Councillors receive a copy of the MAV State ConferenceActions Report for information.6.1ATTACHMENTSNo. Title Page1 MAV Report 23 May 2011 132Ordinary Meeting of Council - 18 March 2013 Page 35

Participation – Community Involvement in Community Life6.2 WARD FUND ALLOCATIONSAuthor:File:Emily Outlaw - Senior Governance Officer, City DevelopmentBS02/015/0026.2SUMMARYOne Ward Fund Allocation application have been submitted for consideration:1 Councillor Name(s):Cr Wayne Phillips, Cr Craig Langdon, Cr Mark Di Pasquale, Cr Rick GarottiWard:Beale, Olympia, Bakewell, GrimshawFunding Recipient:Relay For Life Cancer CouncilAmount(s):Beale Ward $500Olympia Ward $500Bakewell Ward $2,000Grimshaw Ward $1,000Purpose/Reason:Sponsorship for the Diamond Valley Relay for Life community event (Sat 23March and Sunday 24 March 2013) - walk or run to raise funds for theCancer Council. Event each year brings the community together for anevening of fun, entertainment, celebration and remembrances – organised byvolunteers of the Organising Committee on behalf of the Cancer Council.Works Completed Yes/No:NoPaid By Applicant Yes/No:NoRecommended by Ward Councillor(s):That $4,000 be allocated to Relay For Life, Cancer Council (Beale Ward $500,Olympia Ward $500, Bakewell Ward $2,000, Grimshaw Ward $1,000)Please Note: Copy of application forms and supporting documentation providedattached (refer Attachment 1).RECOMMENDATIONThat the Ward Fund Allocations for Relay For Life, Cancer Council be approved forpayment and the beneficiaries be notified of Council’s decision.ATTACHMENTSNo. Title Page1 Ward Fund Allocation form 1352 Relay For Life Letter 1363 Relay for Life Poster 137Ordinary Meeting of Council - 18 March 2013 Page 36

Strategic Resource Plan - Use Our Resources Wisely7.1 ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORSAuthor:File:Emily Outlaw - Senior Governance Officer, City DevelopmentBS02/015/0027.1SUMMARYIn accordance with Section 80A of the Local Government Act 1989 Council is required toreport as soon as possible to an Ordinary Meeting of Council a record of any assembliesof Councillors held. Below is the latest listing of notified assemblies of Councillors held atBanyule City Council.RECORD OF ASSEMBLIES1 Date of Assembly: 25/02/2013Type of Meeting:Matters Considered:Councillors Present:Staff Present:Others Present:Conflict of Interest:Councillor Briefing2 Date of Assembly: 25/02/2013Type of Meeting:Emergency Management arrangementsMAV update and presentation2013-2014 budgetSteven BriffaMark Di PasqualeCraig LangdonJenny MulhollandWayne PhillipsTom MelicanRick GarottiSimon McMillan, CEOSauro AntonelliRamesh ChoudariScott WalkerRussell DarlingJacinta BrookesRob Spence - Municipal Association of VictoriaAllison Lyon - Municipal Association of VictoriaN/AStrategic Property GroupMatters Considered:Councillors Present:Staff Present:Others Present:Confidential Matters – Property and ProposedDevelopmentsSteven BriffaMark Di PasqualeCraig LangdonWayne PhillipsSimon McMillan, CEOScott WalkerVincent RyanJeanette KringleMichael HutchisonN/AOrdinary Meeting of Council - 18 March 2013 Page 37

Strategic Resource Plan - Use Our Resources WiselyASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS cont’dConflict of Interest:N/A7.13 Date of Assembly: 04/03/2013Type of Meeting:Matters Considered:Councillors Present:Staff Present:Others Present:Conflict of Interest:Councillor BriefingItems on the Council Agenda for the OrdinaryMeeting of 4 th March 2013 (excludingconfidential items)2.1 Outdoor Smoke Free Areas Policy4.1 New Metropolitan Strategy - Consultationfor Discussion Paper4.2 Consideration to formally name Right ofWay bounded by Elliot, Haig, Monash andAltona Streets in Heidelberg Heights4.3 Multi Unit Development - 6 Hebden Street,Greensborough6.1 Banyule Election Report6.2 Condition of Upper Heidelberg Road,Ivanhoe6.3 Ward Fund Allocations7.1 Assembly of Councillors8.1 Sealing of Documents9.1 Sound barriers for properties on Sellarsstreet that abut Greensborough Highway9.2 Protection of Gresswell Forest NatureConservation Reserve9.3 Multicultural Advisory Committee9.4 Petition to re-open Heidelberg RSL9.5 Rattray Road Montmorency - TrafficConditions9.6 Cleansing Special Levy for The Bell StreetMall Shopping Centre9.7 Green Waste Disposal Costs and OptionsSteven BriffaMark Di PasqualeRick GarottiCraig LangdonTom MelicanJenny MulhollandWayne PhillipsSimon McMillan, CEOSauro AntonelliRamesh ChoudariScott WalkerKeith YeoGina BurdenVivian FerlainoDaniel KollmorganVincent RyanKaylene HodgkinLisa RaywoodPeter UtriN/AN/AOrdinary Meeting of Council - 18 March 2013 Page 38

Strategic Resource Plan - Use Our Resources WiselyASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS cont’d4 Date of Assembly: 06/03/2013Type of Meeting:Matters Considered:Councillors Present:Staff Present:Others Present:Conflict of Interest:Strategic Property GroupConfidential Matters – Property and ProposedDevelopmentsCraig LangdonTom MelicanWayne PhillipsSimon McMillan, CEOSauro AntonelliRamesh ChoudariScott WalkerKeith YeoPeter UtriMichael HutchisonDom ArcaroAndrew Iles (CBRE)N/A7.15 Date of Assembly: 07/03/2013Type of Meeting:Matters Considered:Councillors Present:Staff Present:Others Present:Conflict of Interest:RECOMMENDATIONStrategic BudgetRating strategyCapital works programVacant school sitesSteven BriffaMark Di PasqualeRick GarottiCraig LangdonTom MelicanJenny MulhollandWayne PhillipsSimon McMillan, CEOSauro AntonelliRamesh ChoudariScott WalkerKeith YeoPeter UtriAllison BeckwithDebra LovickPeter BenazicKevin GallagherN/AN/AThat the Assembly of Councillors report be received.ATTACHMENTSNilOrdinary Meeting of Council - 18 March 2013 Page 39

Sealing of Documents8.1 SEALING OF DOCUMENTSAuthor:ProgramsWard:File:Giovanna Failla - Manager Youth & Family Services, CommunityOlympiaBS34/025/017 BP6835/1528.1The following documents require the affixing of the Common Seal of Council:1 PARTY\PARTIES: Banyule City Council and The State of Victoria asrepresented by the Department of Education andEarly Childhood Development (DEECD)OFFICER:Giovanna FaillaFILE NUMBER:BS34/025/017 BP6835/152DOCUMENT:Capital Funding AgreementADDRESS:152 Southern Road Heidelberg WestWARD:OlympiaBRIEF EXPLANATION: Banyule City Council was successful in obtaining$1.34M in grant funding from the VictorianGovernment in 2012. The grant, together with$750,000 of Council funds, will enable Council todevelop a Child and Family Centre at the OlympicVillage Learning Hub located within the grounds of theOlympic Village Primary School at152 Southern RoadHeidelberg West. The disbursement of the grantfunding is subject to Council entering into a CapitalFunding Agreement with the Department of Educationand Early Childhood Development. Ratification of theproposal is required by the affixing of Council’s seal tothe Capital Funding Agreement.2 PARTY\PARTIES: Banyule City Council and Minister for EducationOFFICER:Giovanna FaillaFILE NUMBER:BS34/025/017 BP6835/152DOCUMENT:Lease AgreementADDRESS:152 Southern Road Heidelberg WestWARD:BRIEF EXPLANATION:OlympiaHaving entered into a Capital Funding Agreementwith the Department of Education and EarlyChildhood Development and received grant fundingtotalling$1.34M Council proposes to construct andoperate a Child and Family Centre within the groundsof the Olympic Village Primary School at 152Southern Road Heidelberg West. Council’s right tooccupy the land, following construction of the Centre,is subject to Council entering into a Agreement forLease with the Minister for Education. Ratification ofthe proposal is required by the affixing of Council’sseal to the Agreement for Lease.Ordinary Meeting of Council - 18 March 2013 Page 41

Sealing of DocumentsSEALING OF DOCUMENTS cont’dRECOMMENDATIONThat the Common Seal of the Banyule City Council be affixed to the followingdocuments:8.11. Capital Funding Agreement between The State of Victoria represented by theDepartment of Education and Early Childhood Development and Banyule CityCouncil to facilitate the distribution of the funds to develop a Child and FamilyCentre at the Olympic Village Learning Hub located within the grounds of theOlympic Village Primary School at 152 Southern Road Heidelberg West.2. Agreement for Lease between the Minister for Education and Banyule CityCouncil for the Child and Family Centre to be constructed within the grounds ofthe Olympic Village Primary School at 152 Southern Road Heidelberg West.ATTACHMENTSNilOrdinary Meeting of Council - 18 March 2013 Page 42

Notice of Motion9.1 REDMAN COURT WETLANDS STUDYAuthor:Ward:File:Cr Rick GarottiGrimshawST62509.1TAKE NOTICE that it is my intention to move:“That:1. Council investigate options to determine the feasibility of convertingRedmond Court Wetlands into an open space area for public passive recreation;2. The cost of the study be included in Council’s 2013-2014 Capital WorksBudget for consideration.”ExplanationRedman Court Wetlands StudyResidents of the College View Estate have expressed a desire for more passiveopen space along Redman Court, Bundoora. As a consequence, I request thatCouncil Officers commission a study to determine if part or all of the wetlands inRedmond Court could be converted into an open meadow for passive recreation.If changes can be accommodated, the study would need to consider any drainageimpacts, options for alternative drainage retention, down stream and up streamimpacts of any change and an assessment of the environmental impacts.The outputs of the study should provide a range of cost estimates for drainageinfrastructure, associated civil engineering works and vegetation establishment forthe purpose of informing future decisions. The study will involve consultation withlocal residents in and around College View Estate.CR RICK GAROTTIGrimshawWardATTACHMENTSNilOrdinary Meeting of Council - 18 March 2013 Page 43

Notice of Motion9.2 PRESERVING NEIGHBOURHOODCHARACTER IN BANYULEAuthor:Ward:File:Cr Rick GarottiGrimshawBS16/040/0109.2TAKE NOTICE that it is my intention to move:“ThatCouncil officers provide a report to Council on options to promote greateraccountability among landlords for the upkeep and maintenance of their properties tominimum standards. The report should consider options to positively encouragebetter behaviour as well as options to penalise non-compliance with minimumstandards. The report should also consider how the local community and otherstakeholders, such as local real estate agents, which manage many properties onbehalf of landlords, might be engaged in this process.”ExplanationHistorically, owner-occupiers have resided in most properties in Watsonia andBundoora. In recent years the area has experienced an increase in the number ofproperties that are tenanted, many of which are on a short-term basis to studentsattending LaTrobe and RMIT Universities. Long-term residents in the area areconcerned that these properties are not being adequately maintained, particularly thefront gardens and nature strips, and that this is reducing the amenity of the localarea. Local residents seek action from Council on what it can do to help address thisissue. I move this motion on their behalf.CR RICK GAROTTIGrimshawWardATTACHMENTSNilOrdinary Meeting of Council - 18 March 2013 Page 44

Notice of Motion9.3 COST SHIFTING ONTO COUNCILAuthor:Ward:File:Cr Rick GarottiGrimshawBS12/035/0049.3TAKE NOTICE that it is my intention to move:“ThatCouncil officers provide a report on the cost pressures Council may be facing due tocost shifting of services from other levels of Government. The report should detailkey services where this is potentially occurring and the impacts that this may behaving on Council’s resources and financial capacity.”ExplanationCost shifting occurs when Australian and Victorian Government programs transferresponsibilities to local government with insufficient funding or with grants that do notkeep pace with service delivery costs. Council rates are commonly used to coverfunding shortfalls. It is recognised that such cost shifting may have been occurring inkey service areas for many years. As Council seeks to deliver our next budget, it isimportant that Council and the public appreciate the cost pressures being facing as aconsequence of cost shifting.CR RICK GAROTTIGrimshawWardATTACHMENTSNilOrdinary Meeting of Council - 18 March 2013 Page 45

Notice of Motion9.4 FIRE SERVICES PROPERTY LEVYAuthor:Ward:File:Cr Rick GarottiGrimshawBS12/040/0049.4TAKE NOTICE that it is my intention to move:“ThatCouncil officers provide a report on the Fire Services Property Levy that is to beintroduced by the State Government. The report should detail the structure andoperation of the levy and the potential adverse impacts, if any, that it may have onratepayers and residents in Banyule.”ExplanationThe Victorian Government is expected to introduce the Fire Services Property Levyfrom 1 July 2013 to fund the Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board (MFB)and the Country Fire Authority (CFA). It is important for Council and the public tounderstand any potential adverse impacts that this may have on residents andratepayers in Banyule.CR RICK GAROTTIGrimshawWardATTACHMENTSNilOrdinary Meeting of Council - 18 March 2013 Page 46

Notice of Motion9.5 BANYULE COUNCIL WARD FUND POLICYAuthor:Ward:File:Cr Wayne PhillipsBealeBS02/015/0029.5TAKE NOTICE that it is my intention to move:“That:1. Council adopt the attached Banyule Ward Fund Policy.2. A Copy of the Policy be forwarded to the Local Government Investigations &Compliance Inspectorate, for information.”PurposeThe purpose of this Ward Fund Policy is to prescribe the process to be followed forthe expenditure of funds from the Banyule Council Ward Fund. It also sets guidingcriteria for determining the allocation of funds to individuals and groups withinBanyule.ExplanationCouncil allocates funds from its annual budget to provide an avenue throughout theyear for Council to allocate small grants to groups and individuals, or towardsprojects or events that benefit the Banyule Community.Council recognises that there are community needs and requests, on a small scale,which occur throughout the year, which merit consideration and funding. Theserequests are usually not known at the time of the adoption of the budget.The establishment of the Council Ward Fund allows Council the opportunity to fundthose grant applications which meet the criteria of this Policy, and in accordance withthe procedures set out in the Policy.The distribution of ward funds will occur in a manner that is transparent andaccountable to the citizens of Banyule given that all ward fund recommendationsmust be considered as an item of business during Ordinary meetings of Council.This ensures all ward fund distributions are subject to the highest degree oftransparent public scrutiny.CR WAYNE PHILLIPSBeale WardATTACHMENTSNo. Title Page1 Banyule Council Ward Fund Policy 138Ordinary Meeting of Council - 18 March 2013 Page 47

Notice of Motion9.6 FUNDING APPLICATION - IVANHOE LIBRARY -REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUSTRALIA FUNDGRANTSAuthor:Ward:File:Cr Jenny MulhollandGriffinBS12/020/0019.6TAKE NOTICE that it is my intention to move:“That Council:1. Make a funding application for Ivanhoe Library for 5 million dollars as part ofthe Regional Development Australia Fund Grants.2. Write to Federal Member for Jagajaga to support the funding of this importantregional project within her electorate.”ExplanationThe Federal Government have recently extended the guidelines of the RegionalDevelopment Australia Grants to include regional areas within major capital cities.egWestern Sydney. (Weekend Australian March 9-10, 2013).The Ivanhoe Library is part of the Regional Yarra Plenty Regional Library networkand during February 2013 Council approved the funding of drawings for this project.It is an ideal regional project and the redevelopment of the Ivanhoe Library hassignificant regional community support.CR JENNY MULHOLLANDGriffinWardATTACHMENTSNilOrdinary Meeting of Council - 18 March 2013 Page 48

ATTACHMENTS1.1 Alfred Street, Heidelberg Heights - Proposed Traffic ManagementAttachment 1 Alfred Street Petition - Cover Letter ................................................. 50Attachment 2 Council Letter and Survey ............................................................... 52Attachment 3 Revised Concept Plan ..................................................................... 552.1 St Helena Road, Greensborough Investigation into Pedestrian Crossing FacilitiesAttachment 1 Concept Plan ................................................................................... 564.1 Residential Vehicle Crossing PolicyAttachment 1 Summary of Submissions ................................................................ 57Attachment 2 C84 Local Planning Policy (updated)............................................... 61Attachment 3 Residential Vehicle Crossing Policy (updated)................................. 654.2 'C86' Combined Planning Scheme Amendment and Planning Permit ApplicationAttachment 1 DDO10 ............................................................................................ 85Attachment 2 Revised Urban Design Guidelines ................................................... 86Attachment 3 Draft Planning Permit .................................................................... 117Attachment 4 Summary of Submissions .............................................................. 1256.1 MAV MembershipAttachment 1 MAV Report 23 May 2011 ............................................................. 1326.2 Ward Fund AllocationsAttachment 1 Ward Fund Allocation form ............................................................ 135Attachment 2 Relay For Life Letter ...................................................................... 136Attachment 3 Relay for Life Poster ...................................................................... 1379.5 Banyule Council Ward Fund PolicyAttachment 1 Banyule Council Ward Fund Policy ................................................ 138ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 49

Item: 1.1Attachment 1: Alfred Street Petition - Cover LetterAttachment 1 1.1ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 50

Item: 1.1Attachment 1: Alfred Street Petition - Cover LetterAttachment 1 1.1ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 51

Item: 1.1Attachment 2: Council Letter and SurveyAttachment 2 1.1ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 52

Item: 1.1Attachment 2: Council Letter and SurveyAttachment 2 1.1ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 53

Item: 1.1Attachment 2: Council Letter and SurveyAttachment 2 1.1ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 54

Item: 1.1Attachment 3: Revised Concept PlanAttachment 3 1.1ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 55

Item: 2.1Attachment 1: Concept PlanAttachment 1 2.1ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 56

Item: 4.1Attachment 1: Summary of SubmissionsC84 - Summary of SubmissionsSubmissionNumber1Key Issues Raised in SubmissionThe submission objects to thestrategic basis of the policy. Thecontrols are prescriptive and shouldnot be in a local planning policy.The submitter requests that Councilabandon the amendment.Preliminary ResponseThe proposal aims to give guidance for the siting and design of vehicle crossings in residential areas.This guidance is needed because Banyule has done community consultation, analysis and preparedstrategies which confirm the importance of trees to neighbourhoods and protecting street scapes sothey continue to provide for green treed neighbourhoods. More on this is given in:• Neighbourhood Character Policy 1999• Housing Strategy & Framework• Neighbourhood Character Policy 2012The strategic justification for this policy has also been reinforced by analysis that has recently beendone. This Analysis will be revealed in an updated Council Policy.The exhibited proposal has been reviewed in light of submissions that suggest it is prescriptive. Thisreview has found that it is common practice for local policies to include numeric values. This is becauseeffective policy guidance can be achieved by using numbers to illustrate preferred outcomes.Notwithstanding this, Council has identified an opportunity to improve the exhibited proposal. Thisopportunity has found that:• Siting criteria can be given clearer effect by ensuring it focuses on circumstances where morethan 1 crossing is reasonable.• Decision Guidelines can be improved by updating them to include guidance locating newcrossings near street intersections, managing properties with a second frontage and identifyinga preferred distance between vehicle crossings.Attachment 1 4.1Outcome:This submission will be referred to a planning panel where there will be an opportunity for Council andthe submitter to provide further comments to inform a Panel’s recommendation.ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 57

Item: 4.1Attachment 1: Summary of SubmissionsAttachment 1 4.123The submission objects to thestrategic basis of the policy. Itcontends that there is alreadysufficient guidance for crossovers inthe Banyule Planning Scheme andthe policy could compromise theachievement of other planningobjectives such as urbanconsolidation.The submitter requests that Councilabandon the amendment.The submission focuses on thecontent of the policy. It considers thatparticular wording or phrases usedare inappropriate or do not reflect theintent of the policy. The mention ofthe Banyule City Council ResidentialVehicle Crossing (Driveway) Policy inthe policy basis should be removed.The phrase ‘street trees’ should be‘significant street trees’.The submission proposes severalchanges to the policy content.The submitter requests that Councilabandon the amendment unless therequested changes are adopted.The strategic justification for the proposal is addressed in the response to Submitter 1.Outcome:This submission will be referred to a planning panel where there will be an opportunity for Council andthe submitter to provide further comments to inform a Panel’s recommendation.Most of the suggested changes are broadly agreed to and will improve the clarity of the policy.The proposal makes reference to the Banyule City Council Residential Vehicle Crossing (Driveway) inthe Policy Basis as it highlights the background information for the implications and detailed designgiven in the policy. This reference can be revised rather than removed.In relation to adding ‘significant’ before street trees, the term ‘significant’ has a specific meaning in thecontext of the Banyule Planning Scheme and it may be confusing to use it in the context suggested inthe submission. As an alternative, the term ‘valued’ has been proposed.Outcome:An updated policy has been prepared which has resolved the issues to the general satisfaction of theSubmitter.4The submission objects to thestrategic basis, content and structureof the policy. There are issuesspecific to the siting criteria andThe strategic justification for the proposal is addressed in the response to Submitter 1.In relation to Banyule’s Neighbourhood Character work, Council has recently approved itsNeighbourhood Character Strategy 2012. This Strategy leverages off the previous work done for theORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 58

Item: 4.1Attachment 1: Summary of Submissions56guidelines, including the thresholdsand potential restrictiveness to futuredevelopments. The compatibility ofthe policy to the NeighbourhoodCharacter Policy and HousingFramework is also raised as anissue.The submission objects to thestrategic basis, content and structureof the policy. Concerns are alsoraised in relation to Banyule’splanning approach and the legitimacyof this proposal.The submitter requests that Councilabandon the amendment.The submission’s issue is with thepolicy’s interpretation of decisionmaking. VicRoads is the decisionmaker for any new access pointsabutting a declared main road.Therefore Council should not beprescribing situations in the SitingCriteria where a second crossing1999 Neighbourhood Character Study, and has undergone extensive public consultation and testingthrough interim planning scheme provisions. Amendment C68 has been given to the Minister forPlanning to put Banyule’s Neighbourhood Character Strategy 2012 into the Banyule Planning Scheme.This includes a replacement policy at Clause 22.02 which proposes to reduce the number ofneighbourhood character precincts, whilst providing more detailed design guidance for residentialdevelopment.The neighbourhood character precincts referred to in the proposed Residential Vehicle Crossings policymust be consistent with what is currently in the Scheme. The precincts in the scheme are still based onthe 1999 Strategy, rather than the 2012 Strategy. The policy will be updated at the appropriate time toensure an effective relationship with the Neighbourhood Character Policy at Clause 22.02.Outcome:This submission will be referred to a planning panel where there will be an opportunity for Council andthe submitter to provide further comments to inform a Panel’s recommendation.The strategic justification for the proposal is addressed in the response to Submitter 1.Outcome:This submission will be referred to a planning panel where there will be an opportunity for Council andthe submitter to provide further comments to inform a Panel’s recommendation.VicRoads is the Roads Authority and has Referral Authority status as described in the provisions of theBanyule Planning Scheme. For development of residential land near main roads these provisions aregiven in:1. 36.04 -3: for the road zone, this identifies the roads authority within the decision guidelines.2. 52.29: for Land Adjacent to a road zone, category 1, or a Public Acquisition Overlay for aCategory 1 Road which highlights the role of the roads authority for referrals.Attachment 1 4.1ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 59

Item: 4.1Attachment 1: Summary of Submissionsmight be considered.Notwithstanding the above, the proposed local policy includes decision guidelines for specific decisionmaking on vehicle crossings. These guidelines may be revised to ensure consistency with otherexisting provisions of the scheme to ensure the role of the Roads Authority is clear.Attachment 1 4.1Outcome:An updated policy has been prepared which has resolved the issue to the satisfaction of the Submitter.The submission has been withdrawn.ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 60

Item:4.1Attachment 2: C84 Local Planning Policy (updated)22.06 RESIDENTIAL VEHICLE CROSSINGS AND DRIVEWAYSThis policy applies to the siting of vehicle crossings in the Rural Conservation, Residential1, Low Density Residential and Public Use Zones.22.06-1 Policy BasisThe Municipal Strategic Statement acknowledges the significant contribution thatvegetation, landscaping and trees make to the environmental quality and character ofBanyule’s streetscapes and neighbourhoods.The incremental increase of inappropriately sited and designed vehicle crossings and theirassociated driveways can have a significant impact on existing and future street trees,nature strips, streetscapes and planting opportunities in front setbacks. In somecircumstances, double width crossings can exacerbate these impacts.The loss of street trees, reduction of nature strips, and gradual changes to the rhythm andspacing of vehicle crossings in streetscapes can arise from the increasing frequency andwidth of vehicle crossings and associated driveways. This needs to be carefully managed sothe preferred character of streetscapes and neighbourhoods as described in the Banyule CityCouncil Neighbourhood Character Strategy is supported. Implications for driveways,onstreetparking, pedestrian safety, traffic safety, stormwater and infrastructure all need to beconsidered as well. Background information for these implications and for detailed designis given in the Banyule City Council Residential Vehicle Crossing (Driveway) Policy.22.06-2 Policy ObjectivesTo support the rhythm of trees, nature strips and well spaced vehicle crossings in thestreetscape to support the preferred future character of neighbourhoods.To protect the valued character and size of nature strips by continuing to protect andprovide for street trees.To minimise loss of on-street parking.Attachment 2 4.1To continue to protect pedestrian safety along public footpaths, as well as traffic safety, inthe siting of any new vehicle crossing.To minimise any adverse impacts on stormwater and other infrastructure in the siting ofnew vehicle crossings.--/--/20---/--/20---/--/20-22.06-3 Policy--/--/20- It is policy to:• Provide for one single width vehicle crossing and associated driveway for eachresidential development, unless the development meets the Siting Criteria.• Where practicable, position vehicle crossings away from valued street trees.• Position vehicle crossings to take account of the rhythm and spacing of the majority ofvehicle crossings along the street.• Position vehicle crossings and their associated driveways to maintain valued on-sitetrees and allow further planting opportunities in the front setback and betweendriveways and side boundary fences.• Provide for appropriately designed and constructed residential vehicle crossingsORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 61

Item:4.1Attachment 2: C84 Local Planning Policy (updated)Siting CriteriaIt is policy that:Attachment 2 4.1• For a single dwelling, an additional single width vehicle crossing is generallyacceptable if the existing front boundary is equal to or greater than 20 metres in width.• For a site with more than one dwelling, additional single width vehicle crossings isgenerally acceptable, if the:−−−−Width of the existing front boundary is equal to or greater than 20 metres withinneighbourhood character precincts GC1, GC2, GC5, GC6, GC7, GS1, GS2,GS3, GS4, GS5, GS6, GS9 and GS10.Width of the existing front boundary is equal to or greater than 22 metres forneighbourhood character precincts GS7, GS8, GC3, GC4, SB1, SB2, SB3, BG1,BG2, BG3.Property is on a corner and a new dwelling is proposed to front the side street.Property has two street frontages (not including a laneway), a dwelling isproposed to face each frontage, and one vehicle crossing is proposed on eachfrontage.• In neighbourhood character precincts BW1 or BW2, more than one single widthcrossing is generally acceptable if all the Policy Objectives can be achieved to thesatisfaction of the Responsible Authority.• Double width vehicle crossings will only be considered if required as a condition on aplanning permit that has not lapsed, except in special circumstances.• Proposals that do not meet these criteria may still meet the objectives of this policy.22.06-4 Decision Guidelines--/--/20-In considering any proposal to site a new or additional vehicle crossing, the ResponsibleAuthority will consider, as appropriate, the following decision guidelines:• Any vehicle crossing should be at least 9 metres from the corner property boundary atany street intersection.• Where there is a second frontage to a laneway, the preferred location for vehicleaccess and egress is the laneway, as long as this location is secure, manoeuvrable andsafe for vehicle movement.• The minimum preferred distance along a street between vehicle crossings is 8 metres.• The response of the Roads Authority, where the development is serviced by a RoadZone - Category 1.• Whether the existing vehicle crossing remains the preferred location and if a suitablesecond frontage exists, such as a laneway.• Whether a new vehicle crossing provides adequate separation between it and anexisting street tree to protect the trees roots and canopy and to minimise the risk of thecrossing being affected by future tree growth.• Where a new crossing is proposed near to an existing crossing for a neighbouringproperty, a landscape strip of at least 1 metre width must be provided for the entirelength of the driveway - between the dwelling and the property boundary. This stripmust be planted out to the satisfaction of Council.ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 62

Item:4.1Attachment 2: C84 Local Planning Policy (updated)• Where there is a loss of on-street car parking, whether the availability of publicparking in the area and the amount of on-site car parking facilitated by the proposedcrossing is adequate.• Whether the location of a proposed vehicle crossing involves the alteration orremoval of any street tree, street furniture, electricity pole, drainage pit or otherCouncil and/or Public Authority asset and whether approval of the relevant authorityfor such removal has been achieved.• Where siting criteria indicates that a second crossing is generally acceptable, considerwhether:- Additional planting will be provided in the front setback or nature strip to offsetthe visual impact of the crossing on the nature strip.- Opportunities for future street tree planting are available.- The number and location of the proposed crossings for a development reflect thenumber and location of crossings for the majority of existing developments inthe street.- Whether there is already more than one existing legal crossing.- A safety or traffic improvement is to be gained.- A site layout or design improvement is to be gained that supports the preferredneighbourhood character of the precinct. This includes protecting street trees,and enabling opportunities for future planting of trees in front setbacks.• Where siting criteria indicates that more than one crossing is generally acceptable forproperties at street corners or properties with two street frontages, whether thefollowing have been considered:- The number and orientation of proposed dwellings to both street frontages.- The width of each street frontage.• Where siting criteria indicates that a double width crossing is generally acceptable,consider whether:- Additional planting will be provided in the front setback or nature strip to offsetthe visual impact of the crossing on the nature strip.- Opportunities for future street tree planting are available.- A site layout or design improvement is to be gained that supports the preferredneighbourhood character of the precinct. This includes protecting street trees,and enabling opportunities for future planting of trees in front setbacks.- Availability of on-site parking and public parking in the local area.- A safety or traffic improvement is to be gained.Attachment 2 4.1• When an existing vehicle crossing becomes redundant, it should be removed and worksdone to establish a treed nature strip that is in keeping with the streetscape. Thisincludes the reinstatement of kerb, channel, footpath and nature strip at the owner’sresponsibility and cost to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.• In circumstances where approval is granted for two (2) or more vehicle crossings or adouble width crossing, Council may require the contribution of at least one (1)additional street tree. In some circumstances additional trees on the development sitemay be required. The preferred location for an additional on-site tree will be in thefront setback area. Where removal or replacement of a street tree is approved all costsfor doing so must be borne by the applicant.• When a proposal relies on more than one (1) existing crossing, whether each existingcrossing has been given previous approval.• Whether final design and construction has been done consistently with Banyule CityCouncil’s civil infrastructure guidelines and specifications for construction.ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 63

Item:4.1Attachment 2: C84 Local Planning Policy (updated)Policy ReferencesAttachment 2 4.1Banyule City Council, Residential Vehicle Crossing PolicyBanyule City Council, Neighbourhood Character StrategyBanyule City Council’s Guidelines for the Civil Infrastructure Works associated withResidential, Commercial and Industrial DevelopmentsBanyule City Council’s Specification for Construction of Private/Commercial VehicularCrossingORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 64

Item: 4.1Attachment 3: Residential Vehicle Crossing Policy (updated)RESIDENTIAL VEHICLE CROSSING POLICY 2012Attachment 3 4.1ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 65

Item: 4.1Attachment 3: Residential Vehicle Crossing Policy (updated)Attachment 3 4.1VERSION CONTROLVersion Date Comment1 12 May 2012 Initial version. Adopted by Council beforepublic exhibition of C84.2 18 March 2013 Updated version. Adopted by Council afterpublic exhibition of C84.ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 66

Item: 4.1Attachment 3: Residential Vehicle Crossing Policy (updated)1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThis Residential Vehicle Crossing Policy (this Policy) is used by Council to consider proposalsfor new and modified vehicle crossings, that give road access for residential development.For the purpose of the planning scheme, this Policy gives background information tosupport a proposal to change the Banyule Planning Scheme with Amendment C84. Thischange is for a local planning policy at clause 22. This C84 proposal anticipates this Policybeing a Reference Document in the planning scheme.The proposed C84 local planning policy is primarily geared to residential zoned land. Thiscurrently includes the Rural Conservation, Residential 1, and Low Density Residential Zonesin the Banyule Planning Scheme. It is also intended for any residential development thatmay occur on land that is zoned for public purposes. It is not intended for mixed usedevelopments, with residential as a component, on other zoned land.This Policy also supports any future changes to residential zones in the Banyule PlanningScheme. This includes any new zones for residential land use that may supersede or expandupon those mentioned above.This Policy is also intended for Council’s responsibilities under other legislation. Thisincludes the Road Management Act 2004, the Local Government Act 1989 and relevantlocal laws.The work done to create this Policy and concurrently pursue C84 is positioning Council tohave a consistent approach for new and modified vehicle crossing for residentialdevelopment.Attachment 3 4.12. INTRODUCTION2.1. PowersIn Banyule, landscaping, vegetation and trees make a prominent contribution to preferredstreetscapes and neighbourhood character. Incremental increase of inappropriately sited,designed and constructed vehicle crossings, including double width crossings, can have asignificant impact on these preferences.The incremental loss of street trees, reduced nature strips and changes to their rhythmalong streets is associated with the incremental increase and size of vehicle crossings alongBanyule’s residential streets. Banyule needs to manage these incremental impacts, so itcan effectively provide for the preferred treed character of streetscapes andneighbourhoods. In addition, implications for on-street parking, pedestrian safety, trafficsafety, stormwater and infrastructure impacts also need to be considered.The power to consent to the construction of vehicle crossings is conferred on Council underthe provisions of the Road Management Act 2004, and under Part 6 of the Banyule CityCouncil General Local Law (Local Law 1 2005).ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 67

Item: 4.1Attachment 3: Residential Vehicle Crossing Policy (updated)Attachment 3 4.12.2. ProcessThe Policy enables Council to have a consistent approach for the issuing of CrossoverPermits, which are managed under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1989. Italso enables consistency, being pursed through Amendment C84, for planning permitproposals that are done under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and through theprovisions of the Banyule Planning Scheme.Any application for a vehicle crossing must be in writing. If the proposal is being pursuedthrough a planning permit application then assessment will be done in accordance with theResidential Vehicle Crossings and Driveways local planning policy in clause 22 of the BanyulePlanning Scheme. If the proposal is not being pursued through a planning permit applicationthen a crossing application must be submitted.Crossing applications will have regard to this Policy, and any related Policies and Guidelines.This includes, but is not limited to the:• The Banyule Planning Scheme, particularly the proposed Local Planning Policy forVehicle Crossings, the Neighbourhood Character Policy and Overlays for heritage,vegetation protection, environmental significance, landscape significance and design fordevelopment.• Site access requirements of Victorian Building Regulations 2006.• Any other related policies and guidelines.3. STRATEGIC CONTEXTBanyule City Council has a City Plan 2009-2013 with a framework. This framework includesa theme for Banyule as a place, for sustainable amenity and built environment. Keydirections for this include:• Support the character of neighbourhoods and guide growth to accessible places• Support strengthening of local centres of activity• Protect and develop publically used assets• Enhance public spaces• Support sustainable transportThe intent of Council’s City Plan is furthered by the Strategic Framework given at clause21.02-2 of the Banyule Planning Scheme. This framework includes five key elements thatare reflected by the structure of the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS). These are:• Cultural Heritage• Land Use (Housing, Commercial, Industrial and Community Facilities)• Natural Environment• Built Environment• Transport and InfrastructureORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 68

Item: 4.1Attachment 3: Residential Vehicle Crossing Policy (updated)The framework plan at clause 21.02, also shown in Figure 1, shows those parts of the Citywith noted environmental or landscape significance. These might include areas withhistoric, hilly, river valley or environmental attributes. Whilst there is noted significanceshown by the framework plan, a more complete picture for the issues facing Banyule’sresidential areas is reflected in clause 21.06 ‘Built Environment’. Collectively these issuesillustrate that a high quality built environment, contribution of vegetation acrossneighbourhoods and the design of development is important for all of Banyule’sneighbourhoods. This is supported by Council’s 2009 Housing Strategy and 2012Neighbourhood Character Strategy. Figure 2 shows the relationship between the keystrategies, plans and the planning scheme.A consequence of Council’s strategic direction for its neighbourhoods is the need to provideclarity around the siting and design of residential vehicle crossings across the City. Theintent of this Policy is to give this clarity in a manner that integrates Council’s frameworksfor the City.Attachment 3 4.1ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 69

Item: 4.1Attachment 3: Residential Vehicle Crossing Policy (updated)Attachment 3 4.1Figure 1: Strategic Framework Plan at clause 21.02 of the Banyule Planning SchemeORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 70

Item: 4.1Attachment 3: Residential Vehicle Crossing Policy (updated)Victoria’s PlanningSchemeState Planning PolicyFramework and ResCodeBanyule Planning Schemewith potential changes tozones, overlays, MSS andLocal Planning Policy tohelp implementNeighbourhood CharacterPolicy at 22.02Banyule ResidentialVehicle Crossing PolicyAmendment C84proposed local planningpolicy at clause 22 toimplement this PolicyBanyule City Plan2009 - 2013Banyule 5 ‘P’ Policies andStrategies(in preparation)Banyule HousingStrategy 2009Banyule NeighbourhoodCharacter Strategy 2013Attachment 3 4.1Figure 2: Strategic context3.1. Policy ArchitectureThis Policy’s architecture (or structure) enables informed decision making. Initially, policydirection is informed by a suite of principles. These principles have been used to translateBanyule’s frameworks into Policy Objectives that respond to the diversity of Banyule’sresidential areas. Because of this diversity, which is reflected by the Strategic Framework Planin Figure 1, the Policy Objectives are given further clarity through Policy Statements and PolicySiting Criteria.Collectively, the objectives, statements and siting criteria give effect to the preferred designand siting outcomes for residential vehicle crossings in Banyule’s diverse neighbourhoods.These outcomes are given further clarity through Policy Decision Guidelines. Finally, becausediscretion needs to be exercised when managing complexity and unique circumstances, thisPolicy acknowledges the need for Policy Discretion. This policy structure is illustrated by thefollowing diagram:ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 71

Item: 4.1Attachment 3: Residential Vehicle Crossing Policy (updated)Attachment 3 4.1Structure Structure ofof thisPolicyStructure ofResidentialVehicleCrossings &Drivewayslocal policy(LPPF Cl 22)Given the need to ensure consistent decision making for vehicle crossings, the above structureis also is an effective tool to inform the structure of a Local Planning Policy in the BanyulePlanning Scheme. By doing this, Council can more clearly illustrate an over-arching consistentapproach for deciding on any proposal, where it be through the provision of the RoadManagement Act 2004, the Local Government Act 1989 or the Banyule Planning Scheme.4. GUIDING PRINCIPLES4.1. Provide for desired streetscapes that support the preferred future character ofneighbourhoodsRoads are normally in the middle of residential streetscapes. They are the public, sharedspaces that are used by people to access their homes and move to other places. In Banyuleresidential streetscapes are generally centred on constructed roads, with nature strips andstreet trees alongside. Repeated household surveys done by Council illustrate that localresidents put high value on the green, treed environment in their neighbourhoods.The pattern of nature strips across all of Banyule has supported a rhythm of spaced vehiclecrossings along streets, between residential properties. These crossings support housinggrowth that uses these crossings, thereby protecting the pattern and size of nature strip sothat street trees can grow and more planted in the future. This preferred outcome supportsgreen, leafy setting along Banyule’s streetscapes and in its neighbourhoods.In some instances, housing change has inappropriately affected nature strips and streettrees. In particular double width crossings are beginning to affect some streetscapes. Streettree removal, smaller nature strips and lost opportunities for replacement planting areaffecting the environmental and aesthetic quality of some streets.ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 72

Item: 4.1Attachment 3: Residential Vehicle Crossing Policy (updated)Figure 3: Multiple and double width vehicle crossings in a short distanceThis incremental impact can be better managed through more considered siting, design andconstruction of vehicle crossings.SeMultiple and double width vehicle crossings in a short distanceaffects treed streetscapes and results in reduced opportunitiesfor future street tree planting and on-street parkingSeAttachment 3 4.1Sensitive siting, design and construction of crossingsprovide for protected trees and retained streetscapesFigure 4: Protected trees in streetscapesMany neighbourhoods are on sloping land, where there are ridgelines and valleys. Thistopography means that street trees are often visible, not only along streets but also in thebackdrops within and across neighbourhoods as well. In other neighbourhoods street treesare not only prominent along streets they also appear above and between dwellings andgive a green, leafy skyline.Nature strips along residential streets are an important community asset. They not onlysupport existing street trees, other vegetation and landscaping, but also give opportunitiesfor more planting and landscaping in the future.ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 73

Item: 4.1Attachment 3: Residential Vehicle Crossing Policy (updated)Attachment 3 4.1Council’s past strategic planning for neighbourhood character, given in a 1999 Strategy andreflected in the Banyule Planning Scheme, as well as an ongoing review of this work that isdescribed in a 2012 Neighbourhood Character Strategy, has established and confirmed theimportance trees and landscaping to the preferred future character of all neighbourhoods inBanyule.Minimising additional vehicle crossings, particularly double width crossings, will help tosupport green, leafy streetscapes and a preferred future character of Banyule’sneighbourhoods where trees also give green, leafy backdrops and skylines.4.2. Enable tree protection and planting in front setbacksThe front setback, between a home and its front fence, is a privately owned space that isimportant to the appearance of streetscapes and neighbourhoods. It is where previous treeplanting and opportunities for more trees can help to consolidate a green, treed character.Consequently tree protection and planting in front setbacks makes a significant contributionto streetscapes and neighbourhoods. Minimising additional vehicle crossings and associateddriveways will help to support opportunities for tree retention and planting in frontsetbacks.4.3. Protect nature strips and provide for street treesStreet trees and nature strips make an important contribution to the appearance of streetsand the character of neighbourhoods. Protecting nature strips will help to support theretention of existing street trees and opportunities for additional tree planting.Minimising additional vehicle crossings and their driveways will help to:• Protect nature strips for more tree planting opportunities• Avoid effects on the health, form, structure, size, stability or future growth of streettrees• Protect and provide for more street tree planting as prominent features along streetsand for neighbourhoods.Street trees and nature strips are highly regarded community and Council assets. Streettree removal and nature strip reduction is not preferred. When these happen there is animpact on streetscapes and neighbourhood character.Tree removal, even if offset by new tree planting, also has an impact because new streettrees require notable time before they can grow to make the same contribution as aremoved tree. This timeframe can mean that many residents will never see a young saplingreach tree maturity.Any tree removal that is associated with a new or modified vehicle crossing will require acontribution towards new street tree planting and maintenance. This contribution willreflect the removal, replacement and amenity values of the affected street tree and naturestrip.Minimising additional vehicle crossings will reduce risks on nature strips, impacts on streettrees and the need for a contribution towards new street trees.ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 74

Item: 4.1Attachment 3: Residential Vehicle Crossing Policy (updated)4.4. Protect the amount of on-street parkingOn-street car parking is an important community resource. It needs to be protected. Thishelps to support population change and housing growth in residential areas.On-street parking also supports local economic development and benefits for publictransport, particularly for Banyule’s activity centres and main transport routes. In Banyule,public car parking at train stations and transport hubs is often fully occupied. This putsincreasing pressure on the need to protect and provide for efficient on-street car parkingwhere competition for space is highest.4.5. Protect pedestrian safety along public footpathsPedestrian safety along footpaths is important because these are the primary public accesspaths for people of all abilities and ages to connect with their neighbours, community, localfacilities and services. More driveways and vehicle crossings can affect pedestrian safetyalong public footpaths. Minimising additional vehicle crossings will help to protect existingpedestrian safety and manage the number of pedestrian and vehicle conflicts that mayotherwise occur.4.6. Protect traffic safety along roadsTraffic safety is affected by vehicles that are entering or exiting a road at vehicle crossings.An increase in vehicle crossings may increase risks for safety by affecting traffic flow andvehicle movements along a road. Minimising additional crossings will help to retain knownand predictable locations for vehicles entering or exiting the road. This will benefit peoplein vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists.Attachment 3 4.14.7. Minimise adverse stormwater and infrastructure impactsAdditional crossings and driveways that are impervious can cause increased stormwaterrunoff. Incremental increases in impervious areas in local drainage catchments will affectthe performance of the local drainage system.Additional crossings can also affect the performance and structural integrity of drainage pitsand other infrastructure above, along or under roads. Minimising additional vehiclecrossings will help to overcome adverse impacts on stormwater runoff and infrastructure.4.8. Support well-designed developmentA good development outcome is one that positively responds to the existing site contextand contributes to a preferred neighbourhood character. Crossings that are inappropriatelysited or unnecessarily wide (including those shared with abutting crossings) are notpreferred.Crossings and their associated driveways influence critical design elements such as scale,mass, orientation and setbacks of a building, as well as landscaping opportunities andretention of valued trees. Providing clear guidance upfront on the frequency, siting andwidth of crossings enables a considered and high quality design response to be achieved.This can give clearer effect to well-designed development that provides for appropriatehousing growth.ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 75

Item: 4.1Attachment 3: Residential Vehicle Crossing Policy (updated)5. POLICY OBJECTIVESAttachment 3 4.1It is policy for the following overarching objectives to inform decision making:• To support the rhythm of trees, nature strips and well spaced vehicle crossings in thestreetscape to support the preferred future character of neighbourhoods.• To protect the valued character and size of nature strips by continuing to protect andprovide for street trees.• To minimise loss of on-street parking.• To continue to protect pedestrian safety along public footpaths, as well as traffic safety,in the siting of any new vehicle crossing.• To minimise any adverse impacts on stormwater and other infrastructure in the siting ofnew vehicle crossings.6. POLICY STATEMENTSIt is policy that the following statements will give effect to the above objectives:• Provide for one single width vehicle crossing and associated driveway for eachresidential development, unless the development meets the Siting Criteria in Section 6.• Where practicable, position vehicle crossings away from valued street trees.• Position vehicle crossings to take account of the rhythm and spacing of the majority ofvehicle crossings along the street.• Position vehicle crossings and their associated driveways to maintain valued on-sitetrees and allow further planting opportunities in the front setback and betweendriveways and side boundary fences.• Provide for appropriately designed and constructed residential vehicle crossings.7. POLICY SITING CRITERIAIt is policy that the following siting criteria will give effect to the above statements. Thesecriteria will help inform the appropriate number and width of vehicle crossings:• For a single dwelling, an additional single width vehicle crossing is generally acceptable ifthe existing front boundary is equal to or greater than 20 metres in width.• For a site with more than one dwelling, additional single width vehicle crossings isgenerally acceptable, if the:ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 76

Item: 4.1Attachment 3: Residential Vehicle Crossing Policy (updated)- Width of the existing front boundary is equal to or greater than 20 metres withinneighbourhood character precincts GC1, GC2, GC5, GC6, GC7, GS1, GS2, GS3, GS4,GS5, GS6, GS9 and GS10.- Width of the existing front boundary is equal to or greater than 22 metres forneighbourhood character precincts GS7, GS8, GC3, GC4, SB1, SB2, SB3, BG1, BG2,BG3.- Property is on a corner and a new dwelling is proposed to front the side street.- Property has two street frontages (not including a laneway), a dwelling is proposedto face each frontage, and one vehicle crossing is proposed on each frontage.Note: Refer to Figure 4 for the location of neighbourhood character precincts.• In Neighbourhood Character Precincts BW1 or BW2, more than one single widthcrossing is generally acceptable if all the Policy Objectives (in Section 5) can be achievedto the satisfaction of Council.• Double width vehicle crossings will only be considered if required as a condition on aplanning permit that has not lapsed, except in special circumstances.• Proposals that do not meet these criteria may still meet the objectives of the policy.Note: The above criteria will be used when assessing any proposal. Other than for lowdensity properties, it is anticipated that very few instances will exist when these criteriawill not be relied upon to determine the appropriate quantity and size of any residentialvehicle crossings.Attachment 3 4.18. POLICY DECISION GUIDELINESIt is policy that the following decision guidelines will give effect to final decision making thatis informed by the above objectives, statements and siting criteria. These decisionguidelines give clarity to various design matters associated with the final siting and detaileddesign of any crossing.• Any vehicle crossing should be at least 9 metres from the corner property boundary atany street intersection.• Where there is a second frontage to a laneway, the preferred location for vehicle accessand egress is the laneway, as long as this location is secure, manoeuvrable and safe forvehicle movement.• The minimum preferred distance along a street between vehicle crossings is 8 metres.• The response of the Roads Authority, where the development is services by a Road Zone– Category 1.ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 77

Item: 4.1Attachment 3: Residential Vehicle Crossing Policy (updated)• Whether the existing vehicle crossing remains the preferred location and if a suitablesecond frontage exists, such as a laneway.Attachment 3 4.1• Whether a new vehicle crossing provides adequate separation between it and anexisting street tree to protect the trees roots and canopy and to minimise the risk of thecrossing being affected by future tree growth.• Where a new crossing is proposed near to an existing crossing for a neighbouringproperty, a landscape strip of at least 1 metre width must be provided for the entirelength of the driveway - between the dwelling and the property boundary. This stripmust be planted out to the satisfaction of Council.• Where there is a loss of on-street car parking, whether the availability of public parkingin the area and the amount of on-site car parking facilitated by the proposed crossing isadequate.• Whether the location of a proposed vehicle crossing involves the alteration or removalof any street tree, street furniture, electricity pole, drainage pit or other Council and/orPublic Authority asset and whether approval of the relevant authority for such removalhas been achieved.• Where siting criteria indicates that a second crossing is generally acceptable, considerwhether:- Additional planting will be provided in the front setback or nature strip to offset thevisual impact of the crossing on the nature strip.- Opportunities for future street tree planting are available.- The number and location of the proposed crossings for a development reflect thenumber and location of crossings for the majority of existing developments in thestreet.- Whether there is already more than one existing legal crossing.- A safety or traffic improvement is to be gained.- A site layout or design improvement is to be gained that supports the preferredneighbourhood character of the precinct. This includes protecting street trees, andenabling opportunities for future planting of trees in front setbacks.• Where siting criteria indicates that more than one crossing is generally acceptable forproperties at street corners or properties with two street frontages, whether thefollowing have been considered:- The number and orientation of proposed dwellings to both street frontages.- The width of each street frontage.• Where siting criteria indicates that a double width crossing is generally acceptable,consider whether:ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 78

Item: 4.1Attachment 3: Residential Vehicle Crossing Policy (updated)- Additional planting will be provided in the front setback or nature strip to offset thevisual impact of the crossing on the nature strip.- Opportunities for future street tree planting are available.- A site layout or design improvement is to be gained that supports the preferredneighbourhood character of the precinct. This includes protecting street trees, andenabling opportunities for future planting of trees in front setbacks.- Availability of on-site parking and public parking in the local area.- A safety or traffic improvement is to be gained.• When an existing vehicle crossing becomes redundant, it should be removed and worksdone to establish a treed nature strip that is in keeping with the streetscape. Thisincludes the reinstatement of kerb, channel, footpath and nature strip at the owner’sresponsibility and cost to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.• In circumstances where approval is granted for two (2) or more vehicle crossings or adouble width crossing, Council may require the contribution of at least one (1)additional street tree. In some circumstances additional trees on the development sitemay be required. The preferred location for an additional on-site tree will be in thefront setback area. Where removal or replacement of a street tree is approved all costsfor doing so must be borne by the applicant.• When a proposal relies on more than one (1) existing crossing, whether each existingcrossing has been given previous approval.Attachment 3 4.1• Whether final design and construction has been done consistently with Banyule CityCouncil’s guidelines and specifications.9. POLICY DISCRETIONIt is policy to exercise the following discretion when a proposal does not comply with thispolicy’s objectives and siting criteria. In such instances, matters to be taken into account fordiscretion are:• This Policy.• The Banyule Planning Scheme, including any Local Planning Policy for Vehicle Crossings,Neighbourhood Character, Cultural Heritageand Overlays. Overlays may exist forheritage, vegetation protection, environmental significance, landscape significance,design for development, land subject to flooding and special building overlay in urbancatchments.• Site access requirements of Victorian Building Regulations 2006.• Any other related policies and guidelines.ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 79

Item: 4.1Attachment 3: Residential Vehicle Crossing Policy (updated)Attachment 3 4.1Figure 5: Neighbourhood Character Precincts, Clause 22.02 of the Banyule Planning Scheme, May 2012ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 80

Item: 4.1Attachment 3: Residential Vehicle Crossing Policy (updated)APPENDIX ADefinitionsApplication means an application for a planning permit under the Planning andEnvironment Act 1987 and/or an application for a Memorandum of Consent under theRoad Management Act 2004 as the context allows.Arterial Road means an arterial road declared by VicRoads.Crossover Permit means a permit issued under the Road Management Act 2004.Driveway means the land and works that give a physical means of access or egress forvehicles, within a residential property to the property’s boundary with any road. Themeaning of a driveway includes accessways, where referred to in the Banyule PlanningScheme.Frontage means the road alignment at the front of a lot. If a lot abuts two or moreroads, the frontage is the alignment to which the building, or proposed building, faces.Memorandum of Consent means the written consent granted by Banyule City Council,in response to a request for consent.Local or Municipal Road means a road under the care and management of Banyule CityCouncil, in its capacity as the coordinating road authority. In residential areas, it isusually the public land or road reserve that exists between properties that face eachother along a road. It is commonly occupied by footpaths, nature strips, street trees,other vegetation, landscaping, road pavements and vehicle crossings betweenproperties and the formed road in a carriageway.Attachment 3 4.1Planning Permit means a permit issued under the Planning and Environment Act 1987.Public Road means a public road included on Council’s Register of Public Roads asamended from time to time.Sideage means the road alignment at the side of a lot, to which the building on the lot,or proposed building, has its side or rear wall aligned with.Vehicle crossing, crossing or crossover means the land and works that give a physicalmeans of access or egress for vehicles, between a property used for residential purposesand any local road. It includes any associated works to support this access or egress,including changes to existing conditions to support a new or modified crossing that isbetween a property boundary and connecting to a formed road.ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 81

Item: 4.1Attachment 3: Residential Vehicle Crossing Policy (updated)APPENDIX BAttachment 3 4.1Standard Drawings for CrossingsORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 82

Item: 4.1Attachment 3: Residential Vehicle Crossing Policy (updated)Attachment 3 4.1Source: Banyule City Council, Engineering Services, Standard DrawingsORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 83

Item: 4.1Attachment 3: Residential Vehicle Crossing Policy (updated)Source: Banyule City Council, Engineering Services, Standard DrawingsAttachment 3 4.1ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 84

Item: 4.2Attachment 1: DDO10Attachment 1 4.2ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 85

Item: 4.2Attachment 2: Revised Urban Design GuidelinesAttachment 2 4.2ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 86

Item: 4.2Attachment 2: Revised Urban Design GuidelinesAttachment 2 4.2ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 87

Item: 4.2Attachment 2: Revised Urban Design GuidelinesAttachment 2 4.2ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 88

Item: 4.2Attachment 2: Revised Urban Design GuidelinesAttachment 2 4.2ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 89

Item: 4.2Attachment 2: Revised Urban Design GuidelinesAttachment 2 4.2ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 90

Item: 4.2Attachment 2: Revised Urban Design GuidelinesAttachment 2 4.2ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 91

Item: 4.2Attachment 2: Revised Urban Design GuidelinesAttachment 2 4.2ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 92

Item: 4.2Attachment 2: Revised Urban Design GuidelinesAttachment 2 4.2ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 93

Item: 4.2Attachment 2: Revised Urban Design GuidelinesAttachment 2 4.2ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 94

Item: 4.2Attachment 2: Revised Urban Design GuidelinesAttachment 2 4.2ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 95

Item: 4.2Attachment 2: Revised Urban Design GuidelinesAttachment 2 4.2ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 96

Item: 4.2Attachment 2: Revised Urban Design GuidelinesAttachment 2 4.2ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 97

Item: 4.2Attachment 2: Revised Urban Design GuidelinesAttachment 2 4.2ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 98

Item: 4.2Attachment 2: Revised Urban Design GuidelinesAttachment 2 4.2ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 99

Item: 4.2Attachment 2: Revised Urban Design GuidelinesAttachment 2 4.2ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 100

Item: 4.2Attachment 2: Revised Urban Design GuidelinesAttachment 2 4.2ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 101

Item: 4.2Attachment 2: Revised Urban Design GuidelinesAttachment 2 4.2ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 102

Item: 4.2Attachment 2: Revised Urban Design GuidelinesAttachment 2 4.2ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 103

Item: 4.2Attachment 2: Revised Urban Design GuidelinesAttachment 2 4.2ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 104

Item: 4.2Attachment 2: Revised Urban Design GuidelinesAttachment 2 4.2ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 105

Item: 4.2Attachment 2: Revised Urban Design GuidelinesAttachment 2 4.2ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 106

Item: 4.2Attachment 2: Revised Urban Design GuidelinesAttachment 2 4.2ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 107

Item: 4.2Attachment 2: Revised Urban Design GuidelinesAttachment 2 4.2ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 108

Item: 4.2Attachment 2: Revised Urban Design GuidelinesAttachment 2 4.2ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 109

Item: 4.2Attachment 2: Revised Urban Design GuidelinesAttachment 2 4.2ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 110

Item: 4.2Attachment 2: Revised Urban Design GuidelinesAttachment 2 4.2ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 111

Item: 4.2Attachment 2: Revised Urban Design GuidelinesAttachment 2 4.2ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 112

Item: 4.2Attachment 2: Revised Urban Design GuidelinesAttachment 2 4.2ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 113

Item: 4.2Attachment 2: Revised Urban Design GuidelinesAttachment 2 4.2ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 114

Item: 4.2Attachment 2: Revised Urban Design GuidelinesAttachment 2 4.2ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 115

Item: 4.2Attachment 2: Revised Urban Design GuidelinesAttachment 2 4.2ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 116

Item: 4.2Attachment 3: Draft Planning PermitAttachment 3 4.2ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 117

Item: 4.2Attachment 3: Draft Planning PermitAttachment 3 4.2ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 118

Item: 4.2Attachment 3: Draft Planning PermitAttachment 3 4.2ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 119

Item: 4.2Attachment 3: Draft Planning PermitAttachment 3 4.2ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 120

Item: 4.2Attachment 3: Draft Planning PermitAttachment 3 4.2ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 121

Item: 4.2Attachment 3: Draft Planning PermitAttachment 3 4.2ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 122

Item: 4.2Attachment 3: Draft Planning PermitAttachment 3 4.2ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 123

Item: 4.2Attachment 3: Draft Planning PermitAttachment 3 4.2ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 124

Item: 4.2Attachment 4: Summary of SubmissionsAttachment 4 4.2ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 125

Item: 4.2Attachment 4: Summary of SubmissionsAttachment 4 4.2ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 126

Item: 4.2Attachment 4: Summary of SubmissionsAttachment 4 4.2ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 127

Item: 4.2Attachment 4: Summary of SubmissionsAttachment 4 4.2ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 128

Item: 4.2Attachment 4: Summary of SubmissionsAttachment 4 4.2ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 129

Item: 4.2Attachment 4: Summary of SubmissionsAttachment 4 4.2ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 130

Item: 4.2Attachment 4: Summary of SubmissionsAttachment 4 4.2ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 131

Item: 6.1 Attachment 1: MAV Report 23 May 2011Attachment 1 6.1ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 132

Item: 6.1 Attachment 1: MAV Report 23 May 2011Attachment 1 6.1ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 133

Item: 6.1 Attachment 1: MAV Report 23 May 2011Attachment 1 6.1ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 134

Item: 6.2Attachment 1: Ward Fund Allocation formAttachment 1 6.2ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 135

Item: 6.2Attachment 2: Relay For Life LetterAttachment 2 6.2ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 136

Item: 6.2Attachment 3: Relay for Life PosterAttachment 3 6.2ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 137

Item: 9.5Attachment 1: Banyule Council Ward Fund PolicyAttachment 1 9.5ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 138

Item: 9.5Attachment 1: Banyule Council Ward Fund PolicyAttachment 1 9.5ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 139

Item: 9.5Attachment 1: Banyule Council Ward Fund PolicyAttachment 1 9.5ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 140

Item: 9.5Attachment 1: Banyule Council Ward Fund PolicyAttachment 1 9.5ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 141

Item: 9.5Attachment 1: Banyule Council Ward Fund PolicyAttachment 1 9.5ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 142

Item: 9.5Attachment 1: Banyule Council Ward Fund PolicyAttachment 1 9.5ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 143

Item: 9.5Attachment 1: Banyule Council Ward Fund PolicyAttachment 1 9.5ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL ON 18 MARCH 2013Page 144