COUNCIL AGENDA

WEDNESDAY 8 FEBRUARY 2017

COMMENCING 7 PM

COBURG TOWN HALL, MORELAND CIVIC CENTRE, 90 BELL STREET, COBURG

D17/33328

INFORMATION ABOUT COUNCIL MEETINGS

Moreland City Council encourages its citizens to participate in the local government of Moreland. Accordingly, these notes have been developed to help citizens better understand Council meetings. All meetings are conducted in accordance with Council’s Meeting Procedure Local Law. WELCOME The Mayor, who chairs the meeting, formally opens the meeting, delivers an acknowledgement of country and welcomes all present. This Council meeting will be recorded and webstreamed live to Council’s website. This recording will also be available as Video on Demand. Although every care is taken to maintain privacy, gallery attendees are advised they may be recorded. APOLOGIES Where a Councillor is not present, his/her absence is noted in the Minutes of the meeting. DECLARATION OF INTERESTS AND/OR CONFLICT OF INTERESTS Under the Local Government Act 1989, a Councillor has a duty to disclose any direct or indirect pecuniary (financial) interest, s/he may have in any matter to be considered by Council that evening. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES The minutes of the previous meeting are placed before Council to confirm the accuracy and completeness of the record. PETITIONS Council receives petitions from citizens on various issues. Any petitions received since the previous Council meeting are tabled at the meeting and the matter referred to the appropriate Council Director for consideration. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE TO COUNCIL Council considers reports from Committees that Councillors represent Council on. QUESTION TIME This is an opportunity (30 minutes), for citizens of Moreland to raise questions with Councillors. “ON NOTICE” ITEMS FROM PREVIOUS COUNCIL MEETING Items raised during Question Time at the previous Council meeting that were not able to be answered are responded to. REPORTS BY MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS A report of activities from Councillors to advise of events, meetings and other functions they have attended between Council meetings. COUNCIL REPORTS Detailed reports prepared by Council’s Administration are considered by Councillors and a Council position is adopted on the matters considered. The Mayor can invite firstly Councillors, secondly Officers, and then citizens in attendance to identify Council reports which should be given priority by the meeting and considered in the early part of the meeting. NOTICES OF MOTION A motion which has been submitted to the Chief Executive Officer no later than 12 pm (noon) ten (10) days prior to the meeting which is intended to be included in the agenda. The motion should outline the policy, financial and resourcing implications. GENERAL BUSINESS An item of general business relates to business that calls for the presentation of a report to a subsequent meeting in line with particular requirements. NOTICE OF RESCISSION A Councillor may propose a motion to rescind a resolution of the Council, provided the previous resolution has not been acted on, and a notice is delivered to the authorised officer setting out the resolution to be rescinded and the meeting and date when the resolution was carried. For a decision of the Council to be rescinded, the motion for rescission must be carried by a majority of the votes cast. If a motion for rescission is lost, a similar motion may not be put before the Council for at least one month from the date it was last lost, unless the Council resolves that the notice of motion be re-listed at a future meeting. If a motion for rescission is not moved at the meeting for which it is listed, it lapses. A motion for rescission listed on a meeting agenda may be moved by any Councillor present but may not be amended. URGENT BUSINESS The Chief Executive Officer or Councillors, with the approval of the meeting, may submit items of Urgent Business (being a matter not listed on the agenda) but requiring a prompt decision by Council. CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS Whilst all Council and Committee meetings of Council are open to its citizens, Council has the power under the Local Government Act to close its meeting to the general public in certain circumstances which are noted where appropriate on the Council Agenda. Where this occurs, members of the public leave the Council Chamber or Meeting room while the matter is being discussed. CLOSE OF MEETING The Mayor will formally close the meeting and thank all present. NEXT MEETING DATE The next Council meeting will be held on Wednesday 8 March 2017 commencing at 7 pm, in the Council Chamber, Moreland Civic Centre, 90 Bell Street, Coburg.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 2

1. WELCOME

2. APOLOGIES

3. DECLARATION OF INTERESTS AND/OR CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

4. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

The minutes of the Council Meeting held on 7 December 2016 be confirmed.

5. PETITIONS

PET1/17 PUBLIC LIGHTING WHITTON STREET, COBURG NORTH (D16/421968) 7

PET2/17 PETITION FOR PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ON NICHOLSON STREET, COBURG (D17/8128) 9

6. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEE TO COUNCIL

RCC1/17 METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT FORUM OCTOBER 2016 (D16/417206) 12

RCC2/17 FRIENDS OF AILEU COMMUNITY COMMITTEE MINUTES OF MEETINGS 8 SEPTEMBER AND 6 DECEMBER 2016 (D16/329815) 17

RCC3/17 FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 2016 (D17/8605) 30

RCC4/17 HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES SEPTEMBER 2016 (D17/12413) 33

RCC5/17 MORELAND LIBRARIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE (MORLAC) MEETING MINUTES 19 DECEMBER 2016 (D17/13773) 36

7. QUESTION TIME

8. ON NOTICE ITEMS FROM PREVIOUS COUNCIL MEETING

ONR1/17 ON NOTICE ITEMS FROM PREVIOUS COUNCIL MEETINGS (D16/418152) 42

9. REPORTS BY MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 3

10. COUNCIL REPORTS

CORPORATE SERVICES

DCS1/17 ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS RECORD 1 NOVEMBER 2016 TO 31 DECEMBER 2016 (D16/394705) 51

DCS2/17 INSTRUMENT TO APPOINT AND AUTHORISE OFFICERS TO ENFORCE THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT ACT 1987 (D17/13436) 56

DCS3/17 REPORT ON THE CONDUCT OF THE 2016 MORELAND CITY COUNCIL ELECTION (D17/19443) 60

DCS4/17 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT REPORT - FOR THE PERIOD ENDED 31 DECEMBER 2016 (D17/25367) 114

CITY INFRASTRUCTURE

DCI2/17 REVIEW OF INTERSECTION AT SUSSEX STREET AND GAFFNEY STREET, COBURG (D16/410866) 128

DCI3/17 SIGNAGE REQUEST BY THE ISLAMIC MUSEUM OF AUSTRALIA (D16/421559) 131

DCI4/17 TRAFFIC AND PARKING CONCERNS AROUND 223 MELVILLE ROAD, BRUNSWICK WEST (D17/6456) 134

DCI5/17 COBURG STATION - IMPROVING ACCESSIBILITY (D16/397055) 140

DCI6/17 ROAD CLOSURE OF DUCKETT STREET, BRUNSWICK (D17/4975) 144

DCI7/17 UPFIELD SHARED PATH LINE MARKING (D17/5729) 148

DCI8/17 MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATION OF VICTORIA (MAV) CONTRACT NO PP4924. PANEL FOR PARK AND PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT (D17/8383) 152

DCI9/17 CONTRACT NO 527T - PROVISION OF OPEN SPACE LANDSCAPE AND BUSHLAND SERVICES AND MANAGEMENT INCLUDING DESIGN, MATERIALS, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES - CONTRACTORS (D17/13196) 156

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 4

SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

DSD1/17 FRIENDS OF AILEU: CONDOLENCES ON PASSING OF MR MARIO SOARES, SECRETARY AILEU FRIENDSHIP COMMISSION (D16/440398) 159

DSD2/17 INITIATIVES AND SUPPORT PROVIDED TO LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, TRANSGENDER, INTERSEX AND QUEER (LGBTIQ) PEOPLE BY COUNCIL SUPPORTED CLUBS AND SPORTING CODES (D17/11957) 162

DSD3/17 MORRIS RESERVE DRAFT MASTER PLAN - COMMUNITY CONSULTATION (D16/233873) 168

DSD4/17 FOOD SYSTEM STRATEGY UPDATE (D17/9276) 181

DSD5/17 YOUTH SERVICES IN MORELAND (D16/417649) 203

PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

DED6/17 BUILDING 16 LOT S6 CHAMP STREET, COBURG – NOTICE OF HERITAGE VICTORIA PERMIT APPLICATION NUMBER P26010 (D17/28586) 223

DED7/17 BUILDING 9 LOT S4 AND S6 CHAMP STREET, COBURG – NOTICE OF HERITAGE VICTORIA PERMIT APPLICATION NUMBER P24560 (D17/28592) 259

DED8/17 BETTER APARTMENT DESIGN STANDARDS (D16/442242) 297

DED9/17 MORELAND HERITAGE ACTION PLAN - ENDORSEMENT FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION (D16/423729) 322

DED10/17 AMENDMENT C159: NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRES STRATEGY (D16/414968) 361

DED11/17 LEVEL CROSSING REMOVAL PROJECTS IN MORELAND - AN UPDATE (D16/437083) 593

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 5

11. NOTICES OF MOTION

NOM1/17 TREVOR (TURBO) BROWN (D17/30897) 601

NOM2/17 HERITAGE CONTROLS (D17/30885) 602

NOM3/17 GLENROY ART GROUP (D17/30854) 603

NOM4/17 ARTWORK BY ELLIOTT RONALD BULL - PENTRIDGE PRISON WALL IN F DIVISION (D17/30836) 604

NOM5/17 NOTIFICATION REGARDING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS (D17/30603) 606

NOM6/17 IT SUPPORT FOR COUNCILLORS (D17/30820) 608

NOM7/17 LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR ALLARD PARK, BRUNSWICK EAST (D17/30849) 609

12. GENERAL BUSINESS

13. NOTICE OF RESCISSION

Nil.

14. URGENT BUSINESS REPORTS

15. CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS

DED12/17 THE COBURG INITIATIVE UPDATE (D17/18872)

Pursuant to section 89(2) of the Local Government Act 1989 this confidential report will not be publicly disclosed because it relates to (d) contractual matters; and (e) proposed developments.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 6

PET1/17 PUBLIC LIGHTING WHITTON STREET, COBURG NORTH (D16/421968)

A petition has been received containing nine signatures requesting Council to investigate the performance of public lighting in Whitton Street North Coburg, and make improvements where needed.

Recommendation Council resolve: 1. The petition be received and noted. 2. The petition be referred to the Director City Infrastructure for consideration. 3. Any proposed action is emailed to all Ward Councillors and Councillors responsible for, allowing seven clear days for Councillor feedback. 4. The first named signatory to the petition be advised of this action.

Attachment/s 1 Residence information about poor quality of the street lighting - CRS D17/23381 579403

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 7

PET2/17 PETITION FOR PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ON NICHOLSON STREET, COBURG (D17/8128)

A petition has been received containing 552 signatures requesting Council to investigate and improve pedestrian safety on Nicholson Street, Coburg.

Recommendation Council resolve: 1. The petition be received and noted. 2. The petition be referred to the Director City Infrastructure for consideration. 3. Any proposed action is emailed to all Ward Councillors and Councillors Responsible for, allowing seven clear days for Councillor feedback. 4. The first named signatory to the petition be advised of this action.

Attachment/s 1 Petition requesting pedestrian safety for Nicholson Street, Coburg D17/8124

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 9

RCC1/17 METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT FORUM OCTOBER 2016 (D16/417206)

The minutes of the Metropolitan Transport Forum meeting held on 6 October 2016 are provided for Council’s information. Key Items Discussed:  A VicRoads presentation on changes to Hoddle Street to improve people movement.  Metropolitan Transport public transport advocacy actions in response to Level Crossing Removal Authority proposals and draft Infrastructure Victoria report.

Recommendation Council resolves that the report from Committee to Council be received and noted.

Attachment/s 1 October 2016 Minutes - Metropolitan Transport Forum D16/417185

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 12

RCC2/17 FRIENDS OF AILEU COMMUNITY COMMITTEE MINUTES OF MEETINGS 8 SEPTEMBER AND 6 DECEMBER 2016 (D16/329815)

Executive Summary: The minutes of the Friends of Aileu Community Committee meetings held on 8 September 2016 Attachment 1 and on 6 December 2016 Attachment 2 are provided for Council’s information. The minutes of the Friends of Aileu Community Committee meetings held on 8 September 2016 Attachment 1 and on 6 December 2016 Attachment 2 are provided for Council’s information. Key items discussed - 8 September meeting  A report from the Friends of Aileu delegation to the Timor-Leste Government’s 5th Decentralisation and Local Government Conference, Dili, Timor-Leste, 17-18 August 2016. Key items discussed - 6 December meeting  Introduction of new Committee members, including new Chair, Hume Councillor Joseph Haweil, and new Deputy Chair, Moreland Councillor Mark Riley.  Acknowledgement of the contributions of Cr Samantha Ratnam as the 2016 Committee Chair, and former councillor Helen Patsikatheodorou as the 2016 Deputy Chair and the 2015 Chair.  The death of Mario Soares, Secretary of the Aileu Relationship Commission, on 18 November 2016, and some recent developments in Aileu. Refer to separate report to this meeting of Council: D16/440398.  Plans for 2017 including:  Outcomes of the Committee’s planning workshop held on 8 November 2016.  A draft calendar of activities, including the proposal for an observer mission for the presidential election (first round) in March, noting that a second round presidential election is likely to be required in April, and that the parliamentary elections are likely to be held in July 2017.  Consideration by the Committee of the role an Education Working Group could play.  Remaining vacancies on the Committee.

Recommendation Council resolves that the report from Committee to Council be received and noted.

Attachment/s 1 8 September 2016 - Minutes Friends of Aileu Community Committee D16/329544 Meeting 2 6 December 2016 Minutes - Friends of Aileu Community Committee D16/433968 Meeting

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 17

RCC3/17 FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 2016 (D17/8605)

The minutes of the Family and Children’s Services Advisory Committee meeting held on 30 November 2016 are provided for Council’s information. Key Items Discussed:  Early Years Strategy – current status

Recommendation Council resolves that the report from Committee to Council be received and noted.

Attachment/s 1 (FCSAC) Family and Children's Advisory Committee Minutes – D17/8550 30 November 2016

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 30

RCC4/17 HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES SEPTEMBER 2016 (D17/12413)

The minutes of the Moreland Housing Advisory Committee meeting held on 1 September 2016 are provided for Council’s information. Key Items Discussed:  Induction presentation for new members  Progress of Affordable Housing Demonstration Project

Recommendation Council resolves that the report from Committee to Council be received and noted.

Attachment/s 1 Moreland Housing Advisory Committee - Minutes - 1 September 2016 D16/405075

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 33

RCC5/17 MORELAND LIBRARIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE (MORLAC) MEETING MINUTES 19 DECEMBER 2016 (D17/13773)

The minutes of the Moreland Libraries Advisory Committee (MorLAC) meeting held on 19 December 2016 are provided for Council’s information. Key Items Discussed:  Library User Satisfaction Survey 2016  Collection for Readers with Dyslexia  Local Studies Digitisation Project  Action Plan from Feedback from MorLAC members

Recommendation Council resolves that the report from Committee to Council be received and noted.

Attachment/s 1 Moreland Libraries Advisory Committee (MorLAC) Meeting Minutes - 19 D17/13771 December 2016

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 36

ONR1/17 ON NOTICE ITEMS FROM PREVIOUS COUNCIL MEETINGS (D16/418152)

Executive Summary The following items were taken on notice at the previous Council meeting.  ON9/16 – Mr Colin Dyer – Traffic count – C160 Amendment – 14 September 2016  ON10/16 – Ms Gertrude Brunner – C160 Amendment – 14 September 2016  ON11/16 – Ms Helen Deans – Pentridge development – 5 October 2016  ON12/16 – Mr David Nunns – Dispute and grievance resolution and waste collection services – 5 October 2016 A copy of the responses are attached for information.

Recommendation The on notice items from the Council meetings dated 14 September and 5 October 2016 be noted.

Attachment/s 1 ON9/16 Response - Mr Colin Dyer - Traffic Count C160 Amendment D16/420463 2 ON10/16 Response - Ms Brunner - C160 Amendment D16/420443 3 ON11/16 Response - Ms Helen Deans - Pentridge Development D16/418914 4 ON12/16 Response - Mr David Nunns - Dispute and Grievance D16/418124 Resolution and Waste Collection Services

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 42

DCS1/17 ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS RECORD 1 NOVEMBER 2016 TO 31 DECEMBER 2016 (D16/394705) Director Corporate Services Property and Governance

Executive Summary Pursuant to Section 80A of the Local Government Act 1989, an Assembly of Councillors Record must be reported to the next practicable Council meeting and recorded in the minutes. The Assembly of Councillors Record for the period 1 November 2016 to 31 December 2016 is presented at Attachment 1.

Recommendation Council resolves to receive and note the Assembly of Councillors Record for the period, 1 November 2016 to 31 December 2016.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 51

REPORT

1. Policy Context Section 80A of the Local Government Act 1989 sets out the context in which the Assembly of Councillors Records must be reported to Council. 2. Background Amendments to the Local Government Act 1989 and Local Government (General) Regulations 2004 made it a requirement for an Assembly of Councillors Record to be reported to the next practicable Council meeting and recorded in the minutes. 3. Issues An Assembly of Councillors is a meeting of an advisory committee of the Council, if at least one Councillor is present, or a planned or scheduled meeting of at least half of the Councillors and one member of Council staff which considers matters that are intended or likely to be:  the subject of a decision of the Council; or  subject to the exercise of a function, duty or power of the Council that has been delegated to a person or committee. Assembly of Councillors does not include a meeting of the Council, a special committee of the Council, an audit committee established under section 139 of the Local Government Act 1989 a club, association, peak body, political party or other organisation. Some examples include Councillor Briefings, meetings with residents/developers/ clients/organisations/government departments/statutory authorities and consultations. Councillors further requested that all Assembly of Councillors Records for Urban Planning Briefing meetings, irrespective of the number of Councillors in attendance, also be reported to Council meetings. A list of the Assembly of Councillors Record for the period 1 November 2016 to 31 December 2016 is at Attachment 1. Human Rights Consideration The implications of this report have been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. 4. Consultation Councillors and Council staff across Council have been advised of the Assembly of Council requirements as per the Local Government Act 1989. 5. Officer Declaration of Conflict of Interest Council Officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter. 6. Financial and Resources Implications There are no financial and resources implications. 7. Implementation There are no further actions required to implement this resolution. Attachment/s 1 Assembly of Councillors Record - 1 November 2016 - 31 December 2016 D17/17655

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 52

DCS2/17 INSTRUMENT TO APPOINT AND AUTHORISE OFFICERS TO ENFORCE THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT ACT 1987 (D17/13436) Director Corporate Services Property and Governance

Executive Summary The Local Government Act 1989 provides for the appointment of Authorised Officers for the purposes of the administration and enforcement of any Act, regulations or local laws which relate to the functions and powers of the Council. The Chief Executive Officer, by authority conferred by instrument of delegation from Council dated 11 February 2015, makes these appointments. Under the Planning and Environment Act 1987, however, Authorised Officers can only be appointed by Council resolution as the Act prohibits delegation of the power to appoint authorised officers under the Act.

Recommendation Council resolve: 1. That in the exercise of the powers conferred by section 147(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and section 232 of the Local Government Act 1989: a) The Council staff referred to in the Instrument attached (Attachment 1) be appointed and authorised as set out in the instrument. b) The instrument comes into force immediately the common seal of Council is affixed to the instrument, and remains in force until Council determines to vary or revoke it. c) The instrument be sealed.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 56

REPORT

1. Policy Context Section 224 of the Local Government Act 1989 provides for the appointment of Authorised Officers for the purposes of the administration and enforcement of any Act, regulations or local laws which relate to the functions and powers of the Council. 2. Background The Chief Executive Officer, by authority conferred by Instrument of Delegation from Council dated 11 February 2015, makes these appointments. Maddocks Lawyers’ model Instrument of Appointment and Authorisation developed for Victorian Councils is used for this purpose. Under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 Authorised Officers can only be appointed by Council resolution as the Act prohibits delegation of the power to appoint authorised officers under the Act. Maddocks Lawyers have a separate Instrument of Appointment and Authorisation specifically for Authorised Officers appointed under the Planning and Environment Act 1987. This Instrument of Appointment and Authorisation provides for Councils, rather than Chief Executive Officers by delegation, to appoint officers by a resolution. 3. Issues Section 188(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 provides that Councils cannot delegate the power to authorise officers for the purposes of enforcing the Planning and Environment Act 1987. As the Authorised Officers involved enforce several other Acts and regulations other than the Planning and Environment Act 1987, Maddocks Lawyers’ other general Instrument of Appointment and Authorisation covering these Acts and regulations will continue to operate in tandem with the separate Instrument of Appointment and Authorisation (Planning and Environment Act 1987 only) where Authorised Officers are appointed by Council resolution. Human Rights Consideration The implications of this report have been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. 4. Consultation The Group Manager City Development has been consulted in the preparation of this report. 5. Officer Declaration of Conflict of Interest Council Officers involved in the preparation of this report have no Conflict of Interest in this matter. 6. Financial and Resources Implications There are no financial or resource implications. 7. Implementation Once the delegation is approved and sealed, it becomes operative.

Attachment/s 1 S11A Instrument of Appointment and Authorisation (Planning and D17/13429 Environment Act 1987) - 8 February 2017

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 57

DCS3/17 REPORT ON THE CONDUCT OF THE 2016 MORELAND CITY COUNCIL ELECTION (D17/19443) Director Corporate Services Property and Governance

Executive Summary Moreland City Council conducted its Council Election in October 2016 as per legislative requirements. The Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC) was contracted by Council to undertake the election on Council’s behalf. As a follow up to the election services, the VEC has provided Council with a report on the conduct of the election.

Recommendation Council resolve that the report from the Victorian Electoral Commission regarding the conduct of the Moreland City Council General Elections in October 2016 be received and noted.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 60

REPORT

1. Policy Context Council held its 2016 Election on 22 October 2016 in line with the legislative timetable prescribed in the Local Government Act 1989. 2. Background As part of the specification requirements provided in the Election Services contract, the successful contractor is to provide the Chief Executive Officer with a report on the conduct of the Election. Council received the Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC) on 20 January 2017 (Attachment 1), which satisfies these requirements. 3. Issues The VEC has undertaken all their specific works to date, in accordance with the tender specification. The VEC is now in the final phase of its contract requirements, being the enforcement of the compulsory voting process. Any person who was required to vote at the 2016 Moreland City Council general election and failed to vote will be issued with an apparent failure-to-vote notice. The certified voters’ roll for the 2016 Moreland City Council general election included 126,435 enrolled voters. The Returning Officer received 9,564 returned postal votes. This includes 1,498 postal votes that were received by the Returning Officer during the extended postal vote receipt period. The number of ballot papers counted (formal and informal), as a percentage of the total enrolment for the October 2016 elections was 62.29%, compared to 64.46% at the 2012 election. Some key statistics for results in each Ward are provided in the following table. Please note that a vote is regarded as informal if the ballot paper has not been completed properly. Informal ballot papers are not counted towards any candidate but are set aside. North-East Ward North-West Ward South Ward Enrolment 45,271 45,205 35,959 Early votes 7564 6856 6371 Formal votes 24,934 25773 18,260 Informal votes 4,532 (15.38%) 3,565 (12.15%) 1,688 (8.46%) Voter turnout 65.09% 64.90% 55.47% Statutory advertising and media releases formed an important part of the voter information campaign, assisting journalists in providing factual and accurate information when reporting on the conduct of the Election. A series of statewide media releases publicising the Elections were undertaken leading up to the Election. The VEC provided a customised home page for Moreland City Council’s elections on its website, providing links to other relevant pages that provided information on various aspects of the election process. During each process, the website was updated by the VEC. Voters received a personalised Easy Vote Card, which provided ward specific information about voting on Election Day, voting centres and early and postal voting options. An electorate map indicated ward boundaries and the location of voting centres as well as multi-language information and interpreting services was provided.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 61

The VEC worked with Vision Australia and Blind Citizens Australia to provide election information for blind and low-vision voters. This included making large print and audio files available for download, ‘BrowseAloud’ functionality on the VEC website, and assisted reading equipment at all attendance election offices and the Melbourne City Council election office. Braille and large print ballot material was also available on request. The Victorian Interpreting and Language Services’ (VITS) Language Link telephone interpreting and multi-language information service operated throughout the election period. The VEC advertised direct lines for 20 languages other than English. The report also highlights a number of interesting issues and elements, which provide further insights into the elections:  47 nominations were received by close of nominations on 20 September 2016.  98 applications for how to vote cards were received and 97 were registered during the registration period.  9,118 applications for pre-poll postal votes were requested, 9,564 were returned.  20,791 early votes were cast at the early voting centres, with the most heavily utilised centre being Brunswick Town Hall foyer (Election office).  643 unenrolled declaration votes were issued at the early voting centres and voting centres on election day. There were 81 unenrolled declaration votes accepted and submitted to the count. Human Rights Consideration The implications of this report have been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. 4. Consultation Preparation for the election was reported to Council on 10 February 2016 (DCS 1/16) at which time Council resolved to conduct an attendance election. 5. Officer Declaration of Conflict of Interest Council Officers involved in the preparation of this report have no Conflict of Interest in this matter. 6. Financial and Resources Implications An allocation of $727,178 was made in the 2016-2017 Council budget for Council Election Services 2016 ($765,678 for expenditure and $38,500 for income). An invoice for the final election costs will be issued to Council by the VEC in due course. 7. Implementation As outlined above, the VEC has now commenced the failure to vote process. Council will receive the infringement income as a result of failure to vote. This will complete the election service for the October 2016 election.

Attachment/s 1 Victorian Electoral Commissions report - 2016 Moreland City Council D17/24606 general election enclosed

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 62

DCS4/17 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT REPORT - FOR THE PERIOD ENDED 31 DECEMBER 2016 (D17/25367) Director Corporate Services Finance and Business Systems

Executive Summary This report presents the Financial Management Report for the financial year to date (YTD) period ending 31 December 2016. The Income Statement shows that Council is $16.7 million better than budget. This comprises overall revenues having ended $8.2M (9%) better than budget and overall expenditures having ended $8.4M (10%) less than budget YTD. The revenue surplus includes income from property sales and other Capital income of $2M higher than budget and public land contributions of $3.6M higher than budget. These surpluses are pre- committed by legislation or Council resolution and are not available to fund general Council spending. The significant variances are explained in this report. Council has spent $13.4 million on capital expenditure which is $1.4 million less than budget YTD.

Recommendation Council resolve to receive the Financial Management Report for the year to date 31 December 2016 at Attachment 1 to this report.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 114

REPORT

1. Policy Context This report supports Council’s continuing commitment to open and accountable management of the financial resources of Moreland on behalf of its ratepayers. 2. Background The Financial Management Report at Attachment 1 provides Council’s financial statements for the year to date (YTD) period ending 31 December 2016. The actual results are compared to the budget. 3. Issues Income statement Council has an YTD surplus of $25.4 million which is $16.7 million better than budget. The variance explanations below have identified whether the current YTD variances are expected to be a timing issue or permanent timing by 30 June 2017. A timing variance is a current difference between actual result and budget which is expected to be resolved before the end of the financial year. A permanent variance is a current difference between actual result and budget which will continue to the end of the financial year. The main items contributing to the overall variance are: Revenue  Statutory Fees and Fines are $0.6M above budget  Roads, Fleet and Waste - $325k better than budget, with Local Laws permits $131k and Other Permits $156k. These are mainly due to higher levels of hoarding permits, due to the amount of development. (Permanent).  Strategic Transport and Compliance - $184k below budget with Parking Fines $183k, Car Parking Fees $79k and local law permits $114k all below budget. (Timing) The variance and timing issue are being reviewed.  User Fees are $0.1M below budget  Aged and Community Support - $295k below budget with Meals to other Councils $74k below budget with delays in creating invoices. These occur in the second week of the following month, however overall the service will be about $25k below budget. Delivered meals to Moreland residents $118k below budget due to reduced demand and Home help charges $103k below budget. (Permanent)  Roads, Fleet and Waste - Garbage and Recycling income is $126k ahead of budget due to the raising of invoices in July that relate to 2015-2016, offset by lower than expected budget in Road Opening Reinstatements of $49k. (Permanent).  Grants Operating are $0.6M better than budget.  Aged and Community Support - $240k grant funding received ahead of budget. (Timing) This is related to the changes in funding within the Federal and State government sectors. The state now makes monthly payments and the Commonwealth makes quarterly payments. This will continue throughout the financial year and resolve itself at year end. New cost centres are being created to deal with this problem from the 2017-2018 year.  Social Policy and Early Years - grant received from Department of Human Services $97k ahead of budget. This is timing only and will finish on target by year end.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 115

 Assets Sales is $1.5 million more than budget.  Property and Governance received $1.5M profit from the sale of the Prospect street property upon settlement. Note that this income will be transferred to the Oak Park, Wheatsheaf and Saxon Reserves. (Permanent)  Other Revenue is $1.5 million more than budget  Open Space - $241k better than budget relating to the fee for the removal of trees. (Permanent)  Capital Works Delivery - $566k better than budget with unbudgeted funds received as contributions to current year capital projects. Funds received from Melbourne Water for easement creation and allocated to the Merlynston Hall project.  Finance and Business Systems - interest earned is better than expected by $384k due to a higher than anticipated level of cash to invest. (Permanent). This trend is expected to continue and will result in about $750k better than budget by year end.  Contributions for Next Year’s Projects are $3.6 million better than budget.  Contributions to the Open Space Reserve are $3.4M higher than anticipated. Note that this income is transferred to Reserves as this income is not available for general expenditure. (Permanent)  Contributions to the Developer Contribution Plan Levy are $207k more than budgeted. Note that this income is transferred to Reserves as this income is not available for general expenditure. (Permanent) Expenses  Employee Benefits are $1.7 million less than budget.  The variance relates primarily to roles that have been vacant for part of this year. Note that this variance is offset by $989k with the cost of contractors used to backfill vacant staff roles (expenditure on temporary staff is recorded under the Contracts category). (Permanent). The net underspend is $711k and this will continue to increase through to year end with a net underspend of $1.9 million.  Contracts, Materials and Services are $6.0 million less than budget.  Waste Services are $959k underspent due to delays in payments for tipping fees and waste and recycling contract payments. (Timing). These contract payments are budgeted year on year from July to June, however few invoices are receipted in July and consequently costings are always a month behind until year end when two months receipts occur in June. A review of the monthly payments will be used to better profile the budget for 2017-2018.  Information Technology - Computer Supplies and Services are $691k less than budget, due to the early payment for some maintenance invoices in June 2016 and delays in receipt of major maintenance invoices for payment. (Timing)  Roads, Fleet and Waste - Motor Vehicle Expenses $290k under budget, due to underspend in Motor Vehicle Insurance Excess $86k and lower than anticipated fuel prices in Fuel & Oil saving $220k. (Permanent)  Utilities overall are underspent by $905k - This includes some late invoices in Electricity ($359k) and Water and Sewerage ($484k). (Timing) and (Permanent) Accounts are received centrally then scrutinised, then sent for payment. Street lighting change over from Mercury vapour to LED has led to savings which could mean $200k saving for the year. Electricity bills are being brought up to date and Water and Sewerage should be brought up to date at the end of February.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 116

 Finance Costs are $0.5 million better than budget.  Finance and Business Systems - Interest Expense $553k less than budget. Local Government Funding Vehicle interest achieved in June 2016 was lower than previous, thus allowing some savings. This amount will increase to about $750k below budget by year end due to both achieving better interest rates along with conservative budgeting. (Permanent) These comments should be read in conjunction with the Income Statement contained in Attachment 1. Capital Projects - CAPEX The Capital program year to date has an actual spend of $13.4 million which is $1.4 million less than budget. This is an improvement compared to the same time last year (YTD December 2015) when the actual spend was $9.5 million which was $8.3 million less than budget. Cash At the end of October, Council had cash and short term investments of $97.5 million. This is approximately $30.2 million higher than the cash position at the beginning of the year. Increased reserve funds along with improved financial results contributed to the improved cash position. Note that cash fluctuates frequently over the year due to a number of factors including the timing of payments and receipts. Human Rights Consideration The implications of this report have been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. 4. Consultation The Finance and Business Systems Branch has prepared this report based on information provided by Managers and reviewed by Directors. 5. Officer Declaration of Conflict of Interest Council Officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter. 6. Financial and Resources Implications The overall corporate objective is to deliver the 2016-2017 budget outcomes as closely as possible in line with the adopted budget targets. 7. Implementation This report is for noting. The financial position of Council will continue to be monitored and managed.

Attachment/s 1 Monthly Council Financial Report - December 2016 D17/26595

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 117

DCI2/17 REVIEW OF INTERSECTION AT SUSSEX STREET AND GAFFNEY STREET, COBURG (D16/410866) Director City Infrastructure Strategic Transport and Compliance

Executive Summary At the October, 2016 Council meeting (DCI53/16), Council resolved that the following be adopted: 1. Council officers continue to monitor the operation of the intersection with VicRoads and to particularly investigate the impact of the Coles installed pedestrian lights on the congestion of the roundabout at peak hour times. 2. Bicycle safety be considered as part of this report. 3. A further Council report be received on these issues. Various traffic counts were undertaken during the morning peak at the intersection of Gaffney Street/Sussex Street, Coburg North. It was concluded that although the intersection did experience minor delays at each approach, the traffic continued to flow. It is considered that the roundabout is operating satisfactory and is consistent with traffic volumes generated over the last five year period. Concerns have also been raised in relation to pedestrian safety within the vicinity of the intersection. As part of the development, pedestrian operated signals were installed on Sussex Street, north of Gaffney Street and on Gaffney Street, east of Sussex Street. However, concerns have been raised in relation to pedestrian safety at the roundabout and on the southern and western approaches. Whilst roundabouts are good for traffic flow, it provides limited pedestrian opportunities to cross the roadway. This is because under the current roads rules, roundabouts are the only type of un-signalised intersection where turning vehicles have priority over pedestrians. This can often lead to confusion and conflicts between motorist and pedestrians. Pedestrian safety concerns became more prevalent in December 2016 when a pedestrian crossing Gaffney Street, west of Sussex Street, was stuck by a motor vehicle. Council has contacted VicRoads in relation to this matter as Gaffney Street is a state owned and maintained road. At this stage, VicRoads has not provided a formal response.

Recommendation Council resolves that Council officers continue to monitor the operation of the intersection with VicRoads.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 128

REPORT

1. Policy Context This report meets the Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy (MITS) 2010-2019, Section 4 – Transport Themes. 2. Background Sussex Street, Coburg/Coburg North between Boundary Road and Bell Street is classified as a major Council road that collects traffic from local roads, and distributes it to the arterial road network as discussed in MITS. The posted speed limit along Sussex Street is 50km/h. Gaffney Street is classified as a Secondary Arterial Road and is managed by VicRoads and is part of its network of arterial transport routes. This road supplements the primary arterial roads in the area and high priority is given to road-based public transport, in conjunction with pedestrian and cyclists in local areas. The posted speed limit of 60km/h applies on this road. With reference to this report, the intersection of Gaffney Street and Sussex Street, Coburg North is managed and maintained by the State Road Authority, VicRoads. It was suggested in previous Council reports for the existing roundabout at this intersection be removed with the replacement of intersection signals. The removal of the roundabout was investigated during the development phase for 180-196 Gaffney Street, Coburg North (Coburg North Village Shopping Centre), and then again in November 2016. The conversion of the roundabout to intersection signals is not recommended due to the intersection geometry and land acquisition. Furthermore, traffic signals would significantly impact the capacity and increase the delay times at the intersection. Pedestrian signals were installed on the northern and eastern legs of the intersection as part of the development at 180-196 Gaffney Street, Coburg North, to control the traffic flow at the roundabout and to provide pedestrian facilities to and from the Coburg North Village Shopping Centre. 3. Issues The intersection of Gaffney Street and Sussex Street, Coburg North was reviewed and observed during both morning and afternoon weekday peak periods. In addition to the weekend reviews, officers have inspected the operation of the intersection on weekends at different times of the day. The intersection signals both at Sussex Street and Gaffney Street operated at various stages during the inspections and assisted with the flow of the roundabout. The Coburg North Village Shopping Centre did not impact the traffic flow around the intersection, in fact the traffic speeds seemed lower with motorists allowing vehicles to enter and exit the shopping centre. Whilst the traffic volumes were moderately high during the peak period observed, the traffic queues seemed to clear quite quickly before building up again. This process was observed on all site inspections. The intersection, also showed that the roundabout was able to allow multiple vehicular movements within the circulating aisle which assisted with the reduction of queues at each approach. The operation of the roundabout was satisfactory. During the inspections, cyclists were observed using the intersection. Concerns have also been raised in relation to pedestrian safety within the vicinity of the intersection. As part of the development, pedestrian operated signals were installed on Sussex Street, north of Gaffney Street and on Gaffney Street, east of Sussex Street.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 129

In December 2016, a pedestrian was stuck by a motor vehicle whilst crossing Gaffney Street, west of Sussex Street. The pedestrian was crossing Gaffney Street to access the recently installed bus stop outside 233 Gaffney Street. Shortly after the incident, Council was contacted by a local resident who witnessed the accident requesting that consideration be given to improve pedestrian safety. Unfortunately, as Gaffney Street is a VicRoads owned and maintained road, Council has limited jurisdiction to modify the existing road operation. To ensure VicRoads is aware of the local community concerns, Council passed the local resident’s concerns onto VicRoads for its information and consideration. It is understood that a VicRoads officer has contacted the resident and has provided information, including the VCAT decision in relation to the Coburg North Village development. In addition, the resident has been informed by VicRoads on the process required for the installation of any new pedestrian device. Council officers continue to work with VicRoads on any matters that arise at this intersection. Human Rights Consideration The implications of this report have been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. 4. Consultation The intersection traffic flow was discussed with the Team Leader Traffic and Transport at VicRoads Metropolitan Region and it was confirmed that liaison will be made with Council officers should any modifications be made to the intersection. During this discussion, VicRoads did not provide any comments on the operation of the intersection, nor any possible solutions. 5. Officer Declaration of Conflict of Interest Council Officers involved in the preparation of this report have no Conflict of Interest in this matter. 6. Financial and Resources Implications There are no proposed works at the intersection of Gaffney Street and Sussex Street, Coburg North at this time. 7. Implementation Council will continue to monitor the performance and safety of the intersection and liaise with VicRoads when required.

Attachment/s There are no attachments for this report.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 130

DCI3/17 SIGNAGE REQUEST BY THE ISLAMIC MUSEUM OF AUSTRALIA (D16/421559) Director City Infrastructure Strategic Transport and Compliance

Executive Summary At the November 2016 Council meeting (GB50/16), Council resolved to, as a General Business item, receive a report on the suitability and feasibility of signage for the Islamic Museum of Australia on the corner of Nicholson/Holmes Street and Moreland Road and also the Merri Creek bike path. Council officers received a request from a representative of the Islamic Museum of Australia in May 2016 requesting a directional sign to be placed at the intersection of Nicholson Street/Holmes Street/Moreland Road, Brunswick East. Correspondence was sent in June 2016 outlining that it did not meet the requirements of Council’s Community Facility and Directional Signage Policy. A further request was received in August 2016 from another representative of the Islamic Museum of Australia. The signage request does not meet the criteria in accordance with the Australian Standards for ‘Street Name and Community Facility Name Signs’. The Islamic Museum of Australia has two existing directional signs. The decision has been reviewed and while the circumstances have not changed, this report notes that VicRoads is the approval authority and officers will seek VicRoads’ approval on behalf of the Islamic Museum of Australia.

Recommendation Council resolves that: 1. Council officers submit the application received from the Islamic Museum of Australia to VicRoads, the co-ordinating road authority, for the request to install a directional sign at the intersection of Nicholson Street/Holmes Street/Moreland Road, Brunswick East. 2. The Islamic Museum of Australia be advised of the referral process.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 131

REPORT

1. Policy Context Council’s Community Facility and Directional Signage Policy (DCI 14-CL) provides a clear direction regarding the installation of any signage within the municipality which was developed with reference to the relevant Australian and VicRoads Standards. 2. Background Council receives numerous requests throughout the year for the installation of directional signage to community facilities. Council’s Transport Unit received two requests (May and August, 2016) for the installation of community signage for the Islamic Museum of Australia which is situated within the City of Darebin. The Transport Unit did not support the installation of the requested signage in June, 2016 as it did not meet the requirements in the Council Policy. The Islamic Museum of Australia is a not-for-profit foundation founded in May 2010 with the purpose of establishing the first Islamic Museum in Australia. It aims to showcase the rich artistic heritage and historical contributions of Muslims in Australia and abroad through the display of various artworks and historical artefacts. The requested community signage has been suggested to be placed at the intersection of Moreland Road/Nicholson Street/Holmes Street, Brunswick East to direct people to the Museum, which is situated on Anderson Road, Thornbury, approximately 850m from this intersection. 3. Issues In accordance with Australian Standard AS 1742.5 and Council’s Community Facility and Directional Signage Policy, directional signs are normally placed at a single location to indicate the most convenient route to the facility from the major road. A site inspection indicated that there are two directional signs for this facility located at the intersection of Normanby Road and Anderson Road, Thornbury on the north-west and south sides of the intersection. Road Authorities including VicRoads and municipal Councils have the responsibility to ensure that the standard of direction, tourist and services road signage are installed appropriately to eliminate the excessive number of signage. VicRoads is the relevant co-ordinating road authority for Victoria’s freeways and declared arterial roads and Councils are the relevant coordinating road authority for municipal roads under the Road Management Act 2004. Under Section 66 for the Road Management Act 2004, written consent (a sign permit) form the relevant co-ordinating road authority is required for the placing of a sign on a road. In this instance, as this intersection is managed by VicRoads, Council officers are unable to approve this request. Human Rights Consideration The implications of this report have been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. 4. Consultation A request for the installation of directional signage for the Islamic Museum of Australia was sent to Council officers on 30 May 2016. Correspondence was sent to the Islamic Museum of Australia on 16 June 2016 advising of the relevant Council Policy and Australian Standard applicable to their request. Another request, requesting the same, was sent to Council on 30 August 2016.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 132

5. Officer Declaration of Conflict of Interest Council Officers involved in the preparation of this report have no Conflict of Interest in this matter. 6. Financial and Resources Implications There are no financial or resource implications associated with this request. 7. Implementation Council officers will forward the application received by Islamic Museum of Australia to the relevant co-ordinating road authority, VicRoads for assessment.

Attachment/s There are no attachments for this report.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 133

DCI4/17 TRAFFIC AND PARKING CONCERNS AROUND 223 MELVILLE ROAD, BRUNSWICK WEST (D17/6456) Director City Infrastructure Strategic Transport and Compliance

Executive Summary At the August 2016 Council meeting (DCI45/16), a report was presented that provided parking and traffic information in the surrounding area of the Medical Centre at 223 Melville Road, Brunswick West as a result of an amended Planning Permit. At this meeting, Council deferred the report to allow for consultation with the community and to allow additional information to be obtained. The applicant had satisfied all conditions on the Planning Permit in June 2016. On 7 November 2016, Council officers met with local residents on site to discuss the findings of the report and additional issues that exist in this area. As part of this discussions, the residents raised the following items as their main concerns:  Illegal turning vehicle movements into Bakers Parade during restricted times of 4pm and 6:30pm Monday to Friday;  On-street parking is an issue, particularly on Saturdays, within the vicinity of 223 Melville Road;  Road safety and crashes within the study area;  Garbage collection is affected by parked vehicles on bin collection days;  Traffic in Wales Street has increased significantly;  Consider the closure of Bonar Avenue or a refuge island at the northern end; and  Maintenance issues in relation to the roads and footpaths. Since this meeting, Council has undertaken; additional traffic volume and speed counts; additional parking occupancy surveys; reviewed Victorian Crash Statistics; and discussed asset conditions. The results of the additional work show that parking and traffic conditions within the study area fall within the acceptable ranges as detailed in the Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy 2010-2019.

Recommendation Council resolve to: 1. Continue monitoring traffic and parking conditions in area. 2. Install additional signage to highlight turn bans on Melville Road at Bakers Parade. 3. Undertake footpath repairs at locations within the study area that are damaged. 4. Inform Victoria police of illegal vehicle movements and request enforcement.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 134

REPORT

1. Policy Context The findings and recommendations contained within this report are in line with the Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy 2010-2019 and Council’s Parking Management Policy. 2. Background At the August 2016 Council Meeting (DCI45/16), a report was presented that provided parking and traffic information on the surrounding area near 223 Melville Road, Brunswick West following an approved Planning Permit associated with the Medical Centre. At this meeting, Council deferred the report to allow for consultation with the community and for additional information to be gathered. The conditions of the Planning Permit for 223 Melville Road, Brunswick West were met in June 2016 which allowed for additional car and bicycle parking within the premises. 3. Issues Council officers meet with local residents on 7 November 2016 to discuss parking and traffic issues in Bakers Parade, Bonar Avenue, McGregor Avenue and Wales Street (hereinafter “the study area”). During this site meeting, the residents raised the following items as their main concerns:  Illegal turning vehicle movements into Bakers Parade during restricted times of 4pm and 6:30pm Monday to Friday.  On street parking, particularly on Saturdays, within the vicinity of 223 Melville Road.  Road safety and crashes within the study area.  Garbage collection is affected by parked vehicles on bin collection days.  Traffic in Wales Street has increased significantly.  Consider the closure of Bonar Avenue or a refuge island at the northern end.  Maintenance issues in relation to the roads and footpaths. Existing peak time left turn ban on Melville Road, Brunswick West Local residents raised concerns with Council officers relating to the number of drivers who ignore the existing No Left Turn between 4pm and 6:30pm Monday to Friday, from Melville Road into Bakers Parade. In order to determine how many vehicles are turning in Bakers Parade between these times, a turning movement, traffic volume and speed count was undertaken. A Council officer observed the number of vehicles turning left between 4pm and 6:30pm on a weekday. The results indicated that approximately 41% of vehicles turning into Bakers Parade was left turning traffic. Using traffic count data from 6 -12 December 2016, it is estimated that the following number of vehicles undertake an illegal left turn into Bakers Parade 4pm and 6:30pm Monday to Friday.

Bakers Parade, Brunswick West - West Bound (Illegal Left Turns) Day Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Date 12/12/16 6/12/16 7/12/16 8/12/16 9/12/16 10/12/16 11/12/16 16:00 - 16:59 8 8 7 9 9 6 5 17:00 - 17:59 6 7 7 7 5 5 4 18:00 - 18:30 4 4 3 4 4 3 2 Total 18 18 17 21 18 14 11

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 135

Based on these numbers above, it is clear that a high proportion of drivers are either illegally or unknowingly entering Bakers Parade during the restricted time. This information has been passed onto Victoria Police along with a request for enforcement. In addition to the above, on site observations showed that the No Left Turn signage could be improved. As such, an additional No Left Turn sign on Melville Road to the south of Bakers Parade (refer to plan below) is proposed to be installed. It is hoped that the additional signage will improve compliance.

Existing Sign

Additional Sign

Parking issues During the site meeting, local residents informed Council officers that the busiest parking time was on a Saturday between 9:30am and 10:30am. Based on this information, parking observations were undertaken on 21 January 2017 between these times. The results of these observations showed:  Parking utilisation in Bakers Parade was approximately 55%;  Parking utilisation in Bonar Avenue was approximately 31%;  Parking utilisation in Everett Street was approximately 35%;  Parking utilisation in McGregor Avenue was approximately 14%; and  Parking utilisation in Wales Street was approximately 12%. The results listed above show that on-street parking utilisation on a Saturday at around 10am is approximately 30% occupied. Based on the recent Saturday parking observations and the previous weekday parking observations, it is considered that on-street parking occupancy within the study area is low. As such, it is still recommended that there be no changes to the current parking arrangements at this time. However, it is acknowledged that parking conditions in the study area are likely to change in the future due to the future development in this area. As such, Council will continue to monitor the situation and if there is a substantial change in parking levels, Council will reassess parking restrictions within the study area.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 136

Crash statistics Local residents raised concerns about crashes within the local area. This was in response to a crash that occurred late October/early November 2016, where it was describe that a vehicle had ended up on its roof. Based on this information, crash statistics from the VicRoads database were extracted for all roads within the study area between the period of 1 July 2011 and 13 January 2017. The results of this showed:  One other injury accident at the intersection of Culloden Street and Wales Street in August 2013; and  One other injury accident at the intersection of Melville Road and Bakers Parade in December 2012. The most recent crash as described by the local residents in late October/early November 2016, was unable to be extracted from the VicRoads casualty crash database. However, based on all available information, it is concluded that there are no significant road safety issues within the study area. Garbage collection Concerns were raised in relation to waste collection bins being unable to be accessed due to parked cars within the study area. Council officers have confirmed that bins are occasionally missed but not significantly more that it occurs in other streets in the area. Additional traffic counts As part of the investigation, traffic counts in Wales Street were undertaken. The location of these counts are:  Wales Street, Brunswick West, between Bakers Parade and McGregor Avenue  Wales Street, Brunswick West, between McGregor Avenue and Culloden Street. Traffic counts were recently undertaken as existing counts for Wales Street were over five years old and resident had raised issues about increased traffic volumes. The results for all counts undertaken within the study area in 2016 are provided in the table below: Average Average Street Name 85th percentile Weekday Volume Speed Baker Parade 484 32 km/h 26 km/h

McGregor Street 249 29.9 km/h 24.2 km/h Wales Street – Bakers Parade and McGregor 495*/568 40.5*/39.7 km/h 34.3 km/h Avenue Wales Street – McGregor 495*/569 40.5*/39.8 km/h 35.1 km/h Avenue and Culloden Street Bonar Street 129 26.5 kkm/h 21.3 km/h

*2011 Traffic volumes and speed All roads within the study area are classified as local roads with a preferred maximum traffic volume of 3,000 vehicles per day as per the classification of roads in the Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy. In addition to this, all roads within the study have a posted speed limit of 40km/h. The results of the speed and volume surveys show that the speed and traffic volumes within the study area are acceptable.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 137

In relation to the traffic volumes on Wales Street, the volumes have increased from 495 in 2011 to 569 in 2016. This growth is consistent with the 2-2.5% growth that is observed on other local streets within the municipality. Accordingly, there are no plans to install any new/additional traffic management devices, or to alter the operation of the road network in the study area. Traffic management solutions in Bonar Avenue, Brunswick West During discussions with Council officers, local residents put forward the following traffic management solutions:  Closure of Bonar Avenue; and  Pedestrian Refuge Island at the northern end of Bonar Avenue. Closure of Bonar Avenue, Brunswick West The option of closing Bonar Avenue, Brunswick West, has been investigated by Council officers. Whilst closing Bonar Avenue may reduce vehicle volumes, the following issues need to be considered: Reduced permeability of the road network By closing off local streets, the permeability of the road network is reduced by restricting turning movements and access to the collector and arterial road network. A road closure would also put greater demand at the entry and exit points of intersections which would lead to greater delays, especially at the exiting intersection. In addition, closing a road would also increase vehicular kilometres travelled, which would have a detrimental effect on the local environment, and also increase journey times for local residents and deliveries to local businesses. It would also potentially increase traffic volumes in surrounding streets. Emergency services Any road closure will have a detrimental effect on emergency services. The direct route can no longer be used and this would lead to increased response times. Based on the issues listed above, the proposal to close Bonar Avenue is not supported by Council officers. Pedestrian Refuge Island on Bonar Avenue, Brunswick West The installation of a pedestrian refuge island at the northern end of Bonar Avenue is a potential solution to improve pedestrian safety and reduce vehicle speeds at the intersection. However, based on traffic speed, volumes and crash statistics, it is deemed that a pedestrian refuge island at the northern end of Bonar Avenue will provide little benefit and as such, it not supported at this time. Road and footpath reconstruction Transport officers have investigated issues in relation to the asset maintenance and upgrade. As part of these discussions, none of the roads or footpaths within the study area are due for any maintenance or renewal work within the next five years. However, upon inspection, minor footpath works are required in various locations within the study area. These works will be programmed for maintenance works within the next three months. Human Rights Consideration The implications of this report have been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. There are no Human Rights and Responsibilities issues associated with this report.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 138

4. Consultation Council officers meet with local residents on 7 November 2016. During this meeting the residents raised a number of issues. The lead resident has been contacted and informed that the updated report will be presented to Council in February 2017 and that the report can be viewed prior to the meeting. 5. Officer Declaration of Conflict of Interest Council Officers involved in the preparation of this report have no Conflict of Interest in this matter. 6. Financial and Resources Implications Any recommendations contained within this report and be accommodated within existing budgets. 7. Implementation The following items are recommended for implementation:  Installation of an additional No Left Turn sign on Melville Road, Brunswick West.  Ongoing monitoring of the parking and traffic conditions within the study area.  Notify Victoria Police of the movement violations at the intersection of Melville Road and Bakers Parade, Brunswick West.

Attachment/s There are no attachments for this report.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 139

DCI5/17 COBURG STATION - IMPROVING ACCESSIBILITY (D16/397055) Director City Infrastructure Strategic Transport and Compliance

Executive Summary At the July 2016 Council meeting (DCI32/16), Council resolved to:  Advocate to the Level Crossing Removal Authority that future designs for grade separation or developments in the area be designed to ensure equal direct access for pedestrians.  Conduct a survey of people who use the western entrance/exit to the station about their satisfaction with the current pathway and any improvements they would like to see occur.  Contact the resident who raised this issue with the outcome of this report.  Bring forward the reconstruction of the laneway subsequent to the survey and results being assessed and providing a clear reconstruction method with the outcomes come back to Council prior to any reconstruction. Council’s Transport Unit continues to advocate and work with the Level Crossing Removal Authority to consider pedestrian movements within and around the Coburg Railway Station. A survey of passengers using the train was conducted in November 2016, regarding the level of satisfaction of patrons who use the bluestone Right of Way (ROW) at the rear of 30-32 Victoria Street, Coburg and 46 Hudson Street, Coburg to access the western entrance/exit of the Coburg Railway Station. From the results of the survey, it was concluded that the pedestrians who use the ROW to access the Coburg Railway Station would like to see the ROW upgraded for pedestrian use and with a smooth surface. The users of the laneway surveyed and noted it was not considered necessary at this time to reconstruct it as the pedestrian access to the Coburg Station may be modified and possibly redirected during and after the Bell Street level crossing project.

Recommendation Council resolve: 1. To reconstruct the bluestone ROW ‘like for like’ in line with Council’s previous resolutions when it is due for reconstruction on Council’s Capital Program. 2. That the resident who raised this issue be contacted by Council’s Transport Unit with the outcome of this report.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 140

REPORT

1. Policy Context Council’s Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy (MITS) 2010-2019 provides a clear direction regarding the goal of ensuring people of all abilities can access quality transport. Council's Access and Inclusion Policy 2010-2014 - recognises that often people can be disabled by the environment that exists around them. That can be an inaccessible built environment that does not allow a person using a mobility aid to move about freely. The Council Plan 2013-2017 articulates Council’s commitment to the careful stewardship of the City’s assets. 2. Background A member of the public raised their concern with the Mayor in 2015 in relation to the condition of the bluestone laneway Right of Way (ROW) adjacent to the Upfield Railway Line between Munro Street and Bell Street, Coburg, of which a section of this ROW abuts the car park to the Coburg Railway Station. An on-site meeting was held with a Council officer, Mayor and Cr Lenka Thompson in 2016. The item was raised as a Notice of Motion at the 9 March, 2016 Council meeting (NOM10/16). The Coburg Station Council item, specified that: The western exit of Coburg station is currently inaccessible for people with mobility issues, in wheelchairs, with prams and on bikes. The pathway consists of an uneven surface (on VicTrack land) and an adjoining bluestone laneway. A site visit to the area demonstrated that there is a need for accessibility to be improved through this area. This motion seeks to explore what options are available to Council to improve accessibility in this area. At this meeting, Council resolved to receive a report about the current accessibility issues at Coburg Station Western exit and to conduct a survey with those residents who use the western entrance/exit to the station about their satisfaction with the current pathway and any improvements they would like to see occur. There are two entrance/exit points at the Coburg Railway Station on the western side which are both contained within VicTrack land. The facilities cater for patrons with all levels of mobility with two options available. It is considered that the two pedestrian points are DDA compliant in accordance with the Disability and Discrimination Act 1992. The southern-most entrance/exit point of the Coburg Railway Station platform has compliant steps and handrails with asphalt at the landing which leads to a gravel car park which is situated owned by VicTrack. As this carpark is not fully fenced by VicTrack, pedestrians are using the ROW to access the surrounding area. At the July 2016 Council meeting (DCI32/16), Council officers advised that at the time when the bluestone laneway adjoining 30-32 Victoria Street, Coburg and 46 Hudson Street, Coburg is due for reconstruction, it will be reconstructed with rough bluestone (like for like) in accordance with the relevant policies, as the subject bluestone laneway is not the only point of access. A letter was sent to the member of the public on 8 July, 2016 outlining the processes and making reference to the relevant Strategy of reconstructing any bluestone laneway within the municipality. It was advised that the ROWs north and south of Victoria Street, Coburg will be considered for funding within the next five years.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 141

3. Issues Regional/strategic implications The Level Crossing Removal Authority has indicated that the level crossing at Bell Street for the Upfield Railway Line is currently in the early planning and engineering stages of assessment for this level crossing to be removed. This includes identifying appropriate planning and community consultation periods that reflect the complexity of this site and manage the impacts to the broader road and rail network. In addition, it is unclear if the level crossing at Bell Street will be above or below ground level. It is recommended that the rail station corridor be treated as a whole, allowing for development opportunities and improvements of the amenity for all users. There is a commitment from the State Government to have this at-grade level crossing removed and completed by 2022 and therefore, any formal improvements to the existing conditions need to be balanced against future works. It is unclear if access to the southern entrance/exit on the western side of the Coburg Railway Station will continue via the ROW. Whilst it is acknowledged that the bluestone laneway adjoining 30-32 Victoria Street, Coburg and 46 Hudson Street, Coburg is in poor condition for pedestrian use, the bluestone laneway is predominately catering for vehicle access. The boundary of the ROW and the VicTrack carpark is not fully fenced and therefore patrons are using the ROW to access Victoria Street, Coburg. The surface is not suitable for wheel operated devices i.e. prams and wheelchairs and those with mobility constraints. The DDA compliant access point is at Bell Street. At the time when the bluestone laneway adjoining 30-32 Victoria Street, Coburg and 46 Hudson Street, Coburg is due for reconstruction, it will be reconstructed with rough bluestone (like for like) in accordance with the relevant policies as this bluestone laneway is not the only access point for any property along this section. A survey was conducted on multiple days and times during November 2016 to determine what improvements patrons would like to see. Whilst undertaking surveys of patrons using this laneway to access the Coburg Railway Station, it was observed that vehicles and pedestrians were utilising the ROW at the same time. Human Rights Consideration The implications of this report have been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. 4. Consultation Council officers prepared a survey to determine the travel modes and use of the ROW and at what point should Council reconstruct the laneway, taking into consideration the possible change in access points to the Coburg Railway Station. Over a four hour duration on three separate days, a total of 15 patrons were surveyed. Of all the people surveyed, 14 out of 15 people agreed that the ROW was in need of repair for pedestrian use but it was best to wait to determine if the pedestrian access would still be via the ROW once the Coburg Railway Station was upgraded. 5. Officer Declaration of Conflict of Interest Council Officers involved in the preparation of this report have no Conflict of Interest in this matter. 6. Financial and Resources Implications There are no financial and resources implications.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 142

7. Implementation Council officers will advocate to the Level Crossing Authority for future grade separation designs to provide direct access to pedestrians.

Attachment/s There are no attachments for this report.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 143

DCI6/17 ROAD CLOSURE OF DUCKETT STREET, BRUNSWICK (D17/4975) Director City Infrastructure Strategic Transport and Compliance

Executive Summary At the June 2016 Council meeting (DCI26/16), Council resolved to commence the consultation process for the formal partial closure to vehicular traffic of 25 lineal metres of road measured from the Upfield shared user path at the western end of Duckett Street, to facilitate the creation of a ‘piazza’. The creation of the public ‘piazza’ has been proposed as part of mixed use development at 11 West Street; 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 Duckett Street and 24-26 Hope Street, Brunswick (MPS/2014/7). This development has frontage on both sides of Duckett Street alongside this proposed closure. The area is proposed to be closed to vehicular traffic with the creation of a ‘piazza’ linking buildings on either side of Duckett Street, Brunswick. All owners and occupiers of properties abutting Duckett Street, Brunswick were notified of the proposed closure via mail and a public notice, inviting submissions in relation to the proposed closure. It was also advertised in the Moreland Leader newspaper on 28 June 2016. No submissions were received. Council has received support from VicRoads in accordance with clause 9(2) of Schedule 11 to the Local Government Act 1989. Council has the power under the Local Government Act 1989 to close the road to vehicular traffic. This report seeks to finalise the road closure process.

Recommendation Council resolve to: 1. Adopt the partial closure of Duckett Street, Brunswick to vehicular traffic, between the Upfield Shared Path and a point 25 lineal metres east, pursuant to Section 207 of, and Clause 9 of Schedule 11 to, the Local Government Act 1989. 2. Notify the permit holder MPS/2014/7 of the outcome of the road closure process and invite them to submit construction plans for the proposed ‘Piazza’ as required by Planning Permit Condition 14.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 144

REPORT

1. Policy Context A key objective of the Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy is to improve integration between transport infrastructure and land use planning. 2. Background A creation of a public ‘piazza’ has been proposed as part of mixed use development at 11 West Street; 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 Duckett Street and 24-26 Hope Street, Brunswick (MPS/2014/7). This development has frontage on both sides of Duckett Street alongside this proposed closure. The developer has requested that a section of Duckett Street, Brunswick be closed to vehicular traffic and constructed as a ‘piazza’ linking buildings on either side of Duckett Street. Council has the power under the Local Government Act 1989 to close the road to vehicular traffic. The proposed mixed use development is at Attachment 1. 3. Issues On-street parking On street parking in Duckett Street, Brunswick consists of a mixture of 2 hour parking and vehicle crossovers. The proposed closure will not reduce the net on-street parking as this section of Duckett Street, Brunswick consists of vehicle crossings. Access implications The proposed partial closure of Duckett Street, Brunswick will not affect non- vehicular traffic between Duckett Street and the Upfield Shared Path. The closest pedestrian crossings of the Upfield Railway Line are West Street (approximately 90 metres north), Hope Street (approximately 85 metres south) and Albion Street (approximately 290 metres north). Human Rights Consideration The implications of this report have been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. 4. Consultation Consultation was undertaken in accordance with Section 223 of the Local Government Act 1989. Council Officers from Urban Planning, Property Services, Asset Management and Development Advice have been involved in the process to date. All owners and occupiers of properties abutting Duckett Street, Brunswick were notified of Council’s intention of the partial road closure via mail. Notice of the intention was also published in the Moreland Leader newspaper on 28 June 2016. No submissions were received during this process. In August 2016, Council Officers sought VicRoads support in relation to the partial road closure in accordance with Clause 9(2) of Schedule 11 to the Local Government Act 1989. Correspondence received from VicRoads supports the proposal. 5. Officer Declaration of Conflict of Interest Council Officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 145

6. Financial and Resources Implications It is expected that all works in relation to constructing the ‘piazza’ will be at no cost to Council and that all costs associated with establishing the ‘piazza’ will be at the cost of the permit holder. No Council Capital Works are expected to be undertaken as part of this ‘piazza’ installation. Future ownership and maintenance of the ‘piazza’ will be undertaken by Council. 7. Implementation The permit holder MPS/2014/7 will be notified of the outcome of the road closure process and be invited to submit construction plans for the proposed Duckett Street, Brunswick ‘piazza’ as required by Planning Permit Condition 14.

Attachment/s 1 Mixed Use Development Site Layout - Duckett Street, Brunswick D17/15364

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 146

DCI7/17 UPFIELD SHARED PATH LINE MARKING (D17/5729) Director City Infrastructure Strategic Transport

Executive Summary In June 2016 the line marking along the Upfield Shared Path between Bell Street, Coburg and Park Street, Brunswick was repainted with modifications made to the line marking for footpaths that abut the Shared Path. The line marking included give way lines at each intersecting location for users continuing along the Upfield Shared Path. This treatment was installed as a result of the community raising concerns whilst entering the Path from the existing road network and being confronted by large volumes of cyclists moving at considerable speed. At intersections where a footpath terminates at the Upfield Shared Path, the line marking placed advises the Upfield Shared Path user to yield, or give way to the user entering the path. The treatment adopted was consistent with relevant guidelines for cycling on shared paths by differing from ‘turning traffic yields to continuing traffic’ give way line marking used on roads. However, this treatment raised confusion amongst the community. Council officers installed the treatment to raise awareness of the terminating intersections and to encourage Upfield Shared Path users to slow on the approach at these points. Observations of path users indicate that the line marking has had little impact on path user behaviour. This matter was subsequently discussed at the October 2016 Council meeting, which resolved (GB48/16) to investigate the matter further and report back to a future Council meeting. Following a review of the markings and the relevant standards set out in an Association of Australian and New Zealand Road Transport and Traffic Authorities (Austroads) publication relevant to cycling, it is recommended that the markings revert to a more conventional standard, which is consistent with common user understanding. It is recommended that the current give way line marking be retained at main road intersections, and altered at T-intersections to show that users of the terminating path should give way to Upfield Shared Path users.

Recommendation Council resolve that the give way line marking at terminating intersections on the Upfield Shared Path be modified to give continuing Upfield Shared Path users right of way.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 148

REPORT

1. Policy Context The Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy 2010-2019, the Moreland Pedestrian Strategy 2010-2019 and the Moreland Bicycle Strategy 2011-2021 all seek to encourage more members of the Moreland community to walk, ride and use public transport more frequently. Council seeks to achieve this goal by creating safe and attractive places for people to walk, to cycle and access public transport. 2. Background The Upfield Shared Path is a path for cyclists and pedestrians to use, which follows Upfield railway line through the inner northern suburbs of Melbourne. It generally provides connectivity to the Capital City Trail to the south and to Box Forest Road, Fawkner to the north. In June 2016, the line marking along the Upfield Shared Path between Park Street, Brunswick and Bell Street, Coburg was replenished and modifications were made at locations where the path intersected with footpaths. The purpose of the modifications were to improve safety for all path users and to clarify the priority at these locations. It was identified that the path users, particularly cyclists should reduce speed and give way to all road users abutting the path. These locations were treated with dashed line marking to highlight a change in conditions and that users of the path should give way to abutting road users. Current line marking and signs at terminating intersections are shown below:

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 149

However, following completion of the line marking works, several residents contacted Council expressing confusion in relation to the use of give way line marking at various locations. These concerns were then discussed at the October 2016 Council meeting (GB48/16), which resolved to investigate the matter further and provide report to a later Council meeting. 3. Issues Design standards and community input The design parameters for linemarking shared paths at abutting intersections is detailed in the Austroads’ publication: Guide to Road Design Part 6A – Pedestrian and Cyclist Paths – Chapter 9 – Paths Remote from Roads (2009). This standard states that priority should be given to the path that has the highest daily volume of cyclists and pedestrians. It then makes provision for the lesser path to be given priority where some pedestrians (for example elderly or mobility impaired) may have difficulty in crossing the shared path due to the speed of cyclists. A community survey was conducted in 2015 regarding safety on and around the Upfield Shared Path. Many users, particularly pedestrians, expressed concerns when joining the shared path at intersections. This, in turn, influenced the decision to trial giving priority to the lesser path in an attempt to address the concerns raised in the 2015 survey. The feedback from the treatment trialled was generally not accepted as it was confusing and unclear. It is therefore, recommended that the line marking be modified to show the terminating path giving way to walkers and bike riders continuing along the Upfield Shared Path. Proposed line marking giving Upfield Shared Path users right of way is shown below:

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 150

Environmental implications The Upfield Shared Path is an important sustainable transport asset. It provides access to railway stations which is parallel to the Sydney Road shopping strips and is an important part of both the Moreland bicycle and pedestrian networks. Social implications Providing clear and concise line marking is a key component of defining the expected behaviours both on and around the path. It has direct effect on the path’s utilisation rate and should be a pleasant experience for all members of the Moreland community. Older residents and families with young children often report feeling intimidated when sharing the path with faster moving bicycle riders. Economic implications The Upfield Shared Path provides a transport corridor for pedestrians and cyclists. Many users of the Upfield Shared Path commute to destinations within the Sydney Road commercial precinct. Creating a safe environment for path users can deliver economic benefits. Regional/strategic implications The Upfield Shared Path forms part of the Melbourne-wide Principal Bicycle Network (PBN). The Upfield Shared Path is used as part of regional trips. Line marking and direction signage should conform to commonly understood traffic rules. Human Rights Consideration The implications of this report have been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. 4. Consultation No consultation was conducted. 5. Officer Declaration of Conflict of Interest Council Officers involved in the preparation of this report have no Conflict of Interest in this matter. 6. Financial and Resources Implications Modification to the existing Path line marking can be completed under Council’s Signs and Line marking Capital Works budget. 7. Implementation The line marking modifications can be completed by June 2017.

Attachment/s There are no attachments for this report.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 151

DCI8/17 MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATION OF VICTORIA (MAV) CONTRACT NO PP4924. PANEL FOR PARK AND PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT (D17/8383) Director City Infrastructure Open Space and Street Cleansing

Executive Summary In September 2016, the Municipal Association of Victoria Procurement Department ran a public tender for the provision of Park and Playground equipment on behalf of member Councils. The scope of the contract included park, playground and fitness equipment, outdoor furniture, structures and signage and related products and services. A total of 33 separate companies were approved for the duration of the contract which expires January 2020. Council’s current panel is due to expire in January 2017.

Recommendation Council resolve: 1. To approve and appoint the use of the MAV panel for the provision of Park and Playground equipment and services. Contract No PP4924, including the following 33 contractors: Trading Name ABN A_space 81 779 114 290 Adventure Playgrounds 74 453 451 382 All Play 83 128 732 623 Artcraft Pty Ltd 77 004 399 642 ASCO Open Space Pty Ltd 70 151 150 097 Consulting Coordination Australia Pty Ltd 40 436 695 521 Creative Recreation Solutions 93 129 278 299 Durapol Pty Ltd 58 068 110 421 EP Draffin Manufacturing 23 004 377 913 GR Design & Construction Pty Ltd 52 132 285 511 HUB Australasia Pty Ltd 87 611 271 937 Kompan Playscape Pty Ltd 22 010 572 335 Landmark Products Pty Ltd 99 112 000 843 Moduplay Group Pty Ltd 40 131 937 669 Ominitech Playgrounds 88 004 660 495 Playground Centre Australia Pty Ltd 67 585 041 861 Playscape Creations 40 128 685 914 Proludic Pty Ltd 49 146 036 937 Repeat Plastics 86 096 146 342 Rubbertough Industries Pty Ltd 72 105 354 710 Safe Play Systems Pty Ltd 97 059 617 006 Shade Living (VIC) Pty Ltd 52 010 530 247 StraBe Group 44 317 107 112 Street Furniture 46 070 910 100 Sturdybiltagencies 19 689 196 089 Swanshore Pty Ltd 77 050 161 316 Terrain Consulting Group 71 966 017 646 The Playworks Pty Ltd 19 010 572 764 UAP Australia 48 123 113 468 Ultimate Play Pty Ltd 42 559 336 415

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 152

Unisite Street and Park Furniture 38 425 905 205 Wagners CFT Manufacturing 91 099 936 446 Wm Loud (Aust) Pty Ltd 53 005 711 222

2. That the Director of City Infrastructure be authorised to do all things necessary to execute the contrac and any other required documentation.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 153

REPORT

1. Policy Context This report is in keeping with the procurement terms and conditions as in Moreland Procurement Policy, June 2016 and sections 186 and 186A of the Local Government Act 1989. 2. Background The Moreland Open Space Strategy drives an extensive annual Council capital works program. Periodic funding for capital and improvement works is also obtained via Federal and State Government Grants. Council’s Capital Works Program for playgrounds is based on a five year renewal program and current Playground Strategy. The annual capital allocation for Playgrounds is approximately $352,000. 3. Issues In September 2016 the MAV publicly tendered for the provision of park, playground and fitness equipment, outdoor furniture, structures and signage and related products and services. A total of 28 member Councils including Moreland, agreed to participate in this public tender. The tenders were evaluated by the MAV procurement team and staff nominated from four member Councils. Tenders were assessed in accordance with sections 186 and 186A of the Local Government Act 1989. A total of 33 companies supplying a range of playground, fitness and park equipment were awarded contracts as a part of this public tender process. The following companies were selected to be included on the MAV panel:

Trading Name ABN A_space 81 779 114 290 Adventure Playgrounds 74 453 451 382 All Play 83 128 732 623 Artcraft Pty Ltd 77 004 399 642 ASCO Open Space Pty Ltd 70 151 150 097 Consulting Coordination Australia Pty Ltd 40 436 695 521 Creative Recreation Solutions 93 129 278 299 Durapol Pty Ltd 58 068 110 421 EP Draffin Manufacturing 23 004 377 913 GR Design & Construction Pty Ltd 52 132 285 511 HUB Australasia Pty Ltd 87 611 271 937 Kompan Playscape Pty Ltd 22 010 572 335 Landmark Products Pty Ltd 99 112 000 843 Moduplay Group Pty Ltd 40 131 937 669 Ominitech Playgrounds 88 004 660 495 Playground Centre Australia Pty Ltd 67 585 041 861 Playscape Creations 40 128 685 914 Proludic Pty Ltd 49 146 036 937 Repeat Plastics 86 096 146 342

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 154

Trading Name ABN Rubbertough Industries Pty Ltd 72 105 354 710 Safe Play Systems Pty Ltd 97 059 617 006 Shade Living (VIC) Pty Ltd 52 010 530 247 StraBe Group 44 317 107 112 Street Furniture 46 070 910 100 Sturdybiltagencies 19 689 196 089 Swanshore Pty Ltd 77 050 161 316 Terrain Consulting Group 71 966 017 646 The Playworks Pty Ltd 19 010 572 764 UAP Australia 48 123 113 468 Ultimate Play Pty Ltd 42 559 336 415 Unisite Street and Park Furniture 38 425 905 205 Wagners CFT Manufacturing 91 099 936 446 Wm Loud (Aust) Pty Ltd 53 005 711 222

Human Rights Consideration The implications of this report have been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. 4. Consultation The MAV consulted broadly with the 28 member Councils participating in this public tender and staff from four member Councils participated in the evaluation process. 5. Officer Declaration of Conflict of Interest Council Officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter. 6. Financial and Resources Implications Approval to participate in the MAV panel of suppliers for Playgrounds means Council will benefit from being able to ensure probity and minimal risk, reduced Council administration and tendering costs and the MAV will have responsibility for managing the contract until its expiry in January 2020. It also means Moreland will no longer have to maintain a separate supply panel for the provision of playground and outdoor gym equipment. Council’s current panel is due to expire in 2017 with the expectation that a new panel tender would not produce a better outcome than the MAV panel being recommended. 7. Implementation Once Council approval is given, Moreland as a member Council of the MAV is eligible to use the MAV Park and Playground Equipment Panel and an online quotation system for all playground projects up to the value of $500,000 on an annual basis.

Attachment/s There are no attachments for this report.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 155

DCI9/17 CONTRACT NO 527T - PROVISION OF OPEN SPACE LANDSCAPE AND BUSHLAND SERVICES AND MANAGEMENT INCLUDING DESIGN, MATERIALS, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES - CONTRACTORS (D17/13196) Director City Infrastructure Open Space and Street Cleansing

Executive Summary At the December 2016 Council meeting (DCI62/16), Contract 527T was awarded with the following nominated categories:  Landscape assessment, planning design and playground safety consultants.  Supply of landscape materials including horticultural and arboriculture supplies.  Earthworks.  Supply of advanced trees and other vegetation.  Supply of seed and turf.  Supply of park furniture, fencing and signage fabrication.  Landscape construction for planting, furniture installation and general landscape works including electrical supply and installation of sports field.  Open Space maintenance.  Bushland management and maintenance. The tender evaluation included all contractors, two of the successful tenders were assessed but omitted from the formal resolution. The two successful contractors were included in the summary of results attachment in the category of Landscape construction contractors for planting, furniture installation and general landscape works including electrical supply and installation of sports field summary of results but were omitted from the specific resolution to be appointed under Contract 527T. Following advice from Procurement this report requests the two contractors are included under Contract 527T. This report seeks to add the two tenderers to the December 2016 Council resolution.

Recommendation Council resolve that: 1. Under Contract 527T – Provision of Open Space Landscape and Bushland Services and Management Including Design, Materials Construction and Maintenance Supplies to the below panel of contractors for a period of three (3) years, with an option of a further two (2) x one (1) year extensions: a) Add the following two contractors to the Landscape construction for planting, furniture installation and general landscape works including electrical supply and installation of sports field category: Australian Ecosysterms Pty Ltd (ABN 36080253096) Cityworks Construction & Maintenance (ABN 25309611060) 2. The Director City Infrastructure be authorised to do all things necessary to execute the contracts and any other required documentation. 3. The tenderers be advised of Council’s decision in this matter.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 156

REPORT

1. Policy Context This report is in keeping with the Council’s commitment to accountability and sound financial management. It also addresses the requirement under Section 186 of the Local Government Act 1989, which requires Council to conduct a public tender for services where the contract value is more than $150,000 for goods and $200,000 for works, as well as the policy commitments contained in the Procurement Policy. 2. Background At the 7 December 2016 Council meeting Contract 527T was awarded with the following nominated categories:  Landscape assessment, planning design and playground safety consultants.  Supply of landscape materials including horticultural and arboriculture supplies.  Earthworks.  Supply of advanced trees and other vegetation.  Supply of seed and turf.  Supply of park furniture, fencing and signage fabrication.  Landscape construction for planting, furniture installation and general landscape works including electrical supply and installation of sports field.  Open Space maintenance.  Bushland management and maintenance. Two contractors included in the summary of results (Confidential Attachment 1) in the category of landscape construction contractors for planting, furniture installation and general landscape works including electrical supply and installation of sports field summary of results sheet were omitted from the specific resolution to be appointed under Contract 527T. A total of 55 conforming tenders were received, refer to Council Report (DCI 62/16) on 7 December 2016. 3. Issues The tender evaluation included all contractors, two of the successful tenders were assessed but omitted from the formal resolution. The two successful contractors were included in the summary of results attachment in the category of Landscape construction contractors for planting, furniture installation and general landscape works including electrical supply and installation of sports field summary of results were omitted from the specific resolution to be appointed under Contract 527T. Following advice from Procurement this report requests the two contractors are included under Contract 527T. This report seeks to add the two tenderers to the December 2016 Council resolution. The below table shows all the successful contractors in the summary of results Confidential Attachment 1 in the category of landscape construction contractors for planting, furniture installation and general landscape works including electrical supply and installation of sports field: Company Name Australian Ecosysterms Pty Ltd Cityworks Construction & Maintenance Ecodynamics Pty Ltd Evergreen Civil Pty Ltd IPower (VIC) Pty Ltd Nickelodian Holdings Pty Ltd Sevron Pty Ltd

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 157

Human Rights Consideration The implications of this report have been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. 4. Consultation Open Space Design and Development have consulted the Procurement Unit. 5. Officer Declaration of Conflict of Interest Council Officers involved in the preparation of this report have no Conflict of Interest in this matter. 6. Financial and Resources Implications Open Space operational budgets are developed on an annual basis and include funding for the provision of goods, materials and services. Spend for all maintenance and management aspects of Open Space relating to Contract 527T totals approximately $2.5 million per annum. The Open Space annual capital budget is established in accordance with the five year capital works program with a total spend of approximately $2 million per annum. The annual Capital and Base allocated budget varies each year therefore, the value of this contract will exceed the Chief Executive Officer delegation of $700,000 over the life of the contract and requires Council approval. 7. Implementation It is proposed that the Director City Infrastructure be authorised to do all things necessary to execute the contract/s and any other required documentation. The contracts will commence once they are executed.

Attachment/s 1 527T - 7. Landscape Construction for planting, furniture installation, D16/388904 general landscape works including electrical supply and sportsfields - Summary of Results 141116 - This matter is considered to be confidential under Section 89(2) (a) of the Local Government Act, as it deals with contractual matters.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 158

DSD1/17 FRIENDS OF AILEU: CONDOLENCES ON PASSING OF MR MARIO SOARES, SECRETARY AILEU FRIENDSHIP COMMISSION (D16/440398) Director Social Development East Timor Project

Executive Summary Mr. Mario Soares, Chief of Planning, Municipality of Aileu, Timor-Leste, passed away on Friday 18 November 2016. Mr Soares held the position of Secretary of the Aileu Friendship Commission, the counterpart to the Friends of Aileu Community Committee, and had for many years been the liaison person for the friendship relationship. At its meeting on 6 December 2017, the Friends of Aileu Community Committee passed a motion requesting letters of condolence from Moreland and Hume City Councils.

Recommendation Council resolve to extend its condolences to the family of Mr Mario Soares and to recognise his many years’ service to the friendship relationship with Moreland City Council.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 159

REPORT

1. Policy Context Moreland City Council, in partnership with Hume City Council, entered into a Friendship Relationship with Aileu, Timor-Leste, in May 2000. The relationship has been renewed several times, with the signing of Friendship Agreements in 2005, 2010 and most recently in 2016. 2. Background Mr Mario Soares held positions including Social and Economic Officer, District Development Officer and Acting Deputy District Administrator with the District of Aileu, and more recently Chief of Planning with the Aileu Municipal Administration. He served as the liaison person for Friends of Aileu from soon after the establishment of the Friendship Relationship, and since then made many lasting personal friendships. In 2004, when the Aileu District Administration established the Aileu Relationship Commission as the counterpart to the Friends of Aileu Community Committee, Mr Soares was appointed as Secretary of the Commission. Mr Soares served in these roles ever since and has been instrumental in maintaining and developing the Friendship Relationship, and ensuring programs and projects supported by Friends of Aileu addressed local priorities and were implemented effectively. As part of his duties Mr Soares visited Moreland and Hume on three occasions; in 2004, 2008 and 2014, each time meeting with the two Councils’ Mayors and/or Councillors, Chief Executive Officers and/or senior officers, as well as with members of the Friends of Aileu, representatives of partner organisations and members of the community. Over the last 15 years Mr Soares played a major role managing the programs for visits to Aileu by several councillors and many members of Friends of Aileu and representatives of partner organisations. Between 2002 and 2014 he also managed six Australian Volunteers International placements with the Aileu Administration, which were sponsored by Friends of Aileu. Mr Soares had a passion for the development of young people and managed the Aileu end of Hume Aileu Secondary Education Scholarship Program and the Cr Andy Ingham Aileu University Scholarship Program. He was also diligent in ensuring that funds transferred to Aileu for friendship activities were well-managed and regularly reported. As a youth Mr Soares was a member of the clandestine front of the Timorese resistance. Following the restoration of Timor-Leste independence, he left a business career in engineering to focus on working for his community in the newly established Aileu District Administration. Mr Soares suffered from high blood pressure for some years. He survived a stroke in 2010 and again early in 2016. On the afternoon of Friday 18 November 2016, Mr Soares emailed the Project Officer advising of the approval of the local contractor selected to undertake the external works to complete development of the Laulara Birthing Centre, one of the major projects funded by Friends of Aileu, partner organisations and individual donors. Later that evening, while still working in his office Mr Soares collapsed. He was discovered by colleagues and transported to the Aileu health centre but died soon after in transit to the national hospital in Dili.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 160

The funeral was held on Sunday 20 November 2016 from the family home in Saboria village across the river from the Municipal Administration Office in Aisirimou village, Aileu Vila. Mr Soares is survived by his former wife and their five children, and by his subsequent wife and their two children. 3. Issues Liaison arrangements The East Timor Project Officer has discussed interim liaison arrangements for the friendship relationship with Sr. Camilo da Costa, Aileu Vila Community Development Officer, who visited Moreland and Hume with Mario in 2014. The East Timor Project Officer will discuss longer term arrangements with the Municipal Administrator at the next available opportunity. Assistance to Mr Soares’ family Members of Friends of Aileu responded generously to a request for personal donations to assist Mr Soares’ family. Funds received have been lodged with the Friends of Aileu Donations Account at Moreland City Council. By 31 December 2016, donations received totalled $1,000 for his family as a contribution to funeral expenses. Acknowledgement of Mr Soares’s role in the Friendship Relationship Given Mr Soares’s key role in the Friendship Relationship over a period of some 15 years and the many friends he made during this time, including during his three visits to Moreland and Hume, it is considered appropriate that an official obituary be prepared to acknowledge his passing. 4. Consultation This report has been prepared following motions passed at the Friends of Aileu Community Committee meeting of 6 December 2016, attended by the Chair and Hume Councillor, Cr Joseph Haweil, Deputy Chair and Moreland Councillor, Cr Mark Riley, and former Chairs and Moreland Deputy Mayor, Cr Samantha Ratnam and former Hume Councillor Helen Patsikatheodorou. 5. Officer Declaration of Conflict of Interest Council Officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter. 6. Financial and Resources Implications There are no financial implications from this report. 7. Implementation A similar report has been prepared for Hume City Council. Subject to approval of the recommendations:  A letter of condolence will be prepared for the Mayors signature.  The Project Officer will consult with members of Friends of Aileu Community Committee and Communications and Customer Service to develop the obituary and media release.

Attachment/s There are no attachments for this report.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 161

DSD2/17 INITIATIVES AND SUPPORT PROVIDED TO LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, TRANSGENDER, INTERSEX AND QUEER (LGBTIQ) PEOPLE BY COUNCIL SUPPORTED CLUBS AND SPORTING CODES (D17/11957) Director Social Development Youth and Leisure

Executive Summary Moreland City Council has a strong commitment to ensuring its community are mentally and physically healthy and active. This includes facilitating a broad range of sporting and recreational opportunities. At its meeting held 7 December 2016, Council resolved via a General Business item (GB61/16) that a: report be prepared outlining the current levels of support and any initiatives provided by MCC supported clubs and sporting codes for young LGBTIQ people. The report should also examine the efficacy for instituting a diversity initiative which would support the development of safe and welcoming cultures for LGBTIQ people within clubs, similar to the initiative implemented by Council to facilitate the inclusion of women and girls in sport across our municipality. That the report be produced with sufficient time to allow consideration in the Council Plan process. Research conducted in the preparation of this report has confirmed the benefit of instituting a diversity initiative that encompasses a broader range of services, including sporting clubs as well as Council practices. This would help to create multiple inroads into developing safe and welcoming cultures for LGBTIQ people, creating a multi-faceted approach to improving inclusiveness, and promoting best practice to sporting and community organisations.

Recommendation Council resolve to: 1. Note the current levels of support provided by Council and MCC supported clubs and sporting codes for young LGBTIQ people. 2. Investigate establishing a Youth LGBTIQ Advisory Group to participate in planning and delivery of Council and/or community initiatives. 3. Consider supporting the development of a diversity initiative and action plan through the 2017-2018 budget planning process.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 162

REPORT

1. Policy Context The Moreland Council Plan 2013 – 2017 includes the following strategic objectives:  Outcome 1: Moreland community members are mentally and physically healthy and active;  Outcome 2: Moreland community members feel connected to others and have access to the necessary services; and  Outcome 6: The human rights of Moreland’s diverse community are upheld. Council’s Health and Wellbeing Plan also identifies the need to: address health inequalities' including 'diverse communities as well as promoting positive mental health' and 'fostering social connection and community engagement. The Moreland Human Rights Policy 2016 - 2026: One Community, Proudly Diverse has a focus on specific groups that are at greatest risk of exclusion from social, economic and political life because of systemic barriers and discrimination. The Human Rights policy positions Council to take a proactive approach in protecting and promoting the human rights of the Moreland community in key priority areas, in collaboration across Council Units, in partnership with external organisations and the community. This policy includes Council’s support for Moreland’s Lesbian Gay Bi-sexual, Transgender, Intersex and Queer community (LGBTIQ), and commits to ensuring that Moreland is a safe and welcoming city for LGBTIQ communities, and will strive to ensure that Council services are accessible to and appropriate to the needs of our LGBTIQ residents and visitors. Furthermore, The Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities 2006 requires Council to act consistently with the Charter and to consider human rights when making decisions, developing policies and providing services. In addition to the above strategies and policies, from a service perspective, the Allocation and use of Sporting Facilities, Grounds, and Pavilions Policy was developed to address inequity, continue to address discrimination, meet legislative requirements, promote community cohesion and encourage the provision of equitable access to services for all sectors of the Moreland community. The policy also ensures that both the culture and structure of sports are addressed and challenged to improve accessibility and to provide all individuals with equality of opportunity and choice. 2. Background In recent years, Council has undertaken a number of activities to recognise and celebrate Moreland’s LGBTIQ community. This includes partnerships with other Councils, such as Yarra, Darebin and Banyule, recognising International Day against Homophobia and Transphobia (IDAHOBIT), Midsumma activities and the development of the resource Find the Rainbow, a map of LGBTIQ groups and networks as well as LGBTIQ friendly services across Melbourne’s north. From a sporting club perspective, Council supports the development of safe and welcoming cultures for LGBTIQ people within clubs in a number of ways, including training initiatives through the Australian Sports Commission funded ‘Fair go, sport!’ initiative promoting sexual and gender diversity, and online resources (Active Moreland web resource offering support for clubs in tackling homophobia in sport).

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 163

Preliminary discussions have also been undertaken between Council’s Youth and Recreation services units with Proud2Play, an organisation which connects directly with young LGBTIQ people (between the ages of 14–24) who wish to participate in group/community sporting programs near to them, but may feel uncomfortable or threatened being involved in such an environment. Initiatives are currently being explored to create sporting environments in which all people, no matter what gender, sexual orientation or skill level, feel 100% comfortable and happy being involved. In partnership with the YMCA, Council officers have been involved in in a number of actions in creating welcoming and accessible environments at Councils Aquatic and Leisure facilities, which include:  Initial discussions and review in relation to becoming accredited with the Rainbow tick.  Amendment of all membership information forms in relation to sex to include additional option ‘Other’.  Council and YMCA staff attended and participated in a seminar held by Rowena Allen, Commissioner for gender and sexuality.  YGender presented expert speakers for staff training as well as forming a review task group that has been working towards the implementation of the all gender change room/toilets at Brunswick Baths.  Training and information for all staff and customers in preparation for the all gender changerooms (Information flyers and signage).  Introduction of all gender change rooms at Brunswick Baths – and access to lockers.  Planning for Oak Park Aquatic Centre includes an all gender changeroom/toilets. Moreland Youth Services have supported the YGLAM Queer Youth Theatre group for a number of years now, and provide access to rehearsal space at Oxygen every Thursday 6-8pm. YGLAM is a youth performing arts program led by Merri Health for same sex attracted and gender diverse young people. Young people are involved in every aspect of the project from steering committee representation, directing, script work, lighting, design, stage management and acting. Since its inception YGLAM has created 15 theatre works, produced community service announcements, designed an anti- homophobia campaign, produced a video - 'Just One Day' and created a number of animations on the theme of 'love'. More recently, Youth Services Freeza committee (Youth Music Committee) collaborated with YGLAM to support the implementation of 'Blemish' a theatre performance and panel discussion on issues surrounding people with a disability who identify as being LGBTIQ. Council recognises that there continues to be barriers for members of our community, and that not everyone enjoys the equality in opportunities. While many individuals who identify as LGBTIQ live healthy, connected and positive lives, there continues to be reports of discrimination, lack of acceptance and abuse and bullying. Experiences of discrimination and isolation can contribute to poor health outcomes. For example, LGBITQ community members are at least two to three times more likely to experience depression and anxiety than the broader community. Addressing discrimination and the barriers faced by LGBTIQ community members should be a key priority and actioned with the development of a diversity initiative and action plan to support the development of safe and welcoming cultures and services for LGBTIQ community by Council, sporting and community organisations.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 164

3. Issues Through researching this report, it became evident that there is little quality data available on the demographics of the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer communities in Australia, including age, ethnicity, socio-economic and family status. Literature suggests that this may be due to a number of factors: the invisibility of these communities within the general community, reticence within the LGBTIQ community about disclosing their sexuality or sex and gender identity (due to fear of repercussions) and difficulty in phrasing questions appropriately. It is well documented that homophobia, biphobia, transphobia (the fear of gay, lesbian, bisexual or trans people) and heterosexism (the assumption or belief that everyone is or should be heterosexual) exist at all levels of society: in the community, amongst service providers and in institutions (such as hospitals, schools etc). The impacts of homophobia (understood here as inclusive of biphobia and transphobia) and heterosexism can be compounded by a person’s ethnicity or cultural background, religious affiliation, disability, age, geographic location. Although most LGBTIQ Australians live healthy happy lives, evidence from two Australian studies, Private Lives II and Tranznation, suggest significantly higher rates of negative health outcomes and suicidality within the LGBTIQ community (Couch et al., 2007; Pitts et al., 2006). Research shows that this is related to social determinants, such as experience of discrimination, which can directly impact on a person’s physical and mental health and can also indirectly result in reduced access to appropriate health care (Rosenstreich, 2013). Research also indicates that many in the LGBTIQ community do not feel safe at sporting events and do not feel they can truly be themselves at sporting events. The largest piece of research into homophobia in sport, the ‘Out on the Fields’ report, released in 2015, paints a frightening picture for lesbian, gay and bisexual sports participants and fans. More than half of respondents believe adult sport is ‘not safe’ for sexually diverse people and eight in every ten participants have seen or felt homophobia in sport. Council understands that the experience of discrimination and exclusion can negatively impact on a person’s health and wellbeing. As such, it recognises that action to address exclusionary practices and discriminatory attitudes (conscious and unconscious) within our organisation, services and the community is necessary. Undoubtedly, there are many LGBTIQ people who access Council services including: customer services, age and disability, youth, maternal and child health, family services, library and leisure services. Council’s Health and Wellbeing Plan (2013-2017) recognises the need to utilise contemporary research, performance measures and evidence to guide action planning. However, there is limited reliable local data. To address this, there is a need undertake local research to determine the needs and priorities of LGBTIQ communities living in Moreland. Having a more in-depth understanding around the health and wellbeing needs of Moreland’s LGBTIQ communities would allow Council to respond strategically to these needs through policies, services and programs. It is recommended that Council officers develop a diversity initiative and action plan to support the development of safe and welcoming cultures and services for LGBTIQ community by council, sporting and community organisations and include the following actions:

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 165

Data collection  Council reviews the way it collects data from service users and staff to capture sexual orientation as an added dimension of diversity.  A protocol is developed for devising appropriate and sensitive questions, ensuring all privacy principles are maintained.  Council ensures current research questions are not worded in a way which exclude or render invisible the LGBTIQ community.  Council ensures the easy accessibility of demographic data to assist with targeted planning and service delivery. Celebrations and events  LGBTIQ community members celebrated and acknowledged.  Recognise International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia, Intersexism and Transphobia (17 May) through activities and/or an event.  Undertake activities as part of the annual Midsumma Festival including local and joint projects with other Councils and/or organisations.  Develop a communications campaign to encourage staff, Councillors, external partners and the community to take part in Melbourne’s Pride March. Inclusive practice  Inclusive language used by Council staff in publications and material.  Make information available about inclusive sports practice at club workshops to encourage sports clubs in Moreland to embed inclusion in sport.  Review Council’s Sports Club User Guide and allocation policy to ensure it reflects inclusion of diverse community members. Community infrastructure  Accessible and appropriate facilities considered in new or upgraded facilities e.g. provision of gender neutral spaces. Training  Provision of professional development and training to staff to support work with diverse communities. Community engagement  Council consider further opportunities for engagement with the LGBTIQ community to strengthen and deepen Council’s understanding of their aspirations, strengths, needs and issues. LGBTIQ Advisory Group  Council to consider establishment of a Youth LGBTIQ Advisory Group to participate in planning and delivery of Council and/or community initiatives. Further actions arising from the development of a diversity initiative and action plan will assist and further Moreland Council’s approach to social inclusion, equity and diversity by identifying exclusionary practices across the municipality and developing strategies to address them. They will also initiate and support engagement with the LGBTIQ community living in Moreland as well as relevant agencies, peak bodies and community groups. Human Rights Consideration The implications of this report have been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 166

4. Consultation Advice was sought from officers across Council involved in the preparation of this report including Community Development and Social Policy, Youth and Leisure Services, City Infrastructure and Human Resources. 5. Officer Declaration of Conflict of Interest Council Officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter. 6. Financial and Resources Implications There was no financial or resource implication in the creation of this report, however implications will occur, depending on the report recommendations adopted. There is no existing budget allocation for this project in the 2017-2018 financial year. It is estimated that the cost to undertake a diversity initiative and action plan would be $30,000. This project has been referred to the 2017-2018 budget process for consideration. 7. Implementation Progression of the development of diversity initiative and action plan as outlined above would be subject to resourcing achieved through the identified budget bid. This has been referred to the 2017-2018 budget process.

Attachment/s There are no attachments for this report.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 167

DSD3/17 MORRIS RESERVE DRAFT MASTER PLAN - COMMUNITY CONSULTATION (D16/233873) Director Social Development Youth and Leisure

Executive Summary Morris Reserve is a single oval reserve, set in a densely populated residential area in Pascoe Vale South. The reserve offers both passive and active recreation opportunities including:  football/cricket oval with a turf table and synthetic wicket;  sporting pavilion;  cricket practice nets;  scout hall;  public toilet block;  playground; and,  a small sealed car park. Morris Reserve is seasonally allocated in the summer to West Coburg Softball Club, the West Coburg Cricket Club and the West Coburg Football Club in the winter. The facilities at Morris Reserve are functionally obsolete for contemporary sporting club needs and community expectations. At the June 2011 Council meeting (DSD19/11), Council resolved the West Coburg and Pascoe Vale South Precinct Needs Analysis (2011) that identified the need for master planning of Morris Reserve in conjunction with the West Coburg Sports Club and other stakeholders. Initial consultation on the master plan has been undertaken with Council officers, user clubs, the nearby preschool, local residents and local sporting associations. Based on this feedback, as well as site opportunities and constraints, it is recommended Option 2, as shown in Attachment 2, is presented for further community and stakeholder consultation including Sport and Recreation Victoria.

Recommendation Council resolve: 1. To endorse the Draft Morris Reserve Master Plan (Option 2, as shown in Attachment 2) for community consultation, subject to a staged implementation. 2. That the Final Morris Reserve Master Plan be presented to a future Council meeting for consideration. The report is to include consultation results, project scope, financial implications, staging options and likely implementation timetable relating to capital works proposed in the Master Plan.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 168

REPORT

1. Policy Context The Morris Reserve Draft Master Plan (Master Plan) project supports the following outcomes of Moreland’s Council Plan 2013-2017:  Moreland community members are mentally and physically active  People have access to local places, spaces and public transport  Attractive and well maintained built environment, streetscapes and landscapes The Master Plan options for Morris Reserve have been made having regard to a number of policy documents including:  Moreland Council Plan 2013-2017  Moreland Sport and Physical Activity Strategy 2014-2018  Moreland Open Space Strategy 2012-2022  Moreland Municipal Public Health and Wellbeing Plan 2013-2017  Moreland Active Girls and Women Strategy 2009  Moreland Access and Inclusion Plan 2010-2014  Asset Management Strategy  Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy 2010-2019  Moreland Playground Strategy 2008-2018  Moreland Bike Plan 2011-2021 and Pedestrian Plan 2009-2019. Associated documents:  Technical notes and standards for general parks infrastructure – inc. seating, bollards, fencing, path widths, bins etc  AFL Preferred Facility Guidelines for State, Regional and Local Facilities (2012)  West Coburg and Pascoe Vale South – Precinct Needs Analysis (Sports Facilities) 2011  Condition assessments for the pavilion, toilet block and scout hall. 2. Background Morris Reserve is a 3.0ha reserve located off Wadham Street and Wentworth Avenue in Pascoe Vale South. It is a passive/active reserve which comprises a football/cricket oval with a turf table and synthetic wicket, sporting pavilion, cricket practice nets, scout hall, public toilet block, playground, stands of trees, park benches, internal bollard fences and a small sealed car park. Morris Reserve is bounded by houses to the north, south and west and the Tullamarine Freeway to the east. As a passive/informal recreation space, the reserve caters for the community living in the neighbourhood area bounded by Coonans Road, Reynard Street, Pascoe Vale Road and Moreland Road. The Mooney Valley Creek and Tullamarine Freeway are located within this neighbourhood area and impede vehicle movement across the area. Pedestrian movement is also limited, but to a lesser extent, with footbridges connecting the residential areas on the eastern and western sides of the Moonee Valley Creek and Tullamarine Freeway. The facilities at Morris Reserve are very poor. The pavilion is situated at the northern end of the ground and appears to be a 1950’s construction. Although the pavilion appears good structurally, it offers little amenity other than a shelter from the elements and basic toilet facilities. It consists of one large change room which can be divided by a curtain with unusable shower/toilet rooms at each end. West Coburg Cricket Club has repainted the internal walls in an attempt to spruce up the facilities.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 169

The sports ground is configured for Australian Rules football, and although a good size suitable for senior competition, it is in average condition and needs a total reconstruction. A reasonable turf wicket table is situated in the middle of the ground with three pitches and an additional single synthetic cricket wicket is also positioned on the eastern side of the playing area for junior cricket use. On the north-west side of the ground there are two old half synthetic wicket training nets that are in need of an upgrade or replacement. There is only one average training light which makes training in winter very difficult and limited. The single training light requires concentration of activity in the one location, placing excessive demand on this area of the sports ground. The West Coburg Football Club (WCFC) juniors utilise Morris Reserve as a secondary venue for training and competition in the winter while the seniors utilise it for pre season training in the summer. West Coburg Cricket Club (WCCC) and West Coburg Softball Club (WCSC) utilise the ground and facilities for training and matches during summer. The scout hall on site in the south-east corner of the reserve is not actively used and is in extremely poor condition. Recent uses include storage space by an Opera Group and a local dog trainer. A master plan was completed by an external consultant for Morris Reserve sports ground and facilities, incorporating the improvement of the surrounding public open spaces, playground and vehicle access. Prior to the November 2014 State Government Election, the Honourable Jane Garrett, Member for Brunswick, made an election commitment of $500,000 funding towards Morris Reserve. This commitment included new change rooms, facilities upgrade and extension of oval. At the June Council meeting, Council resolved (DSD19/15) to support an allocation in future years up to an amount matching the State Government contribution of $500,000 to complete the project to which State Government have committed funds. In addition the 2014 State Government Inner City Netball Program Election Commitment will provide ($280,000) for the construction of two compliant netball courts in the 2016-2017 financial year. The State Government has indicated they are open to further negotiation on the scope of the projects and where necessary, officers will seek to vary the scope to meet the intent of the funding announcement, and the needs of the club. 3. Issues Redevelopment plan options Two options have been developed in the preparation of the Master Plan. The options contain similar recommendations relating to playing fields, passive spaces and car parking. Where they differ is in the recommendations relating to the design and location of the pavilion and the location of the netball courts. Master Plan Option 1 outlines a new pavilion located on the eastern side of the oval and 2 new netball courts located at the southern end of the reserve. This option allows for senior and junior football and netball to be relocated to the reserve. Master Plan Option 2 retains the existing pavilion and is extended and the netball courts are situated at the northern end of the reserve near the existing pavilion. This option provides for only netball to be relocated to the reserve.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 170

Master Plan Option 1 The proposed works under Master Plan Option 1 are shown in Attachment 1. The key components of Master Plan Option 1 include:  Replace the signs at the Wentworth Avenue and Wadham Street entrances.  Extend, seal and line the car park at the Wentworth Avenue entrance. Install bollards around the car park to prevent cars from parking on the playing field and surrounds.  Realign the existing concrete path to accommodate the extended car park.  Remove the existing pavilion, storage shed and public toilet block.  Fully reconstruct the playing field and extend the length of the field if feasible.  Construct a five wicket turf table in the centre of the playing field and upgrade the cricket playing nets.  Erect a chain wire fence around the playing field.  Erect nets behind the goal and point posts.  Remove the existing training light over the playing field. Erect 4 new lights that have sufficient illumination for senior football training.  Extend and diversify the play space. Provide shade over the play space.  Develop a family social area near the play space. The area should contain seats and tables, a shelter and BBQ facilities. Option 1 will require a significant capital contribution (between $5.3M and $5.7M) by Council on a project that will not achieve an ideal outcome, i.e. the length of the oval will just exceed the minimum AFL specification. Additionally, this option requires the provision of additional built facilities which will result in a loss of open space and trees. This option will likely increase traffic and noise in and around the reserve; not to significant levels but more than what residents are currently experiencing. Initial feedback has indicated that the likely increase in noise and traffic may result in some residents being strongly opposed to this option. Master Plan Option 2 The proposed works under Master Plan Option 2 are shown in Attachment 2. Option 2 has a number of components which are the same as Option 1, however there are the following key differences:  Retain, update and extend the existing pavilion (into the area currently occupied by the storage shed and toilet block). The extended pavilion will incorporate:  A renovated/upgraded change room, amenities area and umpires’ rooms that will be suitable for male/female use and cater for the netball courts;  A social area with the capacity to seat 60 people, a kitchen/kiosk with an internal and external servery; and  Internally and externally accessible public toilets and suitable storage areas.  Construction of 2 fully-lit, compliant acrylic-resin netball courts to the west of the existing pavilion.  Not including the chain wire fence around the playing field or nets at the end of the playing field. Option 2 provides contemporary sporting facilities: irrigated, lit and drained field with warm season grasses, renovated and extended pavilion. The oval boundaries will be relocated 5m southeast to ensure trees of significance are not removed. Option 2 estimates a capital cost for all components between $3.5M to $4M. This option provides additional facilities for women’s sport, encourages more passive use of the reserve by way of promoting pedestrian movement in and around the reserve. As this option would not significantly increase the noise and use of the site it is likely that most residents will support the works recommended in this option.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 171

Current reserve users There are a number of groups currently accessing Morris Reserve through seasonal allocation. Officers believe that each of these groups would receive improved amenity and functionality under Option 2. This may however result in some changes to the current arrangements, and would likely result in increased access for other groups and individuals in the community to these shared spaces. West Coburg Cricket Club West Coburg Cricket Club (originally Christchurch Cricket Club) formed in 1903, playing in the Essendon, Broadmeadows Churches Cricket Association. The club currently fields six senior teams in the Victorian Turf Cricket Association (VTCA) and 13 junior sides in the North West Metropolitan Cricket Association (NWMCA). Female cricket participation has increased over the past few years and the club registered five girls to play in the 2015-2016 NWMCA All Girls competition. West Coburg Softball Club West Coburg Softball Club is a non-profit organisation which started in 2010 and now proudly boasts several mixed teams starting from U13’s, U16’s and U19’s. The softball club use Morris Reserve during the summer for training sessions. West Coburg Netball Club West Coburg Netball Club formed in 2011 and has grown from 24 players to over 120 players in five years. The club utilise indoor and outdoor courts at Coburg West Primary School. Option 2 of the Draft Morris Reserve Master Plan will provide the netball club with a facility to complement the new courts. This development would provide the requisite facilities to allow the club to operate from one central venue, subject to lease agreements. West Coburg Football Club Juniors West Coburg Football Club have approximately 130 junior players with seven teams currently and the aim to further expand to 10 teams in the next few years. All teams compete in the Essendon Districts Football League. The junior footballers currently utilise Morris Reserve as a secondary venue for training and competition in the winter. Seniors Formed in 1927, West Coburg Football Club has two teams playing in the Essendon Districts Football League (EDFL); Premier Division and Premier Reserves. The senior footballers utilise Morris Reserve for pre season training in the summer. Environmental implications The Master Plan recommends the consolidation of existing buildings and increase the amount of open space in the precinct. The consolidation of buildings will reduce the energy use across the precinct. Additional environmental implications will be considered in the landscape design and in the detailed design of any new buildings. Social implications The facilities proposed in the Master Plan will provide an increased level of amenity for users, offering modern facilities and a greater level of comfort. The proposed Master Plan provides much improved integration of the facilities on site.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 172

Economic implications The proposed facility design offers an opportunity to consolidate management of the facilities. The consolidation of buildings will reduce the maintenance and renewal costs for the buildings in the precinct. Service and utility costs will also be reduced. Human Rights Consideration The implications of this report have been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. This report and its recommendations have no adverse implications on Human Rights. 4. Consultation Community consultation was undertaken for the development of the Master Plan. Consultation occurred with key stakeholders including Council officers, users clubs, nearby preschool, local residents and local sports associations. The consultation process included the following:  Interviews with representatives of the clubs/groups/schools that use the reserve.  A survey of residents living near the reserve.  Interviews with Council staff involved in the planning, development, management and maintenance of and staging of activities in the parks.  Interviews with potential users of the reserve. The following stakeholders were interviewed:  User clubs/organisations – West Coburg Sports Club, Moreland Scouts, Paws- ability Dog Obedience School, Pascoe Vale South Primary School  Local community – Local school, local kindergarten, residents living within the area bounded by Reynard Street and Moonee Creek to the north, Moonee Valley Creek to the west and south and Tullamarine Freeway and Coonans Road to the east.  Moreland City Council Staff - Property Services, Traffic Management, Statutory Planning, Building Maintenance, Waste Management, Strategic Planning, Open Space Maintenance, Open Space Design and Development, Planning, Environmental Planning. Attachment 3 lists the improvements to the reserve that were suggested in the consultation process and the source of these suggestions. 5. Officer Declaration of Conflict of Interest Council Officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 173

6. Financial and Resources Implications The original draft Master Plan cost estimate has been revised to reflect current industry rates. Option 1 is estimated to be between $5.3M and $5.7M and Option 2 has a cost estimate of $3.5M to $4M. Attachment 4 outlines the cost estimates in more detail. Council’s current 5 year capital budget plan (2016-2021) lists $1.78M in projects for Morris Reserve:  Pavilion - $900,000 (2017-2018) and $100,000 (2018-2019) - State Government election commitment $500,000 plus Council’s $500,000 matching contribution. Sport and Recreation Victoria has indicated they are open to further negotiation on the scope of the projects and where necessary, officers will seek to vary the scope to meet the intent of the funding announcement, and the needs of the club.  Sports field Lighting - $140,000 (2018-2019).  Irrigation and Drainage - $200,000 (2018-2019).  Public Toilet Upgrade - $10,000 (design) and $150,000 (construction) allocated in 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 budgets respectively. The State Government’s Inner City Netball Program will fund the construction of two fully-lit competition compliant netball courts at a cost of $280,000. The total of all funding sources identified above is $1.78M, which would support the implementation of components of the Morris Reserve master plan, as proposed in Option 2. However, based on a cost estimate of $3.5M to $4M to deliver the entire master plan, there is an identified a funding gap of $2.2M. It is anticipated that the remaining $2.2M of works would be staged, and considered for inclusion and delivery in years 6-10 of Council’s forward capital works program. Officers would seek external funding contributions to these projects to support implementation. Delivery of each stage of works would be subject to approval in Council’s annual capital works budget process. Council officers would also seek grants and co-investment opportunities, where appropriate, including from other levels of Government, as well as developing partnerships with State Sporting Associations and sporting clubs. Following consultation and feedback the final master plan, including cost estimates for implementation will be provided to Council for consideration. 7. Implementation With Council endorsement, officers will:  Distribute the Morris Reserve draft Master Plan for stakeholder consultation for a six week period from February 2017.  Review and consider feedback from the stakeholder consultation period.  Present a final Morris Reserve Master Plan, including staging options to Council for consideration in May 2017.

Attachment/s 1 Option 1 - Morris Reserve Draft Master Plan D16/233969 2 Option 2 - Morris Reserve Draft Master Plan D16/233985 3 Summary of Consultation - Morris Reserve Draft Masterplan D16/395672 4 Project costs of improvements - Morris Reserve Master Plan D17/24829

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 174

DSD4/17 FOOD SYSTEM STRATEGY UPDATE (D17/9276) Director Social Development Social Policy and Early Years

Executive Summary This report is to update Council on the development of a Moreland Food System Strategy (originally known as the Urban Agriculture and Food Production Strategy). It briefly describes the background to progressing this work to date and the steps in place to provide Council with a draft Strategy and Action Plan in May 2017. It is proposed that Council join the MAV and a number of other Victorian local governments in endorsing ‘Urban and Regional Food Declaration’ developed by Sustain: The Australian Food Network, which commits signatories to support of a sustainable, healthy and fair food system.

Recommendation Council resolve to: 1. Note the process in place for community stakeholders and Council officers to develop a Food System Strategy and Action Plan. 2. Receive a report in May 2017 with a draft Food System Strategy and Action Plan. 3. Endorse the ‘Urban and Regional Food Declaration’ developed by Sustain: The Australian Food Network.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 181

REPORT

1. Policy Context The Moreland Food System Framework (MFSF) (Attachment 1), which was presented to Council in October 2015, identifies three goals which promote and enable a better food system for the Moreland community. These are:  A sustainable food system that contributes to a more resilient community and a healthier environment;  A just food system that ensures food is socially and economically accessible to everyone in the community; and  A vibrant food system that protects and nurtures food and culture and celebrates diversity and builds community. The MFSF is aligned to the Moreland Municipal Public Health and Wellbeing Plan 2013-17 (MPHWP), and supports a number of actions outlined in various Council policies and strategies, including the Council Plan 2013-2017, and associated outcomes:  Moreland community members are mentally and physically healthy and active;  Moreland community is environmentally aware and active;  The community is focused on reducing consumption; and  Moreland’s natural environment is preserved and enhanced. The Framework also complements other Council strategies and policies including the:  Open Space Strategy 2012-2022;  Municipal Strategic Statement;  Street Landscape Guidelines 2012-2022;  Zero Carbon Evolution-Moreland in 2020;  Moreland Human Rights Policy 2016-26;  Waste and Litter Strategy 2014-2017;  Environmentally Sustainable Development Policy (Planning Scheme Amendment  C71); and  The Moreland Community Vision 2025. 2. Background In December 2014 (DSD55/14), Council considered a draft Community Food Growing Policy, which addressed various aspects of Moreland’s food system, such as food growing, urban agriculture, local food production, social enterprise, food security, food waste, sustainable environments, and food culture. Rather than adopt the policy, Council resolved to consult further with relevant stakeholders to establish the scope and develop a Moreland Urban Agriculture and Food Production Strategy. Following an expression of interest process a Community Steering Group (CSG) comprising people with a broad range of urban agriculture and food system interests from across Moreland was formed. Consultation with the steering group, internal staff, other stakeholders and desktop research informed the development of the MFSF. In October of 2015, Council noted the MFSF and supported the development of a draft Food System Strategy.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 182

3. Issues Strategy development A Moreland Food System Strategy presents the opportunity to:  Increase opportunities for physical activity, social connection, volunteering and healthy eating through community garden activities; and  Increased access to affordable local or community produced food. Much of the work within the scope of a Food System Strategy can be undertaken by the community and partner organisations. In December 2016 a meeting of councillors, council officers and representatives of community organisations met and agreed to establish a working group which provides a forum to:  Agree on the scope of a Food System Strategy  Plan and assist to deliver a community workshop to inform a Food System Strategy  Provide feedback to shape the strategy  Contribute to the development of partnerships and collaborations to deliver identified actions. At its first meeting on 23 January the working group agreed identified key actions to be included in the Strategy and to participate in a half-day workshop with council officers in late February/early March to work on a detailed draft document. Urban and Regional Food Declaration The Urban and Regional Food Declaration (URFD) developed by Sustain: The Australian Food Network (Attachment 2) commits signatories to support a sustainable, healthy and fair food system. It was adopted at the Municipal Association of Victoria State Council meeting on 9 September 2016. The URFD is broadly aligned with existing Council policies and the aims of the Food System work. It is recommended that Council join Local government signatories of the URFD including the Cities of Melbourne, Greater Geelong, Ballarat, Yarra and the Mornington Peninsula Shire. Human Rights Consideration The implications of this report have been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. The outcomes from a Moreland Food Systems Strategy will follow the guiding principles of the Moreland Human Rights Policy 2016 – 2026; Social Justice through a fair distribution of resources; Diversity, Participation and Capacity Building. 4. Consultation Extensive consultation has been undertaken to date including:  Three facilitated workshops with the Community Steering Group;  Internal staff engagement; and  Engagement with community, external stakeholders and experts 5. Officer Declaration of Conflict of Interest Council Officers involved in the preparation of this report have no Conflict of Interest in this matter. 6. Financial and Resources Implications The proposed actions relating to the Urban and Regional Food Declaration will be achieved within existing budgeted resources.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 183

7. Implementation The progress and achievements of the working group will be reported to appropriate Council officers who will prepare a draft Food System Strategy and Action Plan for Council to consider in May 2017.

Attachment/s 1 The Moreland Food System Framework - July 2016 D16/243250 2 Urban and Regional Food Declaration - January 2017 D17/18991

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 184

DSD5/17 YOUTH SERVICES IN MORELAND (D16/417649) Director Social Development Youth and Leisure

Executive Summary This report responds to Notice of Motion NOM63/16 Youth Services in Moreland, at the November 2016 Council meeting. Council resolved to receive a report on youth programs carried out in different Moreland suburbs and the budget for each of these programs between 2011-2016, including which programs have been conducted by volunteers or Council staff and that this report come to the February 2017 Council meeting. This report provides a comprehensive list of Youth Services programs and events from 2011 to 2016 including:  Details of programs and events.  Location and catchment areas.  Budget. The report also indicates programs and events that are:  Council funded  Externally funded  Delivered in partnership (both internal and external partners).

Recommendation Council resolves to note the youth programs that have been held across Moreland between 2011 and 2016.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 203

REPORT

1. Policy Context Youth programs and events are aligned to the 2013 -2017 Council Plan, and the Oxygen Phase 2 Report and Action Plan (2015 -2018) as outlined below: 2013 -2017 Council Plan themes and outcomes Moreland’s People:  Moreland community members are mentally and physically healthy and active.  Moreland community members feel connected to others and have access to the necessary services. Oxygen Phase 2 report goals  Goal 1: To provide meaningful opportunities for young people to participate in civic life and influence decisions which affect them.  Goal 2: To improve Council responses to better meet the need of young people. 2. Background Local government is the backbone of generalist youth service delivery in Victoria, and plays an important role in prevention and early intervention. Local governments fund, plan, coordinate and deliver a wide range of programs and services for young people and their families. Local government also acts as a vital facilitator, bringing together the diverse services that work with young people. Many services and schools would struggle to work together effectively without the relationship building work and partnership approach facilitated by local government youth services. In Moreland, this is achieved through the Moreland Youth Commitment and Leadership Group, which have led to the development of initiatives such as the Moreland under 16 Report on youth disengagement, the Glenroy College Demonstration Project and more recently, the Inner Northern Youth Employment Taskforce. Young people represent 17.5% of Moreland’s total population. As a significant portion of the population, Council invests in Youth Services to provide a positive impact on their future, aiming to ensure that young people feel connected and engaged in the wider community, and have the ability to influence outcomes which impact them. Moreland Youth Services has a long history of positive and proactive service delivery to young people. The planning and delivery of programs is informed by community need and implementation made possible through available funding. The range of youth services programs and events that are offered are generated from strategic objectives and outcomes identified in the Oxygen report (Phase 1 2009-2013 and Phase 2 2015-2018). Many of these projects are youth led actions, which are steered by the Oxygen Youth Committee. Moreland Youth Services has a base budget allocation for programs and events, as well as external grants to support service delivery to the community. A comprehensive listing of all programs and events delivered between 2011 and 2016, together with locations/catchment areas and the budgets for each is shown in Attachment 1.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 204

3. Issues Programs and Events 2011 – 2016 On average Moreland Youth Services staff and partners deliver between 15-20 programs and events each year. These range in focus and include:  Social and recreational programs aimed at increasing physical activity and community connectedness.  Youth development programs that are aimed at building skills and leadership.  Employment and training programs, to increase work readiness and employability.  Resilience programs, aimed at improving resilience, particularly as young people transition from primary to secondary. Programs are spread across the municipality, covering the main suburbs of Glenroy, Brunswick, Coburg and Fawkner. The settings for programs include schools, broader community (e.g. local sportsground or community facility) and Oxygen youth space. Irrespective of the specific location or setting, the majority of programs and events have wider catchment, meaning all young people in Moreland are eligible to participate. The number of partnership programs Council offers has increased over time. In recent years Youth Services have delivered an average of nine partnership initiatives annually. The budget for program delivery has varied over the years, largely due to substantial cuts in state and federal government funding. Service delivery model Youth Services operates within its resource parameters of 6.85 equivalent full time staff. Staff develop and deliver programs to Moreland’s youth community, including:  Entrepreneurship and leadership programs (i.e. Youth Entrepreneur Network, Champion Program).  Regular training to improve employment pathways (i.e. The Shift, Work Readiness Program, Lifeguard Program, First Aid, barista training).  Resilience development initiatives (i.e. individual support programs, basketball and soccer programs).  Operations of the Oxygen Youth Space (i.e. unstructured drop in space, music rehearsal, school holiday activities).  Supporting continued engagement in education (i.e. transition programs, VCE masterclass, homework support).  Facilitate the Oxygen committee. As part of the duty of care, and youth sector best practice principles, all programs, wherever possible, are operated with two staff present. This helps to ensure the safety and welfare of staff and young people. Youth Services do not use volunteers to deliver programs as Council do not have a policy to enable this. However, youth participation principles underpin the Unit’s approach, whereby young people play a role in the design of services and programs that affect their lives. This way, young people are empowered to inform and create services and programs that address their needs whilst gaining new skills. At all times these young people are supported and guided by Youth Services staff.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 205

In response to the reduction of ongoing external funding, Youth Services have made a concerted effort to establish, grow and consolidate its partnerships. Partnerships have been created with schools, local service providers and other Council business Units such as Economic Development and Place Managers. These partnerships have helped to raise the Unit’s capacity and reach in the Moreland community. Over the period from 2011 to 2016 there has been an 860% increase in partnership projects (9.6 times more). Moreland Youth Services continues to deliver high quality programs and excellent outcomes for young people in the Moreland community. Funding constraints Many local governments rely heavily on external grants and Government contributions to subsidise service delivery. This is also true for Moreland, where the majority of programs have been largely supplemented by external funding through grants received for programs such as Youth Connections, Youth Participation and Access and Freeza. Unfortunately external funding sources have not kept pace with community demand, and in most cases funding for these programs have either been replaced or discontinued. Discontinued funding, which has directly impacted upon the capacity to deliver Youth Services programs in Moreland include:  Youth Connections $77,000 annually (Federal grant, ceased in December 2014);  Youth Participation and Access Grants (also known as Engage! State grant, $50,000 annually ceased in June 2012); and  Active Participation Grants funded by VicHealth, $50,000 over 3 years. Project concluded in 2012-2013. Whilst the external funding ceased, a service expectation remains in the community. This has led to an increased focus on partnerships and collaboration to continue service provision, where possible, and to minimise the impact. The table below outlines the funding amounts available for programs and events over the past five years: Year Council External Partnerships Total Contribution Contribution Funding 2011-2012 $20,000 $297,000 $2,000 $319,000 2012-2013 $23,000 $255,000 $3,000 $281,000 2013-2014 $31,000 $187,000 $8,000 $226,000 2014-2015 $32,000 $159,000 $1000 $192,000 2015-2016 $38,000 $116,000 $20,700 $174,700 2016-2017 $39,000 $131,000 $19,200 $189,200 Actual change Overall Overall Overall Total over time increase reduction increase reduction $19,000 $146,000 $17,200 $129,800 % change 95% 55% 860% 40% As shown in the table, between 2011 and 2016 Council’s funding for programs and events increased from $20,000 to $39,000. This increase was largely attributed to programming relating to the training calendar and the Oxygen Youth Space. Over the same period, external grants decreased by 55%, largely due to funding cuts to Youth Connections and Engage. The net impact to overall funding was a reduction of 40%.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 206

Human Rights Consideration The implications of this report have been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. 4. Consultation Youth programs and events hosted by Moreland City Council are created in consultation with the young people of Moreland. 5. Officer Declaration of Conflict of Interest Council Officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter. 6. Financial and Resources Implications There are no financial or resource implications that arise in relation to Council’s adoption of this report. Youth Services programming costs are budgeted in Council’s base budget. Further to this, external agencies are encouraged to undertake youth focused initiatives through the Youth Initiative Grant category in the Moreland Community Grants Program. This grant provides up to $2,000 to support the implementation of youth specific programs. Currently the grant category is under-subscribed and offers further opportunities for other agencies to develop youth programs and events in Moreland. 7. Implementation In early 2017, the Youth Services team will conduct annual planning to determine service levels and priorities for the 2017-2018 year. The range of programs will be considered and determined according to organisational priorities, alignment to service goals and available resources. The planned expansion of Oxygen stages 2, 3 and 4 in 2017 will result in all Youth Services staff being located at Oxygen Youth Space. As such, Youth Services are currently exploring options to establish ‘satellite sites’ in Brunswick, Glenroy and Fawkner in partnership with Library Services. This will help to ensure the service can continue to reach the wider Moreland community. The Oxygen Project - Phase 2 Report and Action Plan will conclude in 2018. In 2017 the Youth Services team will commence planning for the new Youth Strategy, with the first step being the initiation of a comprehensive youth survey. The survey will assist Council to better understand how young people are faring in Moreland. This data will provide a component of the evidence base to inform future planning for Youth Services, including programs and events.

Attachment/s 1 Moreland Youth Services Programs 2011 - 2016 D17/11989

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 207

DED6/17 BUILDING 16 LOT S6 CHAMP STREET, COBURG – NOTICE OF HERITAGE VICTORIA PERMIT APPLICATION NUMBER P26010 (D17/28586) Director Planning and Economic Development City Development

Executive Summary This report was referred from the Urban Planning Committee (UPC) meeting held 25 January 2017. Pursuant to Section 71 of the Heritage Act 1995, Heritage Victoria wrote to Council on 24 November 2016 providing a copy of an application for a heritage permit that they have received for construction of an 18 storey building with roof top terrace and adaptive reuse of the B Division and the B Division annexe at Lot S6 Champ Street, Coburg. The letter provided Council with 14 days to comment on the application and specifically seeks Council’s view on the following:  Whether the registered place is within or adjoining a locally significant place or precinct subject to a Heritage Overlay control and whether the application is likely to have an adverse effect on that locally significant place or precinct.  Whether the Municipal Strategic Statement or a local policy specifically mentions or relates to the registered place or the area in which the place is located and whether the application is consistent with the MSS or relevant policies. While it is practice for Heritage Victoria to allow 14 days for a Council to provide any comments, the Heritage Act 1995 does not require the Executive Director to take Council comments into account when making a decision on an application, noting that Council officers have asked for the timeline for comments to be extended to allow this matter to be reported to the Urban Planning Committee – the UPC now deferring that decision to Council. This report was originally presented to the 25 January 2017 UPC meeting at the request of the Director Planning and Economic Development. The UPC resolved that this agenda item be deferred to the February 2017 Council meeting. The site is included in Heritage Victoria’s extent of registration. Heritage matters for this site will therefore be considered as part of Heritage Victoria’s assessment of the application, with Council being given the opportunity to provide comment on the application. The proposal will also require planning permit approval from Council. A planning permit application was lodged with Council on 24 November 2016, seeking approval for the same development. As the site is on the Victorian Heritage Register, any planning permit application for that part of the site included in the Victorian Heritage Register is exempt from the requirements of the Heritage Overlay of the Moreland Planning Scheme. This report outlines the history of the planning scheme controls and approvals for the site and details Council’s assessment of heritage permit application number P26010 forming the basis of Council’s response to Heritage Victoria. This report details Council’s response to Heritage Victoria as set out in the recommendation.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 223

Recommendation Council resolve: That the Group Manager City Development writes to Heritage Victoria on behalf of the Urban Planning Committee with respect to application P26010 advising that: 1. Heritage Victoria has sought Council’s comments in relation to whether the proposal adversely effects a locally significant place or precinct. Council advises that: a) To the immediate west of the site, the Champ Street road reserve is affected by Heritage Overlay Schedule 287 for the protection of River Red Gums (Eucalyptus Camaldulensis) and Canary Island Date Palms (Phoenix Canariensis) street trees along Champ Street. No information has been submitted with this proposal that identifies the species of the Champ Street trees adjacent to the site. It remains unclear from the information accompanying the application whether the works to accommodate the wall opening for vehicle access at Champ Street (adjacent to the former administration building), including construction of the vehicle crossover and splays will affect the long term health of the street tree closest to the proposed new accessway. Council considers that this further information is required to ascertain whether the adjoining locally significant precinct is likely to be adversely affected by the proposal. It is recommended that the applicant be required to provide an arborist report to demonstrate that the accessway and future crossover are designed or can be designed to be clear of the Tree Protection Zone for the street tree. b) South of the development, on the opposite side of Pentridge Boulevard, St Paul’s Catholic Church is affected by Heritage Overlay Schedule 168. The statement of significance for this precinct identifies St Paul’s Church to be of local historical and architectural significance noting it has the longest nave of any church in Coburg. Whilst the proposed tower will be visible from Sydney Road, it will not dominate the existing views of the group of heritage properties extending northwards on the eastern side of Sydney Road including St Paul’s Church and its spire. The proposal will therefore not have an adverse effect on this local heritage place. 2. Heritage Victoria has sought Council’s comments in relation to whether the Municipal Strategic Statement or a local policy specifically mentions or relates to the registered place and whether the application is consistent with the MSS or relevant policies. Council advises that the site is affected by the Pentridge Coburg Design Guidelines and Masterplan, February 2014 (Masterplan) which is an Incorporated Document to the Moreland Planning Scheme and referenced at Clause 37.08 Schedule 1 Activity Centre Zone (ACZ). The Masterplan is an Incorporated Document to the Scheme and has the same status as any other provision of the Scheme. Council advises the following in relation to the proposal’s consideration against both the zoning and Masterplan: a) B Division and building height: i. The 1996 Conservation Management Plan identifies that no new buildings should be constructed in the area around B Division. Council has previously raised objections to a tall building in this location to both Heritage Victoria in consideration of its application in 2009 and to the Minister as part of his consideration of the Masterplan and 2009 planning application for this site. Despite this, Heritage Victoria and the Minister issued permits for a 19 storey building and the ACZ and Masterplan identify a building up to 18 storeys in this location.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 224

Council advises that the proposal is generally consistent with the discretionary heights depicted in the Planning Scheme being the ACZ precinct map (5.9-1) and Masterplan. The proposed height at 19 storeys is one level above that depicted in the ACZ and Masterplan. However the increase from 18 storeys does not create additional heritage impact from the tall building anticipated in this location by planning policies. The base of the tower, being a ground and podium level, does not exceed the 3 level height expressed in the ACZ and Masterplan (noting that the podium is a double height level taking the total base height to an equivalent of 3 levels). Additionally the precinct map identifies that the 3 level base element/building is anticipated to extend close to the southern edge of the west wing of B Division. The proposal does not extend as far north into the courtyard as the ACZ precinct map identifies. This allows for an increased buffer space between B Division and the base of the tower providing an area open to the sky allowing views of the southern façade of B Division. ii. The adaptive re-use of B Division for amenities associated with the hotel is a positive aspect of this proposal. iii. The original internal staircases within B Division make a significant contribution to the visual character of the cell block interiors. The removal and replacement of the existing stairs may be unavoidable however the original stairs should be replaced with stairs that are of similar visual appearance not a modern stair, to reference the character of the original stairs. b) Annexe building to B Division: i. The integration of old and new building fabric and re-use of B Division is a positive aspect of the proposal. ii. The southern part of the annexe to B Division is proposed to be removed (including the original and later 1920s addition) and the central part proposed to be reconstructed. Whilst demolition of approximately 20 per cent of the annexe is not desirable it is recognised that the southern end of the annexe does not exhibit the architectural expression of the northern façade whereby the view from the Piazza is of greater heritage value. Given that the interior of the annexe has been identified as having no heritage value, the proposed demolition is considered to have negligible impact on the overall character and its immediate surrounds. The demolition and reconstruction of the annexe allows for a basement car park and porte cochere associated with the hotel. This response is of greater benefit for the heritage setting of the remaining buildings as it facilitates below ground parking. The partial demolition of the annexe building will not be highly visible when viewed externally from the site. The partial demolition facilitates vehicle access from Pentridge Boulevard, rather than Champ Street, which is a positive outcome. On this basis, and as half of the annexe will remain and be re-used as a restaurant, this is considered an acceptable outcome. c) Re-development of the south-east exercise yard: i. The Activity Centre Zone Schedule 1 and Masterplan nominate a building up to 2 storeys in this location. The proposal seeks to landscape the courtyard containing the remains of the panopticon referencing the original airing yard structure and incorporating archaeological remnants. This outcome is supported.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 225

d) Partial demolition of the inner wall and wall openings: i. The inner wall that runs parallel behind the external bluestone wall along Pentridge Boulevard forming a ‘double wall’ makes no visual contribution to the public realm, as it is completely concealed by the external wall. The partial removal of the inner wall demolishes original building fabric, however it is recognised that this part of the wall system has already been modified by the construction of an addition to the annexe building in the 1920s. The concept of the double wall will continue to exist at the eastern side of the rear wing of B Division which forms and area for heritage interpretation. It is therefore considered that the partial removal of the inner bluestone wall is acceptable. ii. The proposed wall openings providing vehicle and pedestrian access to the site are appropriate with the exception of: i. The crossover providing vehicle access at the opening adjacent to the former administration building. As detailed, additional information is required to understand whether the proposal will adversely affect the adjoining locally significant precinct of the Champ Street trees. Additionally the hard landscaping treatment for vehicle parking located outside the bluestone wall and south of this proposed accessway is not supported as it draws attention to this non-original opening. ii. The wall opening providing pedestrian access from Champ Street. The width at 2.4m and height at 3.3m does not accord with the Masterplan principle that wall cuts be determined by pedestrian width requirements. Additionally this opening solely providing access to the porte cochere is not warranted as access is also proposed from Pentridge Boulevard. iii. Additionally the heritage interpretation and finishes of the wall cuts are to be detailed in a schedule of conservation works and heritage interpretation required by a condition of any approval. e) Staging: i. Section 4.1.3 of the Masterplan sets out the staging of the site. The B Division building and buildings surrounding it are nominated as Stage C. The Piazza which forms a key part of the public realm is nominated in the Masterplan to be delivered before the development of B Division as part of Stage A. The proposal has not resolved as part of this application how the Piazza will be delivered. Council submits that Heritage Victoria should impose a condition, should a permit issue, that requires the delivery of public realm works associated with the Piazza so that this public realm space is accessible to the public in a completed form upon completion of the B Division development and occupation of the hotel. f) Heritage Interpretation: i. The Heritage Impact Statement prepared by Bryce Raworth accompanying the application anticipates the preparation of a detailed scope of conservation works that can be required by a condition of permit requiring a specific schedule of works. Council submits that should a permit issue, a condition requiring a schedule of conservation works should include the following:

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 226

ii. A plan detailing how the reconstruction of those parts of the annexe to be demolished and reconstructed will be carried out. This must include a plan detailing the roof form extending over the porte cochere drop off area and how the southern wall of the annexe will be finished. iii. Restorative works to B Division and the B Division Annexe building as set out in both the 1996 and 2016 Conservation Management Plans. iv. Details of the finishes and treatments to the wall cuts as anticipated by the Masterplan, including heritage interpretation, lintel highlights, expressed or frame apertures. v. That any development within the south east exercise yard accord with the works detailed in the Heritage Interpretation Plan prepared by Sue Hodges Productions, noting that there are discrepancies between this document and the proposed landscape plans. 3. The proposal does not identify how the land owner or tenants will ensure that the public can access the heritage interpretation wing within B Division, the south east exercise yard and gallery space. Council submits that Heritage Victoria should impose a condition, should a permit issue, that ensures that the public access can gain access to the heritage interpretation wing within B Division, the south east exercise yard and gallery space that is not dependent on being a customer of the proposed hotel. 4. That Council request that Heritage Victoria provide additional information in relation to the impact on the Champ Street tree, with the Group Manager City Development authorised to provide a response to Heritage Victoria on behalf of Council.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 227

REPORT

1. Background The report presented to the February 2016 Council meeting (DED6/16) provides general information on the history of Pentridge. In 2009 the Minister for Planning amended the Moreland Planning Scheme to modify the Comprehensive Development Zone which applied to the land at the time and incorporated the Pentridge Coburg Design Guidelines and Masterplan, February 2014 (Masterplan) into the planning scheme. The approval of this Amendment followed a Priority Development Panel process which considered the Masterplans for both precincts of the Pentridge redevelopment site. The Activity Centre Zone precincts which apply to the Pentridge site are a policy neutral translation of the former Comprehensive Development Zone. The Activity Centre Zone identifies a building height of 18 storeys in plan form with the Masterplan nominating a 16 storey building when shown in cross-section. Council has expressed long-standing concerns with the strategic planning, built form and heritage issues of the Pentridge Masterplans. Having higher density on the fringes of the activity centres is contrary to the strategic planning principles to concentrate higher density adjacent to railway stations and key services; the taller buildings detract from the heritage significance of a number of buildings and impact on some critical view lines to and from the site; and the taller buildings along Murray Road will have an adverse impact on the use and enjoyment of Coburg Lake Reserve. The Urban Planning Committee resolved at its January 2016 meeting to write to the Minister for Planning requesting that the State Government’s Office of the Victorian Government Architect appoint a Design Review Panel to undertake a comprehensive review of the existing Pentridge Coburg Design Guidelines and Masterplan (February 2014) and the proposed Coburg Quarter, Coburg Masterplan (2015) (DED1/16). The Minister wrote to Council on 23 March 2016 and advised that he would not be initiating a review of the Masterplans. Council resolved at the 10 August 2016 meeting to explore a review of the Masterplans. This has commenced with meetings with Shayher Group. A meeting will shortly be held with the other principal landowner, Future Estate. A progress report will be presented to the March 2017 Council Meeting to consider what additional resources may be required from Council to enable the masterplan reviews. As this process cannot reasonably have a bearing on the current applications lodged with Heritage Victoria and Council, decisions will therefore be made on the Masterplan and ACZ provisions as they currently apply to the land. Subject site The subject site is legally known as Lot S6 at Champ Street, Coburg, the application concerns development proposed at the south-west corner of the site adjacent to the intersection of Pentridge Boulevard and Champ Street consisting of development within and adjacent to the historic B Division and annexe building. The subject site is part of the Pentridge Prison redevelopment which is located within the Coburg Activity Centre and is approximately 200 metres east of Sydney Road. The site is enclosed by a high bluestone wall with a watch tower located at the southwest corner, with an inner bluestone wall forming a ‘double wall’ adjacent to the southern boundary of B Division and the annexe.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 228

The B Division building is the principal cell block of the 1858-9 model prison and a major component of the group of buildings facing the main parade ground. The B Division complex also includes the annexe to the west of the B Division building and the remains of two panopticons are located to the east and west of the southern B Division wing. The Certificate of Title is affected by a number of covenants and agreements that relate to obligations for the wider estate. These estate wide obligations include the creation of roads and car parking. The covenants and agreements relating specifically to this site include:  the protection of bluestone walls from demolition, damage or excavation;  the creation and maintenance of a publicly accessible open space network identified in Figure 9 entitled Open Space Plan Pentridge Piazza May 2003 with:  a north-south strip of land abutting the panopticon site to the east providing 666 square metres of publicly accessible hard landscaped open space;  the ‘piazza’ (former parade ground) are identified in the Masterplan and located north of B Division provided with 1230 square metres of publicly accessible hard landscaped open space abutting public open space areas for movement corridors;  open space immediately abutting the north and south interface of B Division providing tenancy related open space such as outdoor dining and private outdoor facilities; and  land abutting Champ Street developed with publicly accessible soft landscaping and possible street improvements. These site specific obligations are discussed later in this report. Surrounds With respect to the site’s immediate interfaces, to the west is Champ Street which contains a wide road reserve, on-street parking and street trees including River Red Gums (Eucalyptus Camaldulensis) and Canary Island Date Palms (Phoenix Canariensis) which are included within local planning heritage controls. Land to the south has been developed with the Pentridge Boulevard road. St Paul’s Catholic Church is located opposite the site. Land further east and north is part of the wider Pentridge estate with some parts developed including a six storey mixed use building referred to as the ‘QM building.’ A location plan forms Attachment 1. Planning Permit History A planning permit application was lodged with the Minister for Planning on 17 August 2009. The application was for a 19 storey building (comprising three above-ground levels of car parking, a mezzanine level and 15 levels of dwellings), refurbishment of the B Division annexe for six dwellings, and openings in the bluestone wall for vehicle and pedestrian access. This application did not seek refurbishment or reuse of the B Division building. Council officers were provided an opportunity to comment on the application and made a submission outlining concerns with the proposal. These concerns included the overall height of the building and the impact on the significant heritage elements of the site. The Minister for Planning issued a planning permit on 24 November 2009. There was no public notice of the application. To date no plans have been endorsed.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 229

Two previous extensions of time to the planning permit have been granted by the Minister for Planning, extending the permit to allow commencement by 24 November 2016. A third request to extend the permit was made to Council on 11 April 2016 seeking to extend the commencement date of the permit. This matter was reported to the 22 June 2016 Urban Planning Committee (DED50/16). The Urban Planning Committee determined to refuse the request to extend the permit. The applicant appealed the matter to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). VCAT determined on 25 November 2016 to grant an extension of time to the permit, allowing a further two year extension so that the permit is to be commenced by 24 November 2018 and completed by 24 November 2020. Heritage permit history The site was also granted a permit from Heritage Victoria in April 2009 for construction of a 16 level residential tower and four split storeys of car parking in the south west yard of the former B Division cell block, conversion of the cell block Annexe into townhouses and works to the south east yard. Council provided comments to Heritage Victoria raising serious concerns with the proposal. These included the proposal being highly intrusive and inappropriate given its proximity to the Champ Street main entry and B Division, which are of primary significance, and the impact on views looking north east from St Pauls Church which best identify the Pentridge site. Concerns were also raised with respect to the limited adaptive re-use of B Division and placement of three levels of car parking within the south west courtyard. The proposal The proposal seeks the development of the land for an 18 storey building with roof top terrace and adaptive reuse of the B Division and Annexe building at Lot 1 Champ Street, Coburg with the details summarised as follows: Construction of a 18 storey tower and roof terrace This will be located within the south west courtyard of B Division and includes three levels of basement car parking. The ground level and cantilevered podium level will provide a double height area for vehicles to enter and exit the site. Levels 2 - 10 are to be used as a hotel and levels 11 – 17 will be developed as dwellings. The design of the building tapers out from a thinner element at the lower base (hotel levels) to a wider element at the upper residential level. The building also tapers towards the east and west ends. The materials consist of silver tinted glazing and silver cladding. Adaptive re-use of B Division Building Partial demolition will consist of:  The removal of the existing stairs within the basement and ground level.  New wall openings within a number of the cells of all wings and the northern wing.  Removal of the existing floor within the eastern wing of the lower basement level to allow for new lift, spa and pool.  Window opening altered to provide doorway access at the western edge of the northern wing at ground floor.  Removal of the existing roof to the south-west.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 230

The B Division Building will be re-used for the purpose of a hotel and refurbished with:  Café, retail facilities within the northern wing at ground level with a conference room at first floor.  Spa, pool and gym facilities at the ground and basement level of the eastern wing.  Hotel facilities such as library, wine room within the western wing.  The cells of the ground floor in the southern wing will remain largely intact for heritage interpretation.  The upper level cells of the east, west and south wings will be modified to provide hotel accommodation for ‘heritage rooms’. Annexe building to B Division Partial demolition will consist of:  Removal of the southern part of the annexe dating from the 1920s.  Removal of the southern part of the original annexe to accommodate at grade vehicle drop off area associated with the hotel.  Removal of the middle section of the annexe and reconstruction to match the original.  Removal of the inner bluestone wall enclosing the southern end of the annexe and B Division building enclosing the south-west courtyard. Development to the annexe include:  Retention of the northern part of the annexe building  Reuse of this building for a restaurant associated with the hotel located within the building and outside dining at its western edge Panopticons and heritage interpretation The remains of two panopticons are located in the south east and south west courtyards of B Division. The panopticon located in the south east courtyard will be retained and landscaped for heritage interpretation. The south-west panopticon will be built over by the proposed tower. The double bluestone wall adjacent to the southern wing of B Division and enclosing the south east courtyard will provide a space for a heritage interpretation gallery. Bluestone walls The inner bluestone wall enclosing the south-west courtyard will be removed with the outer bluestone wall to remain with the exception of openings to allow for pedestrian and vehicle access. This includes:  Three vehicle access opening in the southern wall at 3.3m – 3.8m height providing access to Pentridge Boulevard for the hotel drop off and service and car park entry.  A pedestrian access opening in the southern bluestone wall to provide access to the residential lobby (separate from the hotel) to a height of approximately 3.3m.  A full height opening in the eastern bluestone wall to provide vehicle access to Champ Street and pedestrian access to the Piazza located north of B Division.  A pedestrian access in the eastern bluestone wall to 3.3m height. Key development plans of B Division the annexe and proposed Building 16 form Attachment 2. Excerpts of the Heritage Interpretation works to the south east exercise yard form Attachment 3.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 231

Heritage controls Clause 43.01: Heritage Overlay Schedule 47 affects the site. Pursuant to Clause 43.01-2, no planning permit is required under the Heritage Overlay to develop a heritage place which is included on the Victorian Heritage Register. Instead, where a site is included on the Victorian Heritage Register, Heritage Victoria are the Responsible Authority for the issue of permits pursuant to the Heritage Act 1995. At the time that Council makes a decision on the planning permit application pursuant to the Planning and Environment Act 1987, Council’s consideration of the application cannot include the provisions of Clause 43.01. Planning controls The site is within an Activity Centre Zone Schedule 1. The site is affected by the following Planning Overlays:  Clause 43.01 Heritage Overlay Schedule 47  Clause 45.03 Environment Audit Overlay  Clause 45.09 Parking Overlay Schedule 1  Clause 45.06 Development Contributions Overlay Schedule 1 2. Internal/External Consultation Public notification Council understands that Heritage Victoria has directed that public notice of this application be given. Internal/external referrals Council’s Heritage Advisor was consulted in the preparation of this report with the comments outlined in section 4 of this report. 3. Policy Implications The Municipal Strategic Statement and local policy considered as part of Council’s response are listed below. Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) The following Key Strategic Statements of the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) and the following Local Planning Policies are of most relevance to this application: Municipal Strategic Statement:  Clause 21.01 Municipal Profile  Clause 21.02 Vision  Clause 21.03-1 Activity Centres  Clause 21.03-3 Housing  Clause 21.03-4 Urban Design, Built Form and Landscape Design  Clause 21.03-5 Environmentally Sustainable Design (Water, Waste and Energy) Local Planning Policies:  Clause 22.01 Neighbourhood Character  Clause 22.03 Car and Bike Parking and Vehicle Access  Clause 22.06 Heritage  Clause 22.07 Development of Four or More Storeys Reference documents Pentridge Coburg Design Guidelines and Masterplan, February 2014.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 232

Human Rights Consideration This application has been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (including the Moreland Planning Scheme) reviewed by the State Government and which complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006. 4. Issues Local heritage places To the immediate west of the site, the road reserve is affected by Heritage Overlay Schedule 287 for the protection of street trees along Champ Street. The statement of significance for this precinct contained in the City of Moreland Heritage Review. Allom Lovell and Associates for Moreland City Council, Vols. 1–5, January 1999 states: What is Significant: The street trees, River Red Gums (Eucalyptus Camaldulensis) and Canary Island Date Palms (Phoenix Canariensis) in Champ Street, Coburg. How is it Significant: The street trees in Champ Street are of local aesthetic significance to the City of Moreland. No information has been submitted with this proposal that identifies the species of the Champ Street trees adjacent to the site. It remains unclear from the information accompanying the application whether the development to accommodate the wall opening for vehicle access at Champ Street, including construction of the vehicle crossover and splays will affect the long term health of the street tree closest to the proposed new accessway. Council considers that this further information is required to ascertain whether the adjoining locally significant precinct is likely to be adversely affected by the proposal. It is recommended that the applicant be required to provide an arborist report to demonstrate that the accessway and future crossover are designed or can be designed to be clear of the Tree Protection Zone for the street tree. To the south on the opposite side of Pentridge Boulevard, St Paul’s Catholic Church is affected by Heritage Overlay Schedule 168. The statement of significance for this precinct contained in the City of Moreland Heritage Review. Allom Lovell and Associates for Moreland City Council, Vols. 1–5, January 1999 states: St Paul's Church is of local historical and architectural significance. It is a rare Gothic revival church built by the prominent architectural firm of Reed Smart & Tappin and it became the historic focus of the Catholic faith in Coburg and the northern suburbs. It is the principal component of the St Paul's complex and it has the longest nave of any church in Coburg. Whilst the proposed tower will be visible from Sydney Road, it will not dominate the existing views of the group of heritage properties extending northwards on the eastern side of Sydney Road including St Paul’s Church and its spire. The proposal will therefore not have an adverse effect on this local heritage place.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 233

Built form and local planning policy framework The B Division building and the annexe are identified as having primary heritage significance in the 1996 Conservation Management Plan (CMP). The CMP was prepared following closure of the prison and formed a reference document to the previous Comprehensive Development Zone which applied the site Grandview Square Development Plan to the site. It identified that no new buildings should be constructed in the area around B Division. Despite this, the Masterplan references the approved B Division apartments (relating to the 2009 approval) and nominates a building height of 16 storeys when shown in cross-section and 18 storeys when shown in plan form at this site (noting that the Masterplan provides other written references to a height up to 18 storeys). As detailed, Heritage Victoria has previously issued a permit for a 19 storey building at this site. As a requirement of a permit issued by Heritage Victoria, the land owner has prepared an updated Conservation Management Plan dated April 2016. Whilst no longer a reference document within the Moreland Planning Scheme the 1996 and 2016 Conservation Management Plan assist to understand the original features of the site and what restorative works should be undertaken. The 1996 and 2016 CMP identifies the following conservation policies in relation to the B Division and the annexe: B Division Building B Division is of critical significance as the principal cell block of the 1858- 9 model prison and a major component of the group of buildings facing the main parade ground. The CMP anticipates the limited adaption of some cells with the removal of dividing walls with the retention of external and corridor walls and vaulted ceilings. Some cells are anticipated to be used for interpretative purposes. Annexe building to B Division That the ‘substantially intact east, north and west elevations of B Annexe, with the exception of the 1920s extension to the south should be retained.’ The CMP identifies the retention of the external form of the original building envelope of the annexe, including walls and roof and that it ‘could be freely adapted for a variety of uses.’ These documents also identify original elements for retention such as the original iron bars to windows and rainwater hoppers. Masterplan The below is an assessment of the proposal against the directions of the Masterplan contained at section 4.0 and 5.0:  The proposal provides a marker building with visible full height facades from Champ Street/Pentridge Boulevard with a modern design that promotes visitor interest to the site.  The proposal conceals private carpark within Heritage walls or inhabited uses.  The architectural design of the base is differentiated from the tower, whilst not providing the ‘solid base’ anticipated by Figure 4.1.4u of the Masterplan the base of the new building will be highly concealed when viewed from beyond the site and whether this treatment is solid is of no heritage concern. The design ensures that a light weight structure is proposed above and in line with the roof of B Division as per the intent of the Masterplan.  Car parking is concealed within heritage walls.  A heritage interpretation facility is proposed within the double bluestone walls at the building’s southern edge and also within B Division.  The hotel, café and retail uses provide opportunity to provide active uses at the northern façade of B Division and its interface with the Piazza.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 234

 The east courtyard provides opportunity for a publicly accessible area and heritage experience of the south side of the building.  The west courtyard provides opportunity for built form where its greater height is setback from the heritage building.  Removal of the southern 1920s extension of the annexe  Reuse of the annexe as a single volume building.  The Masterplan nominates wall openings adjacent to this site. The application seeks to create three wall openings for vehicle access at Pentridge Boulevard where the Masterplan and Activity Centre Zone (ACZ) precinct map 5.9-1 identify two openings. However the proposed wall openings are considered a better outcome as they facilitate vehicle access to the site from Pentridge Boulevard rather than Champ Street. In particular the vehicle access associated with the hotel drop off and porte cochere is a smaller opening than that nominated in the ACZ precinct plan and Masterplan at Figure 4.1.2g (noting that there appears to be an inconsistency with the accessway width depicted at Figure 4.1.2x). This outcome retains a greater portion of the external bluestone wall which is of primary heritage significance. The proposed development seeks to provide a full height cut to the bluestone wall to provide pedestrian and vehicle access adjacent to the former administration building. This wall cut is anticipated by the Masterplan and ACZ, noting that the full height wall cut is depicted at Figure 4.7.1[03]. As detailed, Council considers further information is required to demonstrate whether crossover associated with this wall cut will adversely affect the heritage protected Champ Street trees and to understand the appropriateness of vehicle access at this point. The proposal does not seek to provide wall opening #12 for vehicle access as identified in the Masterplan. Instead vehicle access is provided from Pentridge Boulevard. This is a positive aspect of this proposal. A pedestrian entry is proposed north of the wall opening #12 at a width of 2.4m and height of 3.3m. This provides pedestrian access to the porte cochere and hotel lobby. As pedestrian access can be obtained through the southern opening onto the port cochere from Pentridge Boulevard, this pedestrian opening is not warranted, in particular noting that the width and height appear excessive to only facilitate pedestrian movements. It does not accord with the Masterplan principle that wall cuts be determined by road and pedestrian width requirements. The proposal seeks to provide two vehicle accessways at Pentridge Boulevard located just west of the south wing of B Division. This location is slightly west from that depicted in the ACZ and Masterplan. This accessway provides vehicle access, whereas the wall opening anticipated by the Masterplan would not have facilitated vehicle access and proposed to provide a pedestrian ‘connection between Division B and Pentridge Boulevard.’ It is considered a better outcome to provide vehicle access from Pentridge Boulevard in this manner, as it removes the need for an additional vehicle access opening at Champ Street and its associated hard surface and impact on the street trees. It is noted that whilst the forecourt and pedestrian access identified in the Masterplan will not be facilitated by vehicle access in this location this is considered an acceptable outcome as pedestrian access either adjacent to or through B Division is not ideal, given the tower element cantilevers over this area and the use of the site for either residential or commercial purposes. The Masterplan anticipates that detailing will occur to the wall cuts including heritage interpretation, lintel highlights, expressed or frame apertures. The plans submitted with the application do not identify how the wall cuts are proposed to be finished. It is recommended that Council’s submission to Heritage Victoria is that:

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 235

B Division and building height  The integration of old and new building fabric and re-use of B Division is a positive aspect of the proposal.  Council officers raised objections to a tall building in this location to both Heritage Victoria in consideration of its application in 2009 and to the Minister as part of his consideration of the Masterplan and 2009 planning application for this site. Despite this, Heritage Victoria and the Minister issued permits for a 19 storey building and the ACZ and Masterplan identify a building of at 18 storeys in this location. Until such time as there is a Planning Scheme Amendment contemplating a different outcome for this site, the heights depicted in the Planning Scheme are a relevant consideration. Heritage Victoria must be advised that a building height of up to 18 storeys is consistent with the ACZ precinct map (5.9-1) and Masterplan and that the proposed height at 19 storeys, being an increase of one level does not create additional heritage impact from the tall building anticipated in this location by planning policies. The base of the tower, being a ground and podium level, does not exceed the 3 level height expressed in the ACZ and Masterplan (noting that the podium is a double height level taking the total base height to an equivalent of 3 levels). Additionally the precinct map identifies that the 3 level base element/building is anticipated to extend close to the southern edge of the west wing of B Division. The proposal does not extend as far north into the courtyard as the ACZ precinct map identifies. This allows for an increased buffer space between B Division and the base of the tower providing an area open to the sky allowing views of the southern façade of B Division.  The proposal seeks internal demolition including removal of existing staircases. The historic staircases make a significant contribution to the visual character of the historic cell block interiors. The removal and replacement of the existing stairs may be unavoidable however the original stairs should be replaced with stairs that are of similar visual appearance as opposed to a modern stair, to reference the character of the original stairs. Annexe building to B Division  The integration of old and new building fabric is a positive aspect of the proposal.  The southern part of the annexe to B Division is to be removed (including the original and later 1920s addition) and the central part to be reconstructed. Following the proposed reconstruction, approximately 80 per cent of the original annexe building will remain. Whilst demolition of approximately 20 per cent of the annexe is not desirable it is recognised that the southern end of the annexe does not exhibit the architectural expression of the northern façade whereby the view from the Piazza is of greater heritage value. Given that the interior of the annexe has been identified as having no heritage value, the proposed demolition is considered to have negligible impact on the overall character and its immediate surrounds. The demolition and reconstruction allows for a basement car park and porte cochere associated with the hotel. This response is of greater benefit for the heritage setting of the remaining buildings as it limits car parking at ground level (as sought by the previous approval). The design of the porte cochere with double storey height results in a ground floor setting that provides internal views of the remaining southern elevation of the annexe.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 236

The partial demolition of the annexe building will not be highly visible when viewed externally from the site. The partial demolition facilitates vehicle access from Pentridge Boulevard, rather than Champ Street, which is a positive outcome. On this basis, and as half of the annexe will remain with re-use to facilitate a restaurant, this is considered to be a balanced and acceptable outcome. Re-development of the south-east exercise yard  The Activity Centre Zone Schedule 1 and Masterplan nominate a building up to 2 storeys in the south-east exercise yard. The proposal seeks to landscape the courtyard containing the remains of the panopticon referencing the original airing yard structure and incorporating archaeological remnants. This outcome is supported. Partial demolition of the inner wall and wall openings  The bluestone wall visible along Pentridge Boulevard has a strong visual impact on the appearance of the subject site from the public realm. The inner wall that runs parallel behind this ‘double wall’ makes no visual contribution to the public realm, as it is completely concealed by the external wall. The partial removal of the inner wall demolishes original building fabric, however it is recognised that this part of the wall system has already been modified by the construction of an addition to the annexe building in the 1920s. The concept of the double wall will continue to exist at the eastern side of the rear wing of B Division which forms and area for heritage interpretation. It is therefore considered that the partial removal of the inner bluestone wall is acceptable.  The proposed wall openings providing vehicle and pedestrian access to the site are appropriate with the exception of:  The crossover providing vehicle access at the opening adjacent to the former administration building. As detailed, additional information is required to understand whether the proposal will adversely affect the adjoining locally significant precinct of the Champ Street trees. Additionally the hard landscaping treatment for vehicle parking located outside the bluestone wall and south of this proposed accessway is not supported as it draws attention to this non-original opening;  The wall opening to allow pedestrian access from Champ Street. The width at 2.4m and height at 3.3m does not accord with the Masterplan principle that wall cuts be determined by pedestrian width requirements. Additionally this opening solely providing access to the porte cochere is not warranted as access is also proposed from Pentridge Boulevard; and  Additionally, details of the heritage interpretation and finishes of the wall cuts are required, as detailed later in this section. Staging The proposal is generally consistent with a number of covenants and agreements that relate to obligations for the wider estate including the creation of roads, car parking and protection of bluestone walls. There are legal obligations to create and maintain a publicly accessible open space network including land adjacent to this development site. Principally the ‘Piazza’ (the former parade ground) is a key public realm feature to be delivered providing 1230 square metres of hard landscaped open space for public access.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 237

Section 4.1.3 of the Masterplan sets out the staging of the site. The B Division building and buildings surrounding it are nominated as Stage C. The Piazza which forms a key part of the public realm is nominated in the Masterplan to be delivered before the development of B Division as part of Stage A. The proposal has not resolved as part of this application how the Piazza will be delivered. Council submits that Heritage Victoria should impose a condition, should a permit issue, that requires the delivery of public realm works associated with the Piazza so that this public realm space is accessible to the public in a completed form upon completion of the B Division development and occupation of the hotel. Heritage Interpretation The Heritage Impact Statement prepared by Bryce Raworth accompanying the application anticipates the preparation of a detailed scope of conservation works that can be required by a condition of permit requiring a specific schedule of works. Council submits that should a permit issue, a condition requiring a schedule of conservation works should include the following:  A plan detailing how the reconstruction of those parts of the annexe to be demolished and reconstructed will be carried out. This must include a plan detailing the roof form extending over the porte cochere drop off area and how the southern wall of the annexe will be finished.  Restorative works to B Division and the B Division Annexe building as set out in both the 1996 and 2016 Conservation Management Plans.  Details of the finishes and treatments to the wall cuts as anticipated by the Masterplan, including heritage interpretation, lintel highlights, expressed or frame apertures.  That any development within the south east exercise yard accord with the works detailed in the Heritage Interpretation Plan prepared by Sue Hodges Productions, noting that there are discrepancies between this document and the proposed landscape plans. The proposal does not identify how the land owner or tenants will ensure that the public can access the heritage interpretation wing within B Division, the south east exercise yard and gallery space. Council submits that Heritage Victoria should impose a condition, should a permit issue, that ensures that the public access can gain access to the heritage interpretation wing within B Division, the south east exercise yard and gallery space that is not dependent on being a customer of the proposed hotel. 5. Response to Objector Concerns Submissions in relation to the heritage permit application are lodged direct with Heritage Victoria. 6. Officer Declaration of Conflict of Interest Council Officers involved in the preparation of this report do not have a conflict of interest in this matter. 7. Financial and Resources Implications Nil. 8. Conclusion Council resolves to adopt the response to Heritage Victoria as set out in the recommendation. Attachment/s 1 Location Plan - Champ Street, Coburg – B Division Pentridge D17/12865 2 Development Plans - B Division and Building 16, Champ Street, Coburg D17/12897 3 Excerpt of Heritage Interpretation Works D17/12898

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 238

DED7/17 BUILDING 9 LOT S4 AND S6 CHAMP STREET, COBURG – NOTICE OF HERITAGE VICTORIA PERMIT APPLICATION NUMBER P24560 (D17/28592) Director Planning and Economic Development City Development

Executive Summary This report was referred from the Urban Planning Committee meeting 25 January 2017. Pursuant to Section 71 of the Heritage Act 1995, Heritage Victoria wrote to Council on 24 November 2016 providing a copy of an application for a heritage permit that they had received for partial demolition, alterations and construction of Building 9 for a two to four storey commercial building and adaptive reuse of the A Division at Lots S4 and S6 Champ Street, Coburg. The letter provided Council with 14 days to comment on the application and specifically seeks Council’s view on the following:  Whether the registered place is within or adjoining a locally significant place or precinct subject to a Heritage Overlay control and whether the application is likely to have an adverse effect on that locally significant place or precinct.  Whether the Municipal Strategic Statement or a local policy specifically mentions or relates to the registered place or the area in which the place is located and whether the application is consistent with the MSS or relevant policies. While it is practice for Heritage Victoria to allow 14 days for a Council to provide any comments, the Heritage Act 1995 does not require the Executive Director to take Council comments into account when making a decision on an application, noting that Council officers have asked for the timeline for comments to be extended to allow this matter to be reported to the Urban Planning Committee. Heritage Victoria have indicated that public notice is anticipated to occur in January and that Council should provide comments before the completion of this notice period. This report was originally presented to the 25 January 2017 Urban Planning Committee (UPC) meeting at the request of the Director Planning and Economic Development. The UPC resolved that this agenda item be deferred to the February 2017 Council meeting. The site is included in Heritage Victoria’s extent of registration. Heritage matters for this site will therefore be considered as part of Heritage Victoria’s assessment of the application, with Council being given the opportunity to provide comment on the application. The proposal will also require planning permit approval from Council. A planning permit application was lodged with Council on 29 November 2016, seeking approval for the same development. As the site is on the Victorian Heritage Register, any planning permit application for that part of the site included in the Victorian Heritage Register is exempt from the requirements of the Heritage Overlay of the Moreland Planning Scheme. This report outlines the history of the planning scheme controls and approvals for the site and details Council’s assessment of heritage permit application number P24560 forming the basis of Council’s response to Heritage Victoria. This report details Council’s response to Heritage Victoria as set out in the recommendation.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 259

Recommendation Council resolve: That the Group Manager City Development writes to Heritage Victoria on behalf of the Urban Planning Committee with respect to application P24560 advising that: 1. Heritage Victoria has sought Council’s comments in relation to whether the proposal adversely effects a locally significant place or precinct. Council advises that the development proposed in this application does not adjoin a locally significant place or precinct subject to a Heritage Overlay control. 2. Heritage Victoria has sought Council’s comments in relation to whether the Municipal Strategic Statement or a local policy specifically mentions or relates to the registered place and whether the application is consistent with the MSS or relevant policies. Council advises that the site is affected by the Pentridge Coburg Design Guidelines and Masterplan, February 2014 (Masterplan) which is an Incorporated Document to the Moreland Planning Scheme (the Scheme) and referenced at Clause 37.08 Schedule 1 Activity Centre Zone (ACZ). The Masterplan is an Incorporated Document in the Scheme and therefore has the same status as any other provision of the Scheme. Council advises the following in relation to the proposal’s consideration against both the zoning and Masterplan: a) Staging: Section 4.1.3 of the Masterplan sets out the staging of the site. The supermarket/retail precinct is nominated as Stage B and identifies that the Division A building and surrounding land and Buildings 8 are anticipated to be delivered as part of the same stage. Council has concern that the obligations arising from the section 173 agreement (AD750703G) which is a legal encumbrance on the title, does not anticipate the development of both Buildings 8 as identified in the Masterplan. This land is nominated as publicly accessible open space on Figure 9 (Open Space Plan) of the 2003 ‘Pentridge Piazza Design Guidelines and Masterplan.’ The reuse of A Division and the public realm around it, particularly its north-east exercise yard has not been resolved as part of this application as anticipated by the Staging Plan. Additionally, the courtyards located to the west of A Division were anticipated to be delivered as part of Stage A in the Masterplan. Council submits that the resolution of the public realm around A Division, the design/use of any future Building 8 and interpretation of the remains of the panopticon are an important consideration for this proposal. In its current form the proposal does not identify the delivery of the public realm around A Division in accordance with the staging expressed by the Masterplan. This application should not be considered in isolation from proposed development within the north-east exercise yard. This application should address the inconsistencies between the Pentridge Design Guidelines and Masterplan 2014 and the section 173 agreement to assist in resolving the uses and importantly the need for a pedestrian link through A Division, as well as the spaces between it and proposed Building 9.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 260

b) Adaptive re-use of and link through Division A building: Council is concerned that the proposed use and development of Building 9 for a supermarket and retail functions does not integrate with or ensure the successful adaptive re-use of A Division (as is the case with the proposed hotel use in B Division). This concern and the lack of resolution of the delivery of the public realm around A Division should be addressed as part of this application, to ensure the successful adaptive re-use of A Division. The Heritage Impact Statement prepared by Bryce Raworth accompanying this application states that the proposed through link will ‘provide clear wayfinding through the building’ being A Division and ‘the new openings will help provide a clear path from Observation Post 6, through the interpretation wing of A Division and then north to the footings of the exercise yard (the latter is outside the scope of this permit application).’ The Masterplan references the through link proposed in the eastern wing of A Division. The proposed external openings to create the through link do not result in an obvious ‘cut’ through the building, as it relates to an existing pattern of openings. However, Council submits that the applicant should demonstrate the need for this through link, which is intrinsically dependent on the anticipated use of the north-east exercise yard and is yet to be resolved. The following aspects of the adaptive re-use of A Division have not been resolved through this application: i. With the creation of a through link there is concern how access to the remainder of the A Division building will be protected from occupants. ii. The need to remove cell walls as part of this application when there are no prospective tenants of this building. This could be considered as part of a subsequent application once the need for larger cells is demonstrated. c) Building height and interface to A Division and E Division: The Masterplan nominates that the development at Building 9 can extend up to 4 storeys. This is a change to the 2009 Masterplan which anticipated up to 11 storeys at this location. The plans depict a building up to two storeys when viewed from the Piazza at 11 metres with roof plant equipment extending the building to a total height of 14.25 metres. Due to the slope of the land, at its northern façade, the basement levels will extend above the ground. Whilst the proposal accords with the Masterplan direction being up to four storeys, the proposal does not identify its compliance with the decision guideline that scale is comparable to the roof lantern of A Division and that the south-west corner complements E Division so that the heritage buildings are respected. The plans accompanying the application do not illustrate the roof lantern of Division A. Without this additional information, it is unclear what the impact of the siting and height of the commercial building and plant equipment on A Division will be. The following additional information is required to assess the impact of the proposal on A Division and E Division: i. That the south elevation Drawing Number ATP-200555 Revision A prepared by The Buchan Group revised, or alternatively a 3D perspective be submitted, to accurately depict the slope of the land and illustrate: i. the Division A building including the roof lantern to demonstrate whether the building height including plant equipment is generally comparable to the historic buildings as per the decision guidelines at section 4.0 and Figures 4.1.2e and 4.1.4t of the Masterplan; and

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 261

ii. the Division E building to demonstrate how the south west corner of the proposed building is scaled to complement Division E and its morphology as per the decision guidelines at section 4.0 and Figures 4.1.2e. A direction contained within the Masterplan is to ‘ensure that the heritage buildings have a positive relationship to the public realm in terms of defining and activating publicly accessible space.’ Whilst a 6 metre setback is provided to the commercial building from the eastern wing of A Division, this interface is to car parking that extends 6 metres in height above this accessway. Whilst heritage interpretation is nominated at this interface, this design response should include an active interface, such as offices, in lieu of car parking. A different response at this interface will ensure that the Masterplan direction at section 4.1.4 that ‘new building can have positive adjacencies with the heritage fabric encouraging their interactive use’ can be achieved. d) Interface to the Observation Tower (Post 6) and bluestone wall: The bluestone wall extending west from the Observation Tower is nominated in the Masterplan for removal to allow for the creation of Road D to provide vehicular access within the site. Council has concern that the ground and first floor level of the commercial building is too close to the Observation Tower. The Masterplan identifies a greater buffer distance to both the east and south of the tower. The commercial building should further setback from the Observation Tower at both the east and south interfaces to ensure that this heritage element and the remnants of the bluestone wall can be appreciated when in proximity to it. e) Land use: The proposal provides a mix of land uses which generally accords with the Masterplan direction to incorporate a ‘diversity of uses such as office and cinemas’ within Building 9 and community uses within A Division. f) Heritage interpretation: The Heritage Impact Statement prepared by Bryce Raworth accompanying the application anticipates the preparation of a detailed scope of conservation works that can be required by a condition of permit requiring a specific schedule of works. Council submits that should a permit issue, a condition requires a schedule of conservation works to retain and restore original elements as set out in both the 1996 and 2016 Conservation Management Plans. 3. That Council request that Heritage Victoria provide additional information in relation to point 2.c) of this recommendation, with the Group Manager City Development authorised to provide a response to Heritage Victoria on behalf of Council.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 262

REPORT

1. Background The report presented to the February 2016 Council meeting (DED6/16) provides general information on the history of Pentridge. In 2009 the Minister for Planning amended the Moreland Planning Scheme to modify the Comprehensive Development Zone which applied to the land at the time and incorporates the Pentridge Coburg Design Guidelines and Masterplan, February 2014 (Masterplan) into the planning scheme. The approval of this Amendment followed a Priority Development Panel process which considered the Masterplans for both precincts of the Pentridge redevelopment site. The Activity Centre Zone precincts which apply to the Pentridge site are a policy neutral translation of the former Comprehensive Development Zone. The Activity Centre Zone identifies a building height of up to 4 storeys in this location. Council has expressed long-standing concerns with the strategic planning, built form and heritage issues of the Pentridge Masterplans. Having higher density on the fringes of the activity centres is contrary to the strategic planning principles to concentrate higher density adjacent to railway stations and key services; the taller buildings detract from the heritage significance of a number of buildings and impacts on some critical view lines to and from the site; and the taller buildings along Murray Road will have an adverse impact on the use and enjoyment of Coburg Lake Reserve. The Urban Planning Committee resolved at its January 2016 meeting to write to the Minister for Planning requesting that the State Government’s Office of the Victorian Government Architect appoint a Design Review Panel to undertake a comprehensive review of the existing Pentridge Coburg Design Guidelines and Masterplan (February 2014) and the proposed Coburg Quarter, Coburg Masterplan (2015) (DED1/16). The Minister wrote to Council on 23 March 2016 and advised that he would not be initiating a review of the Masterplans. Council resolved at its August 2016 meeting to explore a review of the Masterplans (DED61/16). This has commenced with meetings with Shayher Group. A meeting will shortly be held with the other principal landowner, Future Estate. A progress report will be presented to the March 2017 Council Meeting to consider what additional resources may be required from Council to enable the masterplan reviews. This process cannot reasonably have a bearing on the current applications lodged with Heritage Victoria and Council. Decisions must therefore be made on the Masterplan and ACZ provisions as they currently apply to the land. Subject site The subject site is legally known as lots S4 and S6 at Champ Street, Coburg and the application concerns development proposed at land located to the north of the recent six storey mixed use building referred to as the ‘QM building,’ west of Industry Lane, south of the historic Division A building and Rock-breaking Yards and includes some works to Division A. This building is identified as ‘Building 9’ in the Masterplan and is nominated for a commercial development to be located on the former site of C Division (demolished in 1974).

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 263

The Certificate of Title is affected by a number of covenants and agreements that relate to obligations for the wider estate. These estate wide obligations include the creation of roads and car parking. The covenants and agreements relating specifically to this site include:  The protection of bluestone walls from demolition, damage or excavation.  The creation and maintenance of a publicly accessible open space network identified in Figure 9 entitled Open Space Plan Pentridge Piazza May 2003 including an east west link provided through this site. These site specific obligations are discussed later in this report. Surrounds With respect to the site’s immediate interfaces, to the west is Industry Lane and Sentry Lane which have developed historic buildings for dwellings. To the south is the six storey QM building containing commercial premises and dwellings. A location plan forms Attachment 1. The proposal The proposal is summarised as follows:  The new commercial building will extend a maximum height of two levels from grade level of the Piazza (the former parade ground located to the south-west of the proposed Building 9). Due to the north to south slope of the land two of the three basement levels will extend above ground which results in part of the building being four storeys.  The commercial building will contain a large format tenancy for future supermarket with a number of smaller tenancies within the southern part of the building.  A cinema is proposed to occupy the first floor.  All vehicle access and loading to the commercial building will be by basement to by via ‘Road A’ which runs north-south adjacent to the Industry Lane development.  ‘Road D’ will be a shared road extending vehicle and pedestrian access north from Whatmore Drive and then extending to the west, past the Piazza and providing access to Champ Street.  The new commercial building footprint is setback approximately 6m from the eastern wing of A Division at ground and first floor. The building is setback approximately 10m from the southern wing of A Division at ground and first floor with planter boxes, ramps and the entry of the building extending partly into this space.  Demolition including:  The bluestone wall that extends south from the eastern end of A Division.  The curved dwarf wall that extends into the south-eastern yard from the door into the central crossing.  Internal walls to enlarge cells contained within the northern, southern and western wings.  Stairs and the partition wall at first floor within the western wing.  The timber surveillance block step and mesh wall to the admin wing with the prison gate retained.  An opening in the eastern wing for access to the heritage interpretation facility located inside.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 264

 Adaptive re-use of Division A with works to this building consisting of:  Creation of a pedestrian through-link in the eastern wing requiring removal of external walls with provision of two slot windows (extending to ground level) and a double door opening finished with frameless glass and Corten trim framing.  Relocation of stairs located within the eastern and southern wings to accommodate a through-link in the eastern wing.  Skylights located in the northern and southern wing.  The eastern wing will be utilised for heritage interpretation of this building.  The north and southern wings are earmarked for multipurpose shared spaces noting that no tenants are currently confirmed.  The western wing is earmarked for public, community or arts uses including a performance theatre at first floor.  The cast iron palisade fence set on a bluestone plinth which borders the western side of south east former exercise yard will be retained.  Observation Post 6 containing the only remaining guard tower with its original crenelated parapet will be retained.  A section of bluestone wall located to the west of Observation Post 6 (Guard Tower) will be retained.  Heritage Interpretation is proposed with:  A perforated finish depicting an image of the history of the Pentridge site on the eastern façade of the new building.  That the new commercial building reference the footings of the former C Division building previously located on this site.  The northern car park wall adjacent to the southern wing of A Division and the eastern car park wall will include an interpretive displays including the timeline and photographic representations of the prison. Key development plans of A Division, proposed Building 9 and an excerpt of the Heritage Interpretation works to Building 9 form Attachment 2. Heritage controls Clause 43.01: Heritage Overlay Schedule 47 affects the site. Pursuant to Clause 43.01-2, no planning permit is required under the Heritage Overlay to develop a heritage place which is included on the Victorian Heritage Register. Instead, where a site is included on the Victorian Heritage Register, Heritage Victoria are the responsible authority for the issue of permits pursuant to the Heritage Act 1995. At the time that Council makes a decision on the planning permit application pursuant to the Planning and Environment Act 1987, Council’s consideration of the application cannot include the provisions of Clause 43.01. Planning controls The site is within an Activity Centre Zone Schedule 1. The site is affected by the following Planning Overlays:  Clause 43.01 Heritage Overlay Schedule 47  Clause 45.03 Environment Audit Overlay  Clause 45.09 Parking Overlay Schedule 1  Clause 45.06 Development Contributions Overlay Schedule 1

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 265

2. Internal/External Consultation Public notification Council understands that Heritage Victoria has directed that public notice of this application be given. Internal/external referrals Council’s Heritage Advisor was consulted in the preparation of this report with the comments outlined in Section 4. 3. Policy Implications The Municipal Strategic Statement and local policy considered as part of Council’s response are listed below. Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) The following Key Strategic Statements of the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) and the following Local Planning Policies are of most relevance to this application: Municipal Strategic Statement:  Clause 21.01 Municipal Profile  Clause 21.02 Vision  Clause 21.03-1 Activity Centres  Clause 21.03-4 Urban Design, Built Form and Landscape Design  Clause 21.03-5 Environmentally Sustainable Design (Water, Waste and Energy) Local Planning Policies:  Clause 22.01 Neighbourhood Character  Clause 22.03 Car and Bike Parking and Vehicle Access  Clause 22.06 Heritage  Clause 22.07 Development of Four or More Storeys Reference documents Pentridge Coburg Design Guidelines and Masterplan, February 2014. Human Rights Consideration This application has been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (including the Moreland Planning Scheme) reviewed by the State Government and which complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 266

4. Issues Local heritage places The development proposed in this application does not adjoin a locally significant place or precinct subject to a Heritage Overlay control. Built form and local planning policy framework The A Division building, Observation Tower (Post 6) and associated bluestone wall are identified for retention as they are nominated to be of primary heritage significance in the 1996 Conservation Management Plan (CMP) which was prepared in conjunction with Council and the Department of Treasury and Finance following closure of the prison. The CMP formed a reference document to the previous Comprehensive Development Zone which applied the site Grandview Square Development Plan to the site. Despite this, the Masterplan references that sections of the bluestone wall extending east and west from the Observation Tower will be demolished. The Masterplan anticipates the creation of a through link providing pedestrian access through the eastern wing of the A Division building. As a requirement of a permit issued by Heritage Victoria, the land owner has prepared an updated Conservation Management Plan dated April 2016. Whilst no longer a reference document within the Moreland Planning Scheme the 1996 and 2016 Conservation Management Plans assist to understand the original features of the site and what restorative works should be undertaken. The 1996 CMP identifies the following conservation policies in relation to the A Division and Observation Tower (Post 6) and associated bluestone walls. A Division Building ‘A Division is one of the largest and earliest cells blocks constructed at Pentridge and which has survived remarkably intact.’ Both the 1996 and 2016 CMPs anticipates the limited adaption of some cells with the removal of dividing walls and the retention of external and corridor walls and vaulted ceilings. Some cells are anticipated to be used for representative examples of the cells in their existing condition for interpretive purposes. These documents also identify original elements for retention such as the original west wing entrance doors and iron bars to windows. Observation Tower (Post 6) and associated bluestone walls All Observation Towers are of primary significance ‘being a fundamental element of the prison complex in terms of perimeter security and delineation and should be retained.’ Masterplan The Pentridge Coburg Design Guidelines and Masterplan, February 2014 is an Incorporated Document in the Moreland Planning Scheme and has the same status as any other provision of the Scheme. The following aspects of the proposal are generally in accordance with the relevant directions of the Masterplan contained at sections 4.0 and 5.0:  The through link to Division A accommodates an extension to Wardens Walk.  The new commercial building is to highly activate the Wardens Walk which is somewhat achieved with tenancies along the western façade being glazed.  There are two main pedestrian entries to the commercial building both accessed from Road D. The entry at the south-west corner of the site is a double height void space facing the Piazza which enhances access to this historic interface and locates uses at the periphery of the Piazza that can activate this space. Equally the access from Champ Street is adjacent to the Observation Tower to allow appreciation of this historic element.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 267

 The proposal incorporates a diversity of uses including cinema and retail with a supermarket, food and non-food tenancies within the new commercial building.  The Division A building is proposed to contain a community space and arts space which accord with some of the anticipated uses.  Loading facilities are integrated within the building envelope.  Re-use of Division A provides heritage interpretation of the existing heritage buildings.  The built form materiality of the commercial building being corten (weather steel) and coloured, precast and patterned concrete responds to the existing Pentridge character.  The proposed roads adjacent to the commercial building fulfil the anticipated functions with Road A being a connector road for vehicular traffic and Road D being a shared road for both pedestrians and vehicular traffic.  Building 9 is anticipated to provide centralised car parking for functions across the wider estate. Key directions contained with respect to the scale and height of the new commercial building include:  The scale of building 9 to be ‘generally be comparable to the roof lantern of Division A’;  ‘The south west corner should be scaled to complement Division E and consider a response to its morphology’; and  Provide appropriate siting and scale of new buildings to ensure existing heritage built form is respected. The plans accompanying the application do not appropriately depict the roof lantern of Division A. Without this additional information, it is unclear what the impact of the siting and height of the commercial building and plant equipment on A Division will be. Additional information is required so that an assessment on the impact of Division A and Division E can be undertaken. The Masterplan anticipates the staged development of the estate. Stage B anticipates the delivery of the retail Building 9, adaptive re-use of Division A and adjoining apartment towers identified as Building 8. Figure 4.1.3a identifies that in addition to the adaptive reuse of Division A, land surrounding this building including the north-east exercise yard would be clarified and delivered as part of Stage B. The plans accompanying the application only demonstrate the delivery of the new commercial building and re-use of Division A. The plans fail to nominate the extent of works within the north-east exercise yard. The proposal also fails to identify how the public realm to the west of A Division that was to be delivered as part of Stage A of the Masterplan will be executed. The recommendation of this report details concerns in relation to staging, the adaptive reuse and link through Division A, building height, interface to the Observation Tower (post 6) and bluestone wall and land use. 5. Response to Objector Concerns Submissions in relation to the heritage permit application are lodged direct with Heritage Victoria. 6. Officer Declaration of Conflict of Interest Council Officers involved in the preparation of this report do not have a Conflict of Interest in this matter. 7. Financial and Resources Implications Nil.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 268

8. Conclusion Council resolves to adopt the response to Heritage Victoria as set out in the recommendation.

Attachment/s 1 Location Map - Lots S4 and S6 Champ Street, Coburg D17/12987 2 Development Plans - A Division and Building 9, Champ Street, Coburg D17/13012

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 269

DED8/17 BETTER APARTMENT DESIGN STANDARDS (D16/442242) Director Planning and Economic Development City Strategy and Design

Executive Summary Following the Minister’s release of the Better Apartment Design Standards (BADS) on 16 December 2016 (Attachment 1) and his notice to introduce the BADS into Planning Schemes in March 2017, it is appropriate to review Council’s Moreland Apartment Design Code (MADC) amendment. The purpose of this report is to seek Council endorsement on a variation to Amendment C142 (MADC) which, as the Minister advised, in June 2016, would not make a decision on until the outcomes of the Better Apartment project was known. While many of the BADS standards are welcomed, they also have some significant shortcomings as detailed in this report, particularly in relation to:  No numerical measures on building setbacks;  No requirements (and therefore no numerical provisions) on light wells; and  No explicit consideration on equitable development and impact of apartment development on the amenity of existing residents (other than outlook – though no numerical measure is provided). The MADC, which was adopted by Council in August 2015 (DED70/15), addresses the above matters. It contains numerical measures on building separation; it has a section that allows light wells (which are limited to provide daylight to bedrooms only and contains minimum length and width and size dimensions); and it also contains requirements that ensure the reasonable development opportunities and amenity impacts on adjoining sites are considered. In light of this it is recommended that Council request the Minister approve a variation of Amendment C142 that incorporates the above matters into Clause 22.07 of the Moreland Planning Scheme (as at Attachment 3). These provisions will complement BADS and provide stronger guidance on determining the building setback and light court dimensions required to achieve daylight, privacy and outlook objectives as well as allow for consideration of impacts on adjoining sites. Another related matter with respect to BADS is the impact on Council’s ESD policy. BADS contains a number of ESD related provisions. While these elements are supported, all standards in BADS are discretionary and there is concern about the extent to which applicants will comply with these standards and the weight VCAT will give them. Additionally, the ESD policy applies to a more broad range of applications than both BADS and MADC. Council’s ESD policy was approved through Amendment C71 by the Minister in November 2015 subject to a condition that sunsets the policy in December 2017. Recent correspondence signed by each Mayor of the joint Councils that worked on the joint ESD amendment (Attachment 2) has been sent to the Minister seeking the removal of the sunset clause (unless a State-wide policy is introduced). It is considered that despite the ESD related provisions in BADS Council’s ESD policy provides a more effective approach to achieve ESD objectives across a broader range of applications. It is recommended that the Council request the Minister to approve a variation of Amendment C142 by inserting the revised Clause 22.07 in Attachment 3. It is considered that because of the strategic justification underpinning C142 that a new amendment is not required and that the provisions are complementary to BADS. As the Minister may be reluctant to approve any policies varying the BADS provisions at the outset of its implementation but demand for apartments continues to be high, a timely measure could be a sunset clause to allow a comparison of results with and without these provisions.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 297

Recommendation Council resolve: 1. To request the Minister for Planning to approve a variation of Amendment C142 that incorporates the numerical measures on building separation and light wells in accordance with Attachment 3 (noting Amendment C142 has already been submitted to the Minister for approval pursuant to section 29(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, in accordance with Council’s resolution of its 12 August 2105 Council meeting (DED70/15). 2. As a minimum, the Minister approves the variations of amendment C142 with a two year sunset clause to allow an evaluation of the outcomes of the building separation and light well numerical measures against other municipalities implementing BADS without these complementary provisions, by the Department of Environment Land Water and Planning. 3. That in requesting the Minister to approve a variation of Amendment C142, that he also remove the sunset provision in Clause 22.08 (ESD policy) on the basis that Council’s ESD policy, when applied in conjunction with the BADS ESD related standards, will achieve a higher level of ESD performance.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 298

REPORT

1. Policy Context Strategic Direction 3 of the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) provides:  Council will facilitate housing development to meet the needs of the growing and diverse population, with a focus on:  Providing a range of housing sizes and types to accommodate a diversity of household sizes  Housing affordability  Housing designed to be visitable by people with limited mobility, and adaptable for residents with specific accessibility requirements. Strategic Direction 4 of the MSS provides:  In managing population growth and associated development, Council is committed to improving the quality of design of the built environment. Good design is intrinsically linked to safety, health and well being and environmental sustainability.  The MSS includes specific directions to improve design quality overall, with a particular emphasis on site responsive design, passive design for energy efficiency, integration with the public realm and integration with landscape design.  Initiative 2.1.5 of Plan Melbourne, Improve the quality and amenity of residential apartments contains the following strategy:  Update design guidelines and introduce measurable standards for high- density and mixed-use development. 2. Background The Better Apartment Discussion Paper was released in May 2015. Nearly 1700 survey responses and about 150 submissions were received on the Discussion Paper. Community survey participants ranked the key issues affecting apartment amenity by most to least important – identifying daylight, space, natural ventilation and noise as the top issues. Public consultation on the Better Apartments Draft Design Standards was undertaken between August and September 2016. Over 250 submission were received (including from Council). The Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) established a Better Apartment Reference Group comprising representatives from peak industry, design and local government bodies and a Local Government Working Group to help test potential implementation measures for the Better Apartments standards. Moreland officers were invited and participated in this group. The Moreland Apartment Design Code (MADC) was first developed in 2012 and it was proposed to introduce MADC’s requirements into the Moreland Planning Scheme through Amendment C142. This Amendment was exhibited twice with over 50 submissions being received the first time and over 20 submissions the second time. The submissions were considered by a Planning Panel in March and April 2015 and it recommended the Amendment be supported subject to changes. The Amendment was adopted by Council in August 2015 (DED70/15) and was submitted to DELWP in September 2015. On 13 June 2016 the Minister advised Council that he has decided to: make no decision on Amendment C142

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 299

further noting that he would: re-assess this decision once the outcomes of the (State led) Better Apartments project are known. Importantly, the Minister noted that: in making this decision, I acknowledge that, pursuant to section 60(1)(h) of the Act, a responsible authority must consider, before deciding on an application, 'any amendment to the planning scheme which has been adopted by a planning authority but not, as at the date on which the application is considered, approved by the Minister or a planning authority. This means that Council must continue to consider and give weight to Amendment C142 MADC being a Council adopted amendment by a planning authority. Council’s City Development Department and Urban Planning Committee (UPC) have applied MADC to apartment developments of five and more storeys consistently since its adoption by Council in September 2015. In December 2016, the Minister announced his approval of BADS introducing the provisions as a State wide tool. Attachment 1 contains a copy of the approved documentation. In light of this decision, and the Minister’s likely reassessment of Amendment C142, it is appropriate and timely for Council to consider what changes it may need to consider if MADC is to be approved in any way and not simply refused by the Minister. A review of the gaps between MADC and BADS has been undertaken to identify possible changes to Council’s amendment request. 3. Issues This section of the report provides more detail on the three key significant shortcomings of the BADS with the accompanying Council Officers proposed recommendation to seek a variation to Amendment C142 as a result. The 3 key significant shortcomings are as follows:  No numerical measures on building setbacks;  No explicit consideration on equitable development and impact of apartment development on the amenity of existing residents (other than outlook – though no numerical measure is provided); and  No requirements (and therefore no numerical provisions) on light wells. This section of the report also includes:  commentary on the application of Council’s ESD policy with the imminent inclusion of BADS in planning schemes; and  a summary of the BADS standards that are welcome and considered appropriate and therefore are not recommended by Council Officers to be addressed in the variation proposed to Amendment C142 (under the sub heading ‘Other BADS standards’). No numerical measures on building setbacks BADS contains objectives, standards and decision guidelines on building setbacks. One objective is to:  To allow adequate daylight into new dwellings. One standard is to:  A building should be setback a reasonable distance from side and rear boundaries, and other buildings within the site to:  Ensure adequate daylight into new habitable room windows.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 300

The exhibited version of BADS contained numerical measures to provide guidance on the distance that is required between buildings to ensure adequate daylight into habitable rooms. However, these numerical measures were deleted from the final version of BADS. The numerical measures in the exhibited version of BADS were similar to the building separation measures for living/main balcony outlooks in MADC. There was no distinction in BADS between living/main balcony outlooks and bedroom outlooks. The numerical measures for building setbacks in the exhibited version of BADS received considerable criticism. In Council officers’ opinion, this was largely due to:  A failure to explain the rationale of the building setback numerical measures;  A failure to provide different (reduced) numerical measures for bedroom outlooks, resulting in relatively more stringent requirements; and  A failure to understand that it is ‘building separation’ that is required to achieve daylight, privacy and outlook, not merely ‘building setbacks’. Council officer rationale of building separation measures The building separation measures in MADC are based on technical analysis prepared by ESD consultants in order to achieve a minimum daylight factor of 1.0 to main living areas and 0.5 average daylight factor to bedrooms. (Under the Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) provisions in the Built Environment Sustainability Scorecard (BESS), ‘minimum’ is defined as daylight factor greater than 1% to 90% of the floor area of each living area, including kitchens and 0.5% to 90% of the floor area in all bedrooms). Other benefits of building separation include to provide a reasonable opportunity for a quality outlook from dwellings; to ensure that there is no unreasonable overlooking between apartments; and that a development does not compromise the development opportunity of adjoining sites. In addition, building separation provides opportunities for landscaping and open space areas which are also requirements of the Code. Without numerical measures on building separation, a significant challenge for designers and decision makers will be to assess what is a reasonable distance from side and rear boundaries to meet the standard to Ensure adequate daylight into habitable rooms? Another concern with the exhibited version of the BAD standards on building setbacks was that it made no explicit allowance for an exemption (or part exemption) for the need for a setback where proposed development would not affect the reasonable development opportunity of an adjoining site. Nor was there any explicit allowance made for a reduced setback if an existing building had not incorporated access to daylight to habitable rooms on their own site in accordance with the building setbacks standards. Both these scenarios were included in MADC to ensure existing conditions could be properly factored in during the decision making process and reasonable outcomes could be achieved. The Planning Panel that considered MADC supported the building separation numerical measures but concluded that the Policy should be subject to a sunset clause to ensure there is a systematic post‐occupancy evaluation of apartment development and to provide for review of the local provisions if a State‐wide apartment code is introduced. The Panel’s principle concerns on building separation were in relation to yield and housing affordability (not so much on whether or not the requirements would result in reasonable outcomes).

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 301

Since MADC was adopted by Council in August 2015, the building separation numerical measures have been applied in the assessment of apartment developments. It has been generally found that the numerical measures have been a useful tool in providing certainty to determine a reasonable distance between buildings with most proposals largely complying with the separation standards. Most applicants have been willing to work with the measures on the basis that Council adopts a performance based approach (i.e. taking into account existing urban context and existing conditions and reducing the distances where appropriate). Examples include:  2-6 Duckett Street, Brunswick (MPS/2015/74) – In response to concerns about lack of building separation, amended plans were submitted increasing the setbacks to the northern, eastern and western setbacks. The UPC agreed to support the amended plans and the matter was successfully mediated at VCAT.  6 Florence Street (MPS/2015/829) – There was interface to a site to the north that had a permit for an apartment development, however construction had not been commenced. The existing approved development did not comply with the building separation requirements. It was therefore decided that the proposed apartment development did not need to fully comply with the building separation requirements because it would not result in an equitable development outcome.  200-216 Sydney Road, Coburg (MPS/2015/439) – This application was made with substantial compliance with the building separation standards.  36 -38 Lygon Street, Brunswick East (MPS/2016/156) – This application did not comply with the building separation measures to the rear lane, however was considered acceptable because of the industrial zoning of the land.  718-722 Sydney Road, Coburg North (MPS/2015/595) – This application proposed two six storey buildings (though UPC resolved to delete top levels). The width of the court yard and building separation ranged from 9 metres to a maximum of 14.6 metres. MADC identifies a preferred building separation between the buildings of 12 metres and 18 metres for the top floor. At the narrowest part the building had four dwellings on each level separated by 9 metres. This variation was considered appropriate in this instance given there was adequate light to the bedrooms and living areas, each dwelling had adequate open space and access to communal space. The layout also adequately addressed overlooking by providing a separation of more than 9 metres. Different measures for living/main balconies and bedrooms Proposing different requirements for main living areas and bedrooms in MADC was predicated on the basis that most occupiers spend more time and undertake more activities in living areas than bedrooms. Accordingly, MADC contains reduced distance requirements for bedroom outlooks compared to the distance requirements for living/main balcony outlooks. This provides an incentive for designers to orient main living areas of apartments to the front or rear of sites (or to courtyards on larger sites) and thus achieve higher amounts of daylight, more appealing outlooks and reduced loss of privacy to living areas compared to bedrooms. The exhibited version of BADS did not distinguish between outlooks for living/main balconies and bedrooms and thus the building setbacks numerical measures were the same for living/main balcony outlooks and bedroom outlooks. Further, the proposed numerical measures in BADS were equivalent to the more stringent requirements for living/main balcony outlooks in MADC. Applying these more stringent standards for bedrooms as well as living/main balcony outlooks has questionable logic and could no doubt have a significant impact on yield. It is therefore not unexpected that the numerical measures in the exhibited version of attracted considerable concern.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 302

Building setbacks and building separation BADS uses the terminology ‘building setbacks’ rather than ‘building separation’. (Setback is defined in Clause 72 of the planning scheme as ‘The minimum distance from any allotment boundary to a building.’) This is an unfortunate use of the term because it does not suggest the important role of space between buildings in providing opportunities for open space and landscaping. Further, while the BADS uses the term ‘setback’ in the element heading, which, as mentioned above, refers to the distance to an allotment boundary in the planning scheme, the standard also refers to the need for space between buildings within sites (which cannot by definition be a setback). On the above basis, Council Officers recommend a variation of Amendment C142 by inserting the revised Clause 22.07 shown at Attachment 3 to include numerical measures on building setbacks. No explicit consideration on equitable development and impact of apartment development on the amenity of existing residents One of the important features of MADC is the objective to provide for the equitable development opportunities of adjoining properties and a standard that an urban context report should include an equitable development analysis to assess the implications for development opportunities of adjoining sites as well as the amenity impacts of adjoining sites. Hence, when applying the building separation numerical standards under MADC equal consideration is given to the future occupiers of new apartment development as well as amenity impacts on existing residents. While BADS contains a standard that built form must be appropriate to the urban context and the site, it does not contain any explicit provisions on equitable development. Nor does BADS include any provisions on addressing amenity impacts on existing residents (other than to avoid direct views – though no numerical measure is provided on this). As a result, it is questionable whether matters such as loss of daylight, sunlight and outlook on existing residents will be able to be specifically considered when assessing the appropriateness of the building setback standards. Reliance will need to be placed on other, broader parts of the planning scheme such as Clause 65 (Decision Guidelines) and specifically, ‘the effect on the amenity of the area. On the above basis, Council Officers recommend a variation of Amendment C142 by inserting the revised Clause 22.07 shown at Attachment 3 to include to address the issue of consideration of impact of development on existing development. No requirements/no numerical provisions) on light wells The exhibited version of BADS contained a separate section on light wells. The standards contained numerical measures for light well sizes and were very similar to the MADC standards. However, the final version of BADS does not contain any requirements on light wells. The original version of MADC (when it was known as the Moreland Higher Density Design Code) did not contain any requirements on light wells. This was because the objective was to encourage designers to use building separation rather than light wells to achieve daylight and other objectives. However, with so many narrow lots in the Brunswick and Coburg activity centres it was acknowledged that light wells were, and would continue to be, a very common design response.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 303

The provisions on light wells in MADC limits this light source to bedrooms only and contain minimum numerical measures to ensure they provide adequate daylight to bedrooms. The dimensions were developed to achieve an average daylight factor of 0.5 (and are therefore consistent with the building separation outcomes). Some examples where there have been amendments to plans to better achieve light well dimensions include:  38-40 Breese Street (MPS/2014/1178) – Light wells increased from 5.1 square metres to 8.9 square metres up to level 3 and 19 square metres up to level 5;  6 Florence Street (MPS/2015/829) – The light wells did not fully comply with the minimum dimensions and overall sizes specified in MADC. The west facing light wells were considered acceptable because of the size of the windows that provided access to daylight into bedrooms and the east facing light wells were considered acceptable because the adjoining site had been recently developed at three levels and the ‘borrowed’ light from the adjoining property would not likely change  8 Florence Street (MPS/2015/175) – The light wells did not comply with MADC’s minimum dimensions but exceeded the minimum area and was therefore considered acceptable.  300-302 Lygon Street (MPS2015/1011) – While strictly not a MADC application because the proposed development was under 5 storeys, the applicant agreed to increase the light wells following a pre-application meeting. On the above basis, Council Officers recommend a variation of Amendment C142 by inserting the revised Clause 22.07 shown at Attachment 3 to include numerical provisions) on light wells. ESD matters BADS contains standards on ESD related matters including Energy efficiency, Natural ventilation, Waste and recycling and Integrated water and stormwater management. While these elements are supported, all standards in BADS are discretionary and there is concern the extent to which applicants will comply with them, and the weight VCAT, will give them. In contrast, under Council’s ESD policy applicants must achieve a minimum 50 point score under BESS to demonstrate compliance with ESD objectives or use another framework to satisfy Council that minimum ESD initiatives have been provided. It is therefore considered that under Council’s ESD policy (which is applied in conjunction with MADC) that a higher level of ESD performance is achieved. Additionally, the ESD policy applies to a more broad range of applications than both BADS and MADC. Council’s ESD policy was approved through Amendment C71 by the Minister in November 2015 subject to a condition that sunsets the policy in December 2017. Recent correspondence, signed by each Mayor of the joint councils that worked on the joint ESD amendment, has been sent to the Minister seeking the removal of the sunset clause (unless a State-wide policy is introduced) (Attachment 2). Although this letter has already been sent to the Minister, it is recommended that Council resolve to again request the Minister to remove the sunset clause in Clause 22.08 on the basis that Council’s ESD policy, when applied in conjunction with the BADS ESD related standards, will achieve a higher level of ESD performance.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 304

Other BADS standards Brief comments are provided below on the remaining BADS standards that differ from MADC. Most are considered appropriate and it is noted that a number of the elements are in fact more onerous than MADC requirements. Functional layout This element includes numerical measures on bedrooms and living areas dimensions and sizes. It is an alternative to providing numerical measures on minimum dwellings sizes. The numerical measures are reasonable and should ensure adequate minimum sizes for apartment developments. It also discourages non-functional space in dwellings being used to calculate overall floor space. These provisions also allow for a more flexible approach than minimum dwelling size. Room depth This element includes a numerical measure that a single aspect open plan habitable room should not exceed a room depth of 2.5 metres times the ceiling height. A room depth of 9 metres may be allowed if other requirements are met. MADC contained a minimum room depth of 8 metres as well as a requirement for minimum window size to a living area. The outcomes between BADS and MADC are similar with the BADS standards providing some more flexibility. Windows This element contains a numerical measure that a battle-axe window must be a minimum width of 1.2 metres and a maximum depth of 1.5 times the width measured from the external surface of the window. The window must also be clear to the sky (i.e. not enclosed by a balcony). MADC has a requirement that a battle axe should have a maximum width of twice its length and also be clear to the sky. The outcomes between the two sets of standards are similar though having a minimum measure, as proposed in BADS, provides more certainty as to the minimum dimensions required to achieve an acceptable outcome. Storage This element includes numerical measures on total minimum storage volume and minimum storage volume within a dwelling. The numerical measures on storage are more onerous than MADC. A survey undertaken by DELWP when preparing the Better Apartment Discussion Paper found that storage was a key issue for apartment occupiers. Noise impacts This element requires habitable rooms to achieve noise attenuation from potential noise sources such as industrial zones, main roads and railways. It also includes requirements to minimise noise within apartment developments. The inclusion of standards to achieve prescribed noise levels for habitable rooms is supported as it will provide more certainty and consistency. Energy efficiency This element requires apartments to achieve prescribed maximum cooling loads. ESD officers advise that the numerical standards are readily achievable with smaller windows, but more difficult to achieve with larger windows. Many apartment have large floor to ceiling windows to maximise daylight. ESD officers often recommend the installation of external shading devices when applying Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) under the ESD policy. This is another reason why the ESD policy should continue after its sunsets in December 2017.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 305

Solar access to communal open space This element requires communal outdoor open space to achieve a certain amount of sunlight at the Winter solstice. MADC contains a standard on this issue but no numerical measure. The numerical measure may be difficult to achieve in many proposals but should assist in an improved design response to ensure greater consideration is given to sunlight in outdoor open space areas. Natural ventilation This element includes one non-measurable standard on maximising natural ventilation. It requires that the design and layout of dwellings should maximise openable windows, doors or other devices in an external wall of the building, where appropriate. ESD officers consider that this standard is very broad and additional guidance would be appropriate on how natural ventilation is maximised (for example, having two window openings allowing a breeze to flow through). A very positive element is the numerical measure that at least 40% of apartments should be cross-ventilated. There are also a number of numerical measures that provide guidance on how effective cross ventilation can be achieved. Under this standard, if there 10 dwellings on a floor, the 4 corner dwellings would need to be dual aspect. While this is considered a very positive outcome, it is noted that the exhibited version of the BADS contained a requirement that 60% of dwellings be cross-ventilated). Private open space This element contains standards requiring minimum amounts of private open space at either ground level, podium or roof top level. It also contains minimum dimensions for balcony widths and sizes. MADC contains a standard on private open space at ground floor and measurable standards on minimum balcony dimensions and sizes. The numerical measures for private open space at ground level, podiums and roof tops is supported. The numerical measures for balconies is also supported though it is noted that MADC contains a minimum balcony size of 10 square metres for a two bedroom apartment while the minimum size in BADS is 8 square metres (but with a 2 metre minimum width). Communal open space This element requires developments of 40 or more dwellings to provide a minimum communal open space area of 2.5 square meters per apartment or 250 square metres, whatever is the lesser. It also contains a number of standards to ensure the useability of the space. MADC contains similar requirements though the trigger to provide a minimum amount of communal facilities is 20 dwellings. To recommend a further change to the BADS provisions to include this change would be considered conflicting rather than complementary as intended by the changes recommended earlier. It is therefore not considered appropriate to seek a change that directly conflicts with the Minister’s new provisions. Landscaping This element includes a number of standards on the provision of landscaping as well as a number of measurable standards to ensure adequate space for deep soil planting. Where deep soil planting is not achieved, an equivalent canopy cover should be provided such as canopy trees or climbers (over a pergola) with planter pits or vegetated planters, green roofs or green facades.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 306

The BADS standards are similar to the MADC landscaping requirements. However, the requirements for deep soil planting and for the provision of equivalent planting where deep soil planting are more onerous than MADC and are supported. Landscaping plans should be an application requirement rather than as a condition of permit so landscaping can be properly considered as part of the design and assessment processes. Accessibility This element contains a standard that requires 50% of apartments to provide accessibility. The exhibited version of MADC contained a number of standards with numerical measures on accessibility. However, the Panel that considered MADC concluded the standards largely duplicated the provisions in the MSS and ACZ/DDOs and that there was limited evaluation of the effect of the proposed accessibility provisions. The BADS standards are limited to accessibility within apartments rather than access to apartment developments. However, Strategy 9.1 of the MSS includes requirements to encourage all dwellings to be visitable by a person with limited mobility by providing an accessible path from the street and car park areas to a level entry. This provision can be applied in conjunction with the accessibility requirements in BADS. Building entry and circulation This element contains a number of standards on building entry and circulation that are similar to the MADC standards, though MADC contains more detailed requirements particularly on awnings. Given the importance of awnings it may be appropriate to apply the requirements in MADC in a design guideline as an interim measure and seek to include the guidelines in the next review of the MSS. Waste and recycling This element contains a number of standards on waste management, including recycling. There is a requirement that waste and recycling should meet the best practice guidelines produced by Sustainability Victoria. The standards provide some more detailed requirements than MADC and are supported. The diagram showing access to a chute for both garbage and recycling is particularly positive. Integrated water and stormwater management This element encourages the use of alternative water sources and to facilitate on-site stormwater detention. MADC does contain requirements on this matter because it is a requirement of Council’s ESD policy in Clause 22.08 of the MSS. ESD officers consider that the inclusion of Water Urban Sensitive Design standards to be a very positive aspect of this element. Regional/strategic implications The purpose of inserting the building separation and light well numerical measures into the Moreland Planning Scheme is to complement the BADS standards, not to contradict them. Accordingly, the revised C142 Amendment is consistent with State planning objectives. The purpose of recommending a two year sunset clause is to allow an evaluation of the complementary BADS provisions proposed to be inserted into Clause 22.07. This evaluation should involve a comparison of apartment development in Moreland and outside Moreland to ascertain whether the complementary provisions have resulted in better outcomes. This comparative evaluation should be completed by DELWP.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 307

Human Rights Consideration The implications of this report have been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. 4. Consultation In preparing this report consultation has occurred with Council officers in City Development, Environmental Sustainable Design and Urban Design. 5. Officer Declaration of Conflict of Interest Council Officers involved in the preparation of this report have no Conflict of Interest in this matter. 6. Financial and Resources Implications The fee requesting approval of Amendment C142 has already been paid to DELWP. 7. Implementation It is recommended that the Council request the Minister to approve a variation of Amendment C142 by inserting the revised Clause 22.07 in Attachment 3.

Attachment/s 1 Better Apartments Design Standards- December 2016 D17/17714 2 Letter to Minister for Planning on behalf of 7 ESD Councils D17/7930 3 Amended Clause 22.07 - Better Apartments Design Standards D17/19475 Complementary provisions - Amendment C142

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 308

DED9/17 MORELAND HERITAGE ACTION PLAN - ENDORSEMENT FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION (D16/423729) Director Planning and Economic Development City Strategy and Design

Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to present the Draft Moreland Heritage Action Plan 2017-2032 (the draft Plan) and seek Council approval to undertake formal community consultation for four weeks during February and March 2017 to obtain feedback before presentation to Council in mid-2017 for consideration for formal adoption. Placing the draft Plan on public exhibition will provide an opportunity to obtain input from both local historic societies, government organisations and the general community. At the March 2016 Council meeting (DED15/16), Council resolved to endorse the preparation of the draft Plan (Attachment 1). The draft Plan provides a framework for the identification, conservation and management of the City’s heritage. The draft Plan was prepared by Council’s Strategy Unit. All areas of Council with a role in knowing, protecting, managing or communicating the City’s heritage participated in the preparation of the draft, which also draws from an audit of previous heritage studies, planning panel report recommendations and past Council decisions. The implementation plan that is included in the draft Plan sets out actions to be delivered as a staged program of projects over the next 16 years with associated resource/budget requirements, delivery timeframes and measures set out for each action. The draft Plan clearly articulates actions that are currently resourced and within Council’s Strategic resource Plan versus actions that require new funding i.e. that are subject to Council’s annual budgeting process and/or require external grant funding or partnership resources to deliver these projects (approximately $531,179 over 16 years). This report also provides an update on the recent public heritage nomination process held at the end of 2016, which was so successful that 726 potential heritage places were nominated. The volume of nominations received has significant implications in terms of the resources (including budget) required to then action the nominations received (i.e. assess each nomination to determine their inclusion or otherwise in a new Heritage Study, which would then inform a future planning scheme amendment to include them in the Heritage Overlay in the Moreland Planning Scheme). This report recommends that the places identified in the public nomination process are included in the draft Heritage Action Plan for future action.

Recommendation Council resolve to: 1. Approve the Draft Moreland Heritage Plan 2017 - 2032 for public exhibition for a period of four weeks during February and March 2017 and note that the final Action Plan will be presented to Council for adoption in mid-2017. 2. Write to all submitters that nominated potential heritage places during the public nomination process in late 2016 to thank them for their nominations and advise that they have been incorporated into the draft Heritage Action Plan for future action.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 322

REPORT

1. Policy Context The key policy directly related to this project is included in the Council Plan, Outcome 11 – The Historical places of the City of Moreland continue to be enhanced. The key strategy is to: Continue to identify and protect places of identified heritage through the Heritage Overlay in the Moreland Planning Scheme and the planning permit process. Moreland’s heritage places and spaces are managed by several Federal, State and local legislative frameworks listed below. National and Commonwealth Heritage Protection  The Burra Charter 2013 - The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance  Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984  Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 State Heritage Protection  Planning and Environment Act 1987  Heritage Act 1995  Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (amended 2016)  State Planning Policy Framework  Moreland Planning Scheme Local Heritage Protection in the Moreland Planning Scheme  Municipal Strategic Statement  Local Planning Policy – Clause 22.06 – Heritage Policy  Heritage Overlay – Clause 43.01 Actions of the Moreland Heritage Plan 2017 – 2032 are also aligned to initiatives of the:  Council Plan 2013 – 2017  Moreland 2025 Community Vision  Structure Plans for Brunswick, Coburg and Glenroy  Moreland Open Space Strategy 2012 - 2022  Moreland Human Rights Policy 2016 - 2026  Economic Development Strategy 2016 - 2021  Municipal Public Health and Wellbeing Plan 2013 - 2017  Arts and Culture Strategy 2011 - 2016  Disability Access and Inclusion Plan 2016-2020  Moreland Street Landscape Study 2012 - 2022

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 323

2. Background Draft Heritage Action Plan The draft Plan has been prepared using the toolkit prepared by the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (formerly Department of Planning and Community Development) Municipal Heritage Strategies: A guide for Councils. The draft Plan provides a clear framework for Council and its partners in identifying, managing, protecting and celebrating our City’s heritage, under the following four key themes:  Knowing - To know where we have come from and understand the significance of our heritage.  Protecting - To protect Moreland’s heritage places from inappropriate demolition, development or subdivision.  Supporting - To assist in conserving and education others about our heritage places.  Communicating - To celebrate, connect with and enjoy our heritage places. A comprehensive set of strategies and actions to implement the above four themes has been developed to guide Council’s role in heritage. Each action has been prioritised in terms of high, medium, low or on-going, in terms of implementation timeframes. Budget implications, delivery timeframes and measures have also been identified for each action, which is discussed in more detail in Section 6 of this report. The Draft Heritage Action Plan is included at Attachment 1. Public heritage nominations process - 2016 A separate heritage project to the draft Plan, is the current assessment being undertaken of potential known heritage sites (based on previous heritage studies) in Moreland, which could then inform a future planning scheme amendment in 2017-2018 to include appropriate sites into the Heritage Overlay. This separate heritage project was discussed in more detail in a previous report to Council at the March 2016 Council meeting (DED15/16). As a result of this earlier report to Council, Councillors resolved to add a new process/project to the heritage work program, which was a public nomination process for new heritage sites that could be included in a future heritage study. This process attracted 726 public nominations of potential heritage places. The implications for receiving such a significant number of public nominations is discussed in further detail in the Issues section of this report. 3. Issues This section of the report discusses two items: the key issues that have been considered in the development of the draft Plan and also the future resource / budget implications of Council’s recent public heritage nomination process. Draft Heritage Action Plan – key issues The purpose of the draft Moreland Heritage Action Plan 2017 - 2032 is to assist Council to meet its heritage obligations as set out in various legislation in an integrated manner. The draft Plan sets out the parameters for the further identification, conservation and management of the City’s heritage and also identifies positive heritage measures already being undertaken. The draft Plan is underpinned by a heritage vision statement and the framework of principles, objectives and strategies is assembled under four key themes: Knowing, Protecting, Supporting and Communicating.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 324

Current and future heritage challenges and opportunities facing Moreland were identified and form the basis for the content of the draft Plan and its associated implementation plan. The key challenges and opportunities include:  Managing population growth whilst protecting and enhancing our heritage  Embrace emerging Aboriginal Heritage  Streamlining planning permit requirements  Identifying and protecting our bluestone heritage. The draft Plan acknowledges that over time, new types of heritage are continually recognised and constantly changed by people’s perceptions. Over the years, heritage conservation has had to adapt to emerging technological, economic, demographic, environmental and social trends. The Australian Department of Environment and Heritage noted that rising incomes, advances in knowledge and education, and shifts in social attitudes could be expected to lead to changes in the way the Australian community views historic heritage. As the scope of interest in heritage changes, the need to adapt and continue to identify, record and celebrate our heritage places and spaces develops. Forty five (45) actions to address each of the earlier listed key heritage issues and challenges for Moreland are included in the draft Plan’s implementation plan, which guides the prioritisation and execution of actions in alignment with Council’s annual budgeting processes (as discussed in more detail in section 6 of this report). Future resource/budget implications of Council’s recent public heritage nominations process At the March 2016 Council meeting (DED15/16), an additional resolution was made by Council was to develop a process, to seek from the community nominations for properties or precincts to be included in the future heritage study. Consequently, a public heritage nomination process was held from 19 September 2016 to 30 November 2016. This included engaging the community via Council’s website with an online nomination form and searchable heritage map. Posters and hardcopy nomination forms were provided to all Council Citizens Service Centres and libraries. Relevant groups were also directly notified via mail about the public nomination process including:  Local Historical Societies;  National Trust of Australia;  Rotary Clubs;  CO.AS.IT (the Italian Association of Assistance);  Management Committees;  Public Record Office Victoria;  Heritage Victoria;  Parks Victoria; and  the Wurundjeri Tribe Land Compensation and Cultural Heritage Council Inc.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 325

Of the 726 nominations received, Council Officers have initially assessed that approximately 412 of these places are more recently constructed (i.e. Post War/Modern architectural style). The remaining 341 places are pre War. It is recommended that the pre-war and post war places be packaged as a future project. A future project would entail a preliminary assessment process to determine if the nominated places should form the basis for a new heritage study (this could potentially be two studies i.e. a pre-war and post war studies). Any preliminary assessment undertaken would confirm if the heritage status for each place meets the threshold of HERCON criteria and therefore can be included in a heritage study (i.e. investigate if these potential heritage places meet the threshold for local or state significance). Any heritage study(s) prepared would include a citation for each place, which would then form the basis for a subsequent planning scheme amendment process to include them in a Heritage Overlay. On the above basis, the draft Moreland Heritage Action Plan includes a future project (Actions K5 and K14), which would be subject to Council‘s allocation of future base and/or operating project budget to progress i.e. to undertake preliminary assessment work, prepare Heritage Studies and implement via a planning scheme amendment process. The assessment of 726 places to confirm they meet the threshold of heritage convention criteria, and then the subsequent work required to prepare new heritage study(s) with citations for each place to support a future planning scheme amendment process is a major project with future resourcing implications. Regardless of Council’s ability to fund this additional work (i.e. public nominations received in 2016), Council’s heritage experts currently have no capacity to complete these assessments in the short term as they are currently being engaged to complete a Heritage Gaps Study over 2016-2017 – 2017-2018 (this includes the planning scheme amendment phase of the Heritage Gaps Study project). The Heritage Gaps Study actions the remaining recommendations from past heritage studies, Planning Panel Reports or Council reports. Rather than delay the progress of this current major piece of work being implemented (the Heritage Gaps Study), the places identified in the 2016 public nomination process have therefore been deferred to the Heritage Action Plan for future work. It is proposed to contact all submitters to thank them for their nomination and also advise them of Council’s proposed actions regarding their nominations following Council’s consideration of this report. Human Rights Consideration The implications of this report have been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. 4. Consultation Internal consultation Internal consultation on the draft Plan was undertaken from October to December 2016. This included a workshop and several one on one meetings with an internal working group to identify and prioritise actions and understand future resourcing and/or budget implications. The internal working group included representatives from the following Units across Council:  Strategy;  Amendments;  City Development;  Capital Works Planning and Delivery;  Property;  Places;

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 326

 Open Space – Design and Development;  Aquatics and Leisure;  Youth and Leisure;  Community Development and Social Policy;  Arts and Culture;  Marketing and Communications;  GIS;  Urban Design;  Library Services;  Economic Development;  Recreation Services; and  Records Management. External consultation Council is committed to working with its partners, including local historical groups, local Indigenous communities, the custodians of heritage places and Heritage Victoria, to deliver its heritage objectives. It is proposed that the draft Plan be released for public consultation over a four week period during February and March 2017. The public consultation process will include:  Promotion via the Council webpage with an on-line response option.  Residents, property owners, business owners and the general public will be advised through the local media about the consultation, how to make a submission and the date, time and location of the drop in session.  Face to face and telephone options for community members or groups who wish to discuss the plan with Council Officers.  Direct notification to stakeholder groups including: Local Historic Associations, Heritage Victoria, National Trust, Registered Aboriginal Parties, Aboriginal Affairs Victoria, adjoining Councils, residents groups, management committees will be advised of the consultation via mail (one on one meetings will be arranged as required).  A drop in session will be held during the public consultation period to invite ideas, answer questions and collect feedback on the draft Plan. 5. Officer Declaration of Conflict of Interest Council Officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter. 6. Financial and Resources Implications The financial and resource implications of the draft Plan are explicitly set out within Section 5, the implementation plan. These will be further tested during the exhibition period, particularly with respecting to timing. The implementation plan clearly articulates existing heritage services that are resourced and also what are unfunded projects. This is to ensure that when Council is making a decision to adopt the plan it is clear which initiatives are covered by the Strategic resource plan and those which are not. 45 key projects/actions are identified to be implemented over a 16 year period, which includes 4 Council Planning cycles. Of the total proposed 45 actions, 29 of these projects are currently funded under existing project budgets and/or existing staff time; and 16 projects require new operating funding and/or grant/partnership funds to deliver the action.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 327

Of the 45 actions, (coincidently) 16 actions have an ongoing delivery timeframe and are within existing resources (e.g. Council’s Heritage Advisor service that assists Council’s Urban Planners with heritage applications). The remaining 29 actions are not part of ongoing (existing) services and have been allocated a priority of high, medium and low as shown by the financial year(s) for delivery for each project. The approximate cost to implement all the actions identified in the implementation plan requiring new funds is $531,179 (note this figure excludes Council Officer base resources / staff time and projects where a business case process is required to accurately determine/confirm costs). A significant portion of these funds ($220,000) would be required to implement a future planning scheme amendment of the public nomination process that was recently conducted. Business cases and/or external grants, partnerships and in kind support are required to support implementation of the 16 unfunded actions. Council Officers will continue to prepare business cases and funding applications on Council’s behalf in order to support realisation of actions. Importantly, the implementation plan has been drafted so we don’t lose sight of heritage opportunities over a longer term view; by including currently unfunded actions, it factors in that we are open to delivering these actions should resources/budgeting become available down the track. The 16 year term of the draft Plan (i.e. 2017 – 2032) is proposed to align with four Council’s planning cycles. The longer term horizon enables review of progress to the end of each Council term and also adjustments to be made to the implementation plan in line with Council’s planning and budgeting cycles, partnership and grant funding opportunities. Funding for the public consultation of the draft Plan is included in the 2016-2017 resources/budget allocation for City Strategy and Design. 7. Implementation Heritage Action Plan The implementation of the draft Plan will require adoption by Council once finalised to establish future direction on heritage matters. Public consultation of the draft Heritage Plan to be undertaken between February and March 2017 for a period of four weeks. The final draft Plan will be presented to Council for endorsement in mid-2017, following analysis of comments received during public consultation and any refinement of the draft Plan.

Attachment/s 1 Moreland Heritage Action Plan 2017 - 2022 - Public Consultation Version D17/26895

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 328

DED10/17 AMENDMENT C159: NEIGHBOURHOOD CENTRES STRATEGY (D16/414968) Director Planning and Economic Development City Strategy and Design

Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s adoption of Amendment C159 which proposes to implement the Neighbourhood Centres Strategy (NCS) into the Moreland Planning Scheme (MPS). The Amendment has been considered by a Panel and this report responds to the Panel recommendations (Attachment 1) accepting these in part. There are 12 neighbourhood centres throughout Moreland in addition to the three major centres of Brunswick, Coburg and Glenroy. The Amendment seeks to introduce a mandatory four storey height limit in neighbourhood centres to ensure centres retain a neighbourhood village character. It also proposes new side and rear setback standards for residential development up to four storeys to improve the quality of development including streetscapes, provide landscaping opportunities and ensure adequate internal amenity. The Panel found that the Amendment is generally well founded and is strategically justified subject to addressing the more specific issues raised in submissions. The main changes recommended by the Panel are:  Remove the requirement that the 4 storey (13.5 metres) height controls be mandatory.  Introduce a new requirement that the 11 neighbourhood centres have a common 4 storey street wall height with upper level setbacks.  Review built form controls for the larger strategic redevelopment sites (to accommodate potential higher built form than 13.5 metres).  Amend the proposed built form controls for greater upper level setbacks on properties in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ) that adjoin the Residential Growth Zone (RGZ).  Support a provision that requires above-ground car stackers to address noise attenuation.  Not support additional rezonings proposed by Council following the exhibition of the Amendment from the RGZ and General Residential Zone (GRZ) to the NRZ in Brunswick West on the basis they would transform the Amendment.  A number of ‘recommended actions’ (non-formal recommendations) concerning the planning for infrastructure in Neighbourhood Centres. In response to the Panel’s recommendations, Council Officers have made a number of recommendations detailed in Attachment 2 and explained in this report. Key officer recommendations include:  Continue to request mandatory height controls accept for a limited number of strategic redevelopment sites where their size means potential amenity impacts can be addressed. This approach has been successfully applied in numerous other planning schemes.  Not support a common 4 storey street wall.  Introduce increased upper level setbacks to properties immediately adjacent to the Residential Growth Zone (RGZ).  Introduce car stacker provisions into the MSS to apply to all areas. Officers accept that the proposed rezonings from the RGZ and GRZ to the NRZ that Council recommended in response to submissions are transformational and should not be considered as part of this Amendment. Issues about the new residential zones like the ones sought to be addressed should be considered as part of a future review of the new residential zones for which the Minister’s decision is expected sometime this year. This will enable the concerns raised by submitters and supported by Council to be addressed.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 361

In the event the Minister decides not to support a mandatory building height of 4 storeys (13.5 metres), it is recommended that the existing criteria to assess applications exceeding four storeys in Clause 22.01-3 (Neighbourhood Character) of the planning scheme be retained to ensure appropriate built form in line with scale envisaged through the adopted Moreland Activity Centre Framework incorporated into the Moreland Planning Scheme (strategically justified at the time via Amendment C152 when the new MSS was approved by the Minister for Planning in 2015). The next step in the process is to submit the Amendment to the Minister for approval.

Recommendation Council resolves to: 1. Note the findings and recommendations of the Panel appointed to consider Amendment C159 documented in the Panel Report dated 7 November, 2016 and included at Attachment 1. 2. Adopt Amendment C159 to the Moreland Planning Scheme, pursuant to section 29(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, with the recommended changes shown in the response to the Panel recommendations in Attachment 2 and revised amendment documentation included at Attachments 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. 3. Should the Minister decide to not support the mandatory building height of 4 storeys (13.5 metres), the existing criteria to assess applications exceeding four storeys in Clause 22.01-3 (Neighbourhood Character) of the planning scheme be retained (included in Attachment 4). 4. Delegate to the Director Planning and Economic Development the authority to finalise changes to the Moreland Neighbourhood Centres Strategy and Amendment C159 in accordance with Council’s resolution and also to undertake any changes as required to correct errors, grammatical changes and map changes. 5. Submit Amendment C159 with changes to the Minister for Planning for approval, pursuant to section 31(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. 6. Notify all submitters of Council’s resolutions above and of the Minister’s decision on Amendment C159 once confirmed.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 362

REPORT

1. Policy Context A detailed summary of the existing policy context on Neighbourhood Centres was reported to the November 2015 Council Meeting (DED92/15). The Moreland Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) aims to create a series of sustainable neighbourhoods. It encourages housing growth, local retail, commercial uses and community services and facilities in the designated Neighbourhood Centres. Moreland has 12 Neighbourhood Centres in addition to the three Activity Centres of Brunswick, Coburg and Glenroy. State and local planning policy in the Moreland Planning Scheme encourages new development in and around the three large Activity Centres and Neighbourhood Centres. The draft Neighbourhood Centres Strategy (NCS) and Amendment C159 proposes to introduce new controls in 11 of the 12 Neighbourhood Centres to achieve better development outcomes. The planning for the twelfth centre, Coburg Hill (Elizabeth Street) Neighbourhood Centre was completed as part of the Development Plan for the former Kodak site and does not form part of the Amendment. 2. Background The Moreland Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) was introduced into the Moreland Planning Scheme through Amendment C152 in January 2015. The MSS outlines a hierarchy of centres including the three Activity Centres of Brunswick, Coburg and Glenroy and the twelve Neighbourhood Centres. Amendment C159 was prepared to implement the draft NCS into the Moreland Planning Scheme. The purpose of Amendment C159 is to fill a gap in the current planning controls in the Neighbourhood Centres to avoid unwanted development that is greater than 4 storeys, has poor internal amenity, limited space for landscaping and uses poor quality materials. The draft NCS and associated Amendment C159 to the Moreland Planning Scheme were reported to the 11 November 2015 Council Meeting (DED92/15). At this meeting, Council resolved to undertake consultation on the draft NCS concurrently with public exhibition of Amendment C159. The proposed Amendment will affect the type of buildings that can be built in Neighbourhood Centres. The proposed changes to the planning scheme include:  Changes to Clauses 21.02, 21.03 and 21.04 of the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) and Clause 22.01 of the Local Planning Policies.  A new Schedule 24 to the Design and Development Overlay (DDO24) that includes a mandatory building height of up to 4 storeys for properties in the Commercial 1 Zone (C1Z), Mixed Use Zone (MUZ) and the Residential Growth Zone (RGZ) and new front, side and rear setback requirements.  Replacing Schedule 1 to the RGZ where it applies to Neighbourhood Centres with a new Schedule 2 to apply a mandatory building height of up to 4 storeys and new front, side and rear setback requirements.  The rezoning of some sites from the Commercial 2 or Industrial 3 Zone to the Commercial 1 Zone to encourage more shops, offices and houses.  Applying the Environmental Audit Overlay (EAO) to land being rezoned.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 363

The draft NCS and associated Amendment C159 to the Moreland Planning Scheme were publicly exhibited from 4 February to 17 March 2016. Over 12,000 properties were notified of the Amendment and seven community information sessions attended by approximately 265 people were held. A total of 124 submissions were received. In response to submissions, Council resolved at the June 2016 Council meeting (DED40/16) to undertake additional rezonings and notify affected land and adjoining sites with submissions to be presented directly to the independent Panel. The areas to be rezoned were as follows:  In the Grantham Street Neighbourhood Centre Union Street properties east of O'Grady on the north side of Union Street and east of Millward Street on the south side of Union Street be rezoned from Residential Growth Zone (RGZ) to Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ).  In the Grantham Street Neighbourhood Centre properties that face NRZ on the west side of Millward Street to be rezoned from RGZ to General Residential Zone (GRZ).  In the Melville and Albion Street Neighbourhood Centre properties on the west side of Burnell Street) to be rezoned from GRZ to NRZ. A further 18 submissions were received in response to the additional notice on the proposed rezonings. Public exhibition of the draft NCS and Amendment C159 was undertaken from 4 February to 17 March 2016. Consultation processes are outlined in section 4 of this report. A total of 124 submissions were received following exhibition of the Amendment. At the June 2016 Council meeting, Council resolved to:  Note the summary of submissions received in response to the exhibition;  Endorse the response to submissions outlined in the Council report to form the basis of Council's submission to a Panel;  Endorse the proposed changes to the Design and Development Overlay (Schedule 24) and the Residential Growth Zone (Schedule 2) in response to submissions;  After consideration of the submissions received propose to implement the zone changes outlined above and provide additional notices to affected land and adjoining sites with submissions to be presented directly to the independent Panel;  Request the Minister for Planning appoint an independent Panel in accordance with Part 8 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to consider submissions to Amendment C159; and  Provide the Director of Planning and Economic Development delegated authority to make any further changes to the response to submissions, draft Neighbourhood Centres Strategy, background report and Amendment C159 that may be required as part of making Council's submission to the Panel. The Panel hearing was held at Planning Panels Victoria between 23 August and 6 September 2016 and the Panel report submitted its report to Council on 7 November 2016. The report was made publicly available on 25 November 2016.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 364

3. Issues The Panel report provides detailed consideration of issues raised by submitters and recommends that the Amendment be adopted subject to a series of recommended changes. The table at Attachment 2 provides a detailed Council Officer response to each of the Panel recommendations. A review of the recommendations by Council Officers concludes that some recommendations and conclusions should be supported, partially supported or not supported at all. This issues section of the report provides a discussion of the more significant Panel recommendations and findings and subsequently the Council Officer recommendations in response under the following sub-headings:  Building height, side and rear setbacks and site dimensions  Interface issues  Mandatory heights  Strategic redevelopment sites  Car stackers  Rezonings  5 Lens Street, Coburg North  Additional rezonings in Brunswick West  Sealed Air site at 1126 Sydney Road, Fawkner.  Non formal recommendations  Infrastructure  Traffic and car parking  Public transport. 3.1 Building height, side and rear setbacks and site dimensions The Amendment proposes to introduce a 4 storey (13.5 metres) building height across the 11 neighbourhood centres and to also introduce increased side and rear setbacks for residential development. The Amendment also proposes to introduce minimum lot dimensions of 12 metres x 35 metres for a four storey development. This provision was inserted into the Amendment following exhibition and was based on testing by Council’s Urban Design Unit on the minimum dimensions required for a site to accommodate a 4 storey development. Few submissions expressed concern about the 4 storey (13.5 metres) building height, however there were many submissions opposed to making the height mandatory. The issue of mandatory heights is discussed below. The small number of submissions objecting to the increased side and rear setbacks expressed concern about the streetscape impacts and whether they would in fact improve internal amenity. Panel conclusion and recommendations The Panel found that the proposed 4 storey (13.5 metres) height generally struck the right balance for neighbourhood centres, but did not support making them mandatory. It considered that there is considerable variation between each centre which makes it difficult to justify the same mandatory maximum building height. It stated: While there is strategic justification to apply a discretionary 13.5 metre maximum building height, there is insufficient justification to mandate the height.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 365

In relation to side and rear setbacks, the Panel concluded that they are an important tool to realise the preferred building typologies and character which Council seeks to achieve. The Panel considered Council’s rationale for applying setback provisions provide sufficient justification. The Panel was satisfied that Clause 55 objectives for amenity issues such as daylight, privacy, overshadowing would still apply ‘despite’ the proposed setbacks. It is noted that the side setbacks are minimum and that amenity objectives would continue to be considered as part of the detailed design process. In relation to site dimensions, the Panel noted and accepted Council’s proposed change to include discretionary minimum lot dimensions of 12 metres by 35 metres to accommodate four storey apartment buildings. Council officer response It is pleasing that the Panel supported the proposed building height, side and rear setbacks and site dimensions. These provisions are the major feature of the Amendment. The proposed 13.5 metre height control will ensure neighbourhood centres will provide a low rise scale and intensity of built form commensurate with the role and size of these centres in the overall network of centres. The objectives of the side and rear setbacks are to:  Re-orientate the internal outlook to the front and rear of building and away from the side.  Break down the mass along the street.  Essentially remove the building on the lot boundary, with a side setback that provides the opportunity to plant trees.  Provide increased opportunity for landscaping in RGZ2 areas.  Provide greater separation from dwellings at the rear. In relation to the minimum dimensions to accommodate a four storey development, the Panel proposed that this requirement be discretionary despite appearing to make the provision mandatory in its recommended version of the DDO and RGZ schedules (it would seem this is an error). Council Officers agree the minimum dimensions should be discretionary as there could be proposals that have minor non-compliance but still achieve an acceptable outcome. Even as a discretionary provision it will provide very strong guidance as to the minimum dimensions of a lot that will need to be met for an acceptable 4 storey development. Council officer recommendation  No change to DDO24 and RGZ-2 on these matters other than to clarify the minimum site dimensions are discretionary by inserting the word ‘should’ in DD024 (Attachment 5). 3.2 Interface issues Following exhibition of the Amendment, some submissions were received that raised concern about the interface between the Residential Growth Zone (RGZ) (which allows 4 storey development) and the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ) (which has a mandatory height limit of 2 storeys). This direct interface applies to approximately 76 of the 1,577 properties in RGZ area. Normally the approach is to apply the General Residential Zone (GRZ) that has a direct interface with the NRZ.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 366

In response to these concerns, Council Officers recommended Council consider two options: Option A (More restrictive four storeys) Increase the fourth level setback to a minimum of 6 metres from the front property boundary where RGZ or MUZ is located across the street from NRZ. This would make the top level appear behind the main three storey part of the building facing the street and will be less visible from across the street. Option B (Maximum three storey height) Reduce the mandatory building height to 3 storeys in areas where RGZ or MUZ is located across the street from NRZ. This would emulate the height applied elsewhere in the municipality through the GRZ. In addition, Council Officers recommended adding a new rear setback requirement for a minimum of 8.6 metres from the property boundary above 10.5 metres for properties adjacent to the Neighbourhood Residential Zone. Council officers recommended Option A at the 8 June 2016 meeting but Council made no decision on either option but instead resolved to rezone land to address interface issues. Panel conclusion and recommendations The Panel agreed with Council’s submission and submitters that there needed to be a more suitable interface between the two and four storey built form. A 6-metre setback (Option A) would be well outside the street view line and create the appearance of a three-storey built form from the street. The Panel was satisfied that this change would not transform the Amendment because it responded directly to the Neighbourhood Centres Strategy and the content of DDO24. The Panel did not comment on the change for a minimum of 8.6 metres from the property boundary above 10.5 metres however has included it in its recommended version of the RGZ schedule. Council officer response Council Officers agree with the Panel’s recommendation that Option A will provide a more sensitive interface between the RGZ and NRZ. Council officer recommendation  Insert Option A into DDO24 (under Front setbacks and revised Figure 1) and RGZ-2 (Under section 1 – Minimum street setback) (Attachments 5 and 6).  Insert new rear setback requirement into DDO24 and RGZ2 (under rear setbacks and side and rear setbacks sections respectively) (Attachments 5 and 6). 3.3 Mandatory heights Council submitted to the Panel that the mandatory height of 13.5 metres (4 storeys) should be supported because:  The majority of lots are fine grain small in many of the centres and cannot realistically accommodate buildings higher than 4 storeys.  The proposed mandatory building height of four storeys is required to ensure a built form outcome that implements Moreland’s strategic framework to facilitate change commensurate to the scale of the built form within activity centres in accordance with their size and role in the activity centre network.  Existing development trends in which the vast majority of applications in the neighbourhood centres are within the four storey parameter confirms that the proposed mandatory provision will be appropriate to the majority of proposals.  The mandatory provisions will not compromise planning objectives to increase the amount of dwellings and additional retail and floor space in neighbourhood centres.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 367

 Plan Melbourne provides strategic support for the introduction of mandatory controls in neighbourhood centres.  Mandatory provisions will help build community confidence that the built form provisions will achieve their intended outcomes.  There is substantial compliance with Planning Practice Note 59 – The role of mandatory provisions in planning schemes. Panel conclusion and recommendations The Panel was supportive of the 13.5 metre height applying to neighbourhood centres, but did not support the height being mandatory. It stated that: Mandating the height would mean that, regardless of the property’s scale and dimensions, road frontage, location and other attributes, no building in any of the 11 neighbourhood centres could exceed this height. And further: neither the Neighbourhood Centres Strategy, its Background Report or any document supporting the Amendment provides sufficient strategic basis for applying a single mandatory maximum building height to all 11 neighbourhood centres. The Panel finds that the neighbourhood centres vary considerably in scale and characteristics. There was no documented evidence to demonstrate how the mandatory height would protect each centre’s unique character such as heritage, open space or uniform built form. Applying mandatory provisions across 11 different centres without fully understanding the impacts is likely to result in unintended consequences. This is heightened by the mandatory height being applied to all neighbourhood centre land, including sites which have significant property frontage and depth. In supporting discretionary heights, the Panel recommended that Clause 22.01-3 of the LPPF be retained. This clause states: Ensure building height does not exceed four storeys unless it can be demonstrated that:  The prevailing height of surrounding buildings is five or more storeys, in which case the prevailing height should not be exceeded; or  The site is large enough to allow the visual impacts of the development to be mitigated through the design response. In such cases, the building height at the interface with adjoining properties and at street frontages should not exceed four storeys.  Ensure development is designed to provide a suitable transition at interfaces with adjoining zones. This may include a transition in height and/or suitable landscaping.  Encourage contemporary architecture. In addition, the Panel recommended that the Design and Development Overlay include a new provision for a four storey street wall and upper level setback based on a (non-defined) line of sight. It stated: a maximum street wall height would help preserve the fundamental urban design aim of the ‘village’ character from the street, while providing flexibility on sites which could be considered for greater height.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 368

Council officer response Council Officers do not agree with the Panel’s recommendation that rejected the proposed 13.5 metre (4 storey) mandatory height control. The Panel appeared to give little weight to the existing conditions of the neighbourhood centres and the planning analysis that was undertaken for each neighbourhood centre and included in the Neighbourhood Centres Strategy document. This analysis identified Land Use and Activities, Built Form, Access and Movement and Public Spaces. It is noted that other Panels have been more supportive of mandatory heights (or at least a mix of mandatory and discretionary heights) in activity centres, such as:  Darebin C136 (St Georges Road);  Kingston C124 (Mentone Activity Centre); and  Melbourne C190 (Arden-Macaulay) and that there are other planning schemes that contain some mandatory height controls in activity centres, such as:  Boroondara DDO16 (Neighbourhood Centres);  Kingston DDO17 (Parkdale Activity Centre); and  Kingston DDO12 (Highett Activity Centre). Darebin DDO16 (St Georges Road Corridor) contains mandatory height requirements (though there is a range of maximum height controls). It is considered that the Panel placed too much emphasis on the Planning Practice Note on Mandatory Provisions (PPN59) and not on Plan Melbourne, particularly given the action in Plan Melbourne to: Update the practice note and prepare and implement planning tools to support local governments to introduce mandatory building height and local-character controls in neighbourhood centres. Further, Plan Melbourne is an adopted Government planning policy that is part of the Victoria Planning Provisions whilst the Practice Note is merely a guideline. However, Council officers consider that to address the Panel’s concerns it would be appropriate to apply discretionary heights for strategic redevelopment sites in neighbourhood centres. Such sites are larger sites where the impacts of higher built form can be addressed to reduce potential amenity impacts. Discussion on strategic redevelopment sites is provided in section 3.4 of this report. The Panel recommendation that the DDO include a discretionary 4 storey street wall and upper level setback based on a (non-defined) line of sight was made despite there being no urban design analysis that addressed the appropriateness of a common four storey street wall height. Moreover, the Panel’s suggested approach that a four storey street wall was sufficient to preserve a ‘village’ type character was not supported by any Panel guidance as to what height may be acceptable above the street wall. Council Officers consider this extremely problematic as it will lead to major unintended consequences in terms of inappropriate built form being supported in the neighbourhood centres. If the criterion was simply to achieve a certain a line of sight it would be anticipated that any height would be acceptable. From Council’s perspective, this could undermine the role of neighbourhood centres to play a more limited role in meeting population and dwelling growth (compared to the three large activity centres) and compromise the already adopted Strategic Planning Framework built form hierarchy of 10 storeys for the large activity centres and 4 storeys for the 11 neighbourhood centres. Indeed, adoption of this recommendation by the Panel is considered to be transformational and not in line with the strategic basis of current provisions of the Moreland Planning Scheme nor the strategic basis for Amendment C159.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 369

Should the Minister not support mandatory heights, it is considered that the existing criteria in Clause 22.01-3 (Neighbourhood Character) in the planning scheme that guides discretion for development more than four storeys must be retained. The Amendment proposed its deletion because of mandatory heights, however Council Officers recommend it’s reinstatement as follows (should the recommended mandatory height provisions not be supported by Minister for Planning): Ensure building height does not exceed four storeys unless it can be demonstrated that:  The prevailing height of surrounding buildings is five or more storeys, in which case the prevailing height should not be exceeded; or  The site is large enough to allow the visual impacts of the development to be mitigated through the design response. In such cases, the building height at the interface with adjoining properties and at street frontages should not exceed four storeys.  Ensure development is designed to provide a suitable transition at interfaces with adjoining zones. This may include a transition in height and/or suitable landscaping.  Encourage contemporary architecture. Council officer recommendation  Retain mandatory height requirements in DDO24 and RGZ2 (Attachments 5 and 6).  Retain the criteria in Clause 22.01 to assess proposals that exceed preferred four storey height if Minister does not support mandatory heights. (Refer to Attachment 4). 3.4 Strategic redevelopment sites Strategic redevelopment sites are larger sites that can accommodate greater development due to their size. Clause 16.01-3 of the State Planning Policy Framework states that a strategic redevelopment site should be located close to services and accommodate more than 10 dwellings. However, strategic redevelopment sites normally accommodate much larger developments. Panel conclusion and recommendations The Panel stated that it was common for a Council to have tailored planning provisions for strategic redevelopment sites because they generally require a different planning approach to other properties. This was especially relevant when mandatory maximum building heights are proposed to all land in every neighbourhood centre. It stated: The Panel is not sure why Council abandoned its original and sensible approach to consider strategic redevelopment sites differently to other properties. The Panel considered all submissions about this matter to find practical and logical reasons to apply a mandatory maximum building height of 13.5 metres to these sites – it could not find any. The Panel recommended that Council should identify strategic redevelopment sites in the neighbourhood centres and that translating the generic mandatory maximum building height in the 11 neighbourhood into a discretionary height would:  Allow strategic sites to be considered for greater height, if they can continue meet the necessary policy and objectives.  Provide the flexibility that removes the need to specially recognise such sites in the planning provisions that strategic redevelopment sites should not be included in the DDO or RGZ schedules and applications for permits can be appropriately considered through the planning permit application process.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 370

Council officer response Due to their size, strategic redevelopment sites can resolve off-site amenity impacts of height by scaling down at site boundaries. A comprehensive redevelopment approach for these sites also provides opportunities for public realm improvements such as new pedestrian linkages and new public spaces which would otherwise require public (rates) expenditure. The five key redevelopment sites identified in the first draft of the Neighbourhood Centres Strategy were:  Grantham/Union Streets, West Brunswick Neighbourhood Centre: Union Square Shopping Centre, 190 Union Street, Brunswick West  Bell Street/Melville Road, Pascoe Vale South Neighbourhood Centre: 498-514 Bell Street and 2-4 Wills Street Pascoe Vale South  West Street, Hadfield Neighbourhood Centre: 10-20 Geum Street, Hadfield  Gaffney Street/Pascoe Vale Station Neighbourhood Centre: 12-14 Railway Parade, 3-5 Heath Street and 19 Fawkner Road, Pascoe Vale  Nicholson Street/Holmes Street/Moreland Road, Coburg Neighbourhood Centre: 44-104 Holmes Street, 148 and 121 Donald Street, 42-50 Moreland Road and 21-23 Sturrock Street, Brunswick East. It is recommended that the Neighbourhood Centres Strategy provide more flexibility than originally proposed and that key redevelopment sites be defined as sites 2,000 square metres or greater. This recommendation is made on the basis that:  A site of 2,000 square metres is defined as a large site in the Neighbourhood Centres Strategy and the Moreland Apartment Design Code (MADC);  A site of 2,000 square or greater provides greater flexibility to achieve good design outcomes and provide opportunities to ameliorate impacts to surrounding properties; and  Discretionary heights applying to sites 2,000 square metres or greater will provide an incentive for lot consolidation. Larger sites provide more design flexibility and improved scope to address potential amenity impacts. However, in recommending a discretionary approach for strategic sites Council Officers also recommended that the following criteria be applied to provide further guidance for these sites and be inserted Clause 22.01 (Neighbourhood character policy):  The development should not exceed 6 storeys.  The visual impacts of the development are mitigated through the design response. The development should be designed to scale down at property boundaries and upper levels above four storeys should be visually recessive and set back from the street edge to ensure lower levels remain the distinct element in the streetscape.  Development above the street wall avoids a continuous wall of built form.  The development is of an exemplary quality design (i.e. substantially superior to an acceptable design), particularly with regard to buildings external presentation and ground level public realm interfaces.  The proposed heights are adequately justified by a comprehensive Urban Context Report.  If designated ‘Category 2 – Employment’ in the Moreland Industrial Land Strategy (MILS), the employment floorspace requirements of the MILS must be met to Council’s satisfaction.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 371

Council Officer Recommendation  Insert new provision in Clause 22.01 in relation to Strategic Redevelopment sites as outlined above and also include a provision in the DDO24 and RGZ2 schedule that mandatory heights do not apply to strategic redevelopment sites. (Refer to Attachment 4, 5 and 6).  Amend the Neighbourhood Centres Strategy Reference Document to clarify a mandatory maximum building height of 13.5 metres doesn’t apply to strategic redevelopment sites (shown in Attachment 7). 3.5 Car Stackers Concern about the amenity impacts of above ground car stackers was raised in submissions. Panel Conclusions and Recommendations The Panel made the following conclusions:  Car stackers may affect the amenity of surrounding residents if not designed to be suitably buffered from adjoining dwellings.  Including additional design guidance in the Neighbourhood Centres Strategy and a new requirement in DDO24 would ensure that each relevant permit application specially considers car stackers. Council Officer Response At the December 2016 Council meeting (GB/58/16), Council made a number of resolutions regarding the development of a local policy and laws about the use and operation of car stackers). There will be a separate report on these matters to a future Council meeting. The Panel’s recommendation is supported. However, Council Officers consider that rather than include the provision in DD024 (which only applies to neighbourhood centres), it should be inserted into Clause 21.03-4 of the MSS (Urban Design, Built Form and Landscape Design) so that it applies across the municipality. It also considered that the provision should be amended to refer to above ground stackers and that the purpose of seeking a buffer is to reduce noise impacts. Council officers recommendation Insert the provision requiring applicants to consider the impacts of above ground car stackers into Clause 21.03-4 of the MSS (shown at Attachment 3). 3.6 Rezonings 3.6.1: 5 Lens Street, Coburg North This site is part of the new Coles development at the corner of Gaffney and Sussex Street. Coles purchased the site after the planning scheme amendment was approved that facilitated the supermarket development. It is in the Industrial 3 Zone which prohibits the use of the land for a car park associated with a commercial use. Coles does however have a planning permit to use the site for delivery pick up for purchases made on line. Panel conclusions and recommendations The Panel made the following conclusions:  Rezoning 5 Lens Street to the C2Z to legitimise an existing car park is a logical inclusion and would help implement the Neighbourhood Centres Strategy.  This rezoning should form part of the Amendment unless an amendment that addresses planning scheme anomalies is likely to be introduced first. It therefore recommended rezoning the site to the Commercial 2 Zone as part of Amendment C159.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 372

Council officer response This recommendation is supported. The site is identified in the Neighbourhood Centres Strategy as a Focus Area of Change. Evidence was provided to the Panel showing the high demand for parking at this site. The site will provide an additional 22 car parking spaces. Council officer recommendation Rezone 5 Lens Street, Coburg North to Commercial 2 as part of this Amendment. 3.6.2: Additional residential rezonings in Brunswick West Council resolved on 8 June 2016 to rezone a number of properties from the Residential Growth Zone (RGZ) and General Residential Zone (GRZ) to the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ). These sites are identified in section 2 of this report. Panel conclusions and recommendations The Panel reached the following conclusions:  The post-exhibition residential zone changes are not founded on necessary strategic justification and would transform the Amendment beyond its intended purpose.  Rezoning land in the neighbourhood centre to NRZ would automatically remove the land from the centre, resulting in capacity issues.  The post-exhibition residential zone changes should not be included in the Amendment. Council officer response The Panel’s conclusions on the additional rezonings is consistent with Council Officer advice provided to Council in the June 2016 Council report that the rezonings would transform the Amendment. Any review of the implementation of the new residential zones should occur after any Ministerial decisions on the implementation of the new residential zones. The Minister received an advisory committee report last July however has yet to release the report or make any announcement about potential changes to the zones, or the process to implement any changes to the zones. The findings of the report are expected sometime this year and will provide Council another opportunity to revisit these rezonings and enable appropriate strategic justification at that time. Council officer recommendation  Not proceed with the additional changes to rezone the Brunswick West sites as part of this Amendment. 3.7 Sealed Air site at 1126 Sydney Road, Fawkner Sealed Air is a major manufacturer and company representatives approached Council officers about the potential for redeveloping the site that would include establishing both Sealed Air’s Australian headquarters and a supermarket and speciality shops. Sealed Air made submissions that the site should be identified as a neighbourhood centre in the Moreland Activity Centre Framework that would accommodate a supermarket.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 373

Panel conclusions and recommendations The Panel reached the following conclusions:  The Moreland Activity Centre Framework and Mr Dimasi’s evidence identify a need for a new supermarket in Fawkner.  The existing undersupply of supermarket floorspace in Fawkner is resulting in retail expenditure being spent outside the Moreland municipality.  It is unlikely that an existing neighbourhood centre in Fawkner could assemble sufficient land to provide a supermarket that meets the needs of its local population.  A new neighbourhood centre in Fawkner is considered an appropriate strategic response for expanding local convenience retailing in that locality. The Panel recommended that Council clarify in the Moreland Activity Centre Framework and Neighbourhood Centres Strategy that a new neighbourhood centre is considered an appropriate strategic response for expanding local convenience retailing in the southern part of Fawkner. Council officer response The Panel’s conclusions are supported. A separate planning scheme amendment will need to be requested by proponents for the Sealed Air site to identify the site as a neighbourhood centre in the MSS and for any rezonings to facilitate a commercial development. Proponents for the Sealed Air will also need to prepare an Urban Design Framework for the site and surrounds that will inform a Design and Development Overlay that sets out heights, setbacks, landscaping, access and movement as well as integration with the surrounding area. Council’s Urban Design Branch is currently developing urban design principles that will help inform a design response (i.e. preparation of Urban Design Framework) to ensure a high quality and integrated development outcome for the site. The Panel’s recommendation to clarify that a new neighbourhood centre is considered an appropriate strategic response for expanding local convenience retailing in the southern part of Fawkner is supported. Council officers recommendation  Amend the Neighbourhood Centres Strategy Reference Document to clarify that a new neighbourhood centre is considered an appropriate strategic response for expanding local convenience retailing in the southern part of Fawkner (as shown in Attachment 7. 3.8 Non-formal panel recommendations Council is not obliged to implement the Panel’s non formal recommendations on infrastructure, traffic and car parking because they are advisory only. In any case, Council is already pursing a long-term, comprehensive approach to providing and funding infrastructure through its 10 year capital works program, the Development Contributions Plan and public open space contributions. 3.8.1: Infrastructure There were a number of submissions that expressed concern whether existing physical and social infrastructure have the capacity, or ability to be expanded, to support the needs of the future population in each neighbourhood centre. Panel conclusion and recommendations The Panel accepted Council’s premise that focussing growth into the neighbourhood centres would ensure existing infrastructure is used more efficiently. The subsequent net benefits to flow to Council from this would be a comparative increase in rate revenue with relatively less expenditure. It concluded that:

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 374

 Existing policies provide sound strategic direction to meet its infrastructure challenges in the neighbourhood centres, but how these policies translate into effective capital works projects and infrastructure outcomes will be Council’s key measurement of success.  There is insufficient information to conclude whether there will be adequate physical and social infrastructure to support the future development of the neighbourhood centres. It therefore made a number of ‘non-formal’ recommendations:  Council develop a substantive strategic response to the provision of non-Council funded infrastructure, beyond advocacy, that at the least identifies major infrastructure capacity constraints and opportunities for each neighbourhood centre.  Council improve its suite of capital works documents to more comprehensively identify specific infrastructure projects and project estimates (including social), identify the capital funding needed to deliver the program rather than specifying notional totals, and remove maintenance and replacement works, unless increasing capacity.  Council include an infrastructure map in the Neighbourhood Centres Strategy to help clarify which projects are committed through the Capital Works Program and the Development Contributions Plan. Council officer response Council Officers made comprehensive submissions to the Panel on infrastructure issues. This included a presentation by Council’s Manager of Strategic Transport. Unfortunately this does not seem to have been recognised by the Panel as Council’s Manager of Strategic Transport was not included in Appendix B of the Panel report (Parties to the Panel Hearing). The Panel was provided with an overview of Council’s public infrastructure investments through its Capital Works Program, the Development Contributions Plan (DCP) and Public Open Space Contributions. Further, a list of the capital works projects to be undertaken in the neighbourhood centres was also provided. It is unclear why the Panel provided detailed analysis on infrastructure issues when the Amendment is not proposing a change to the Moreland Activity Centre Framework (MACF). The MACF was approved as part of Amendment C152 when the new Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) was approved by the Minister in January 2015 and was appropriately strategically justified at that time. In addition, many of the infrastructure items raised by the Panel are the responsibility of State Government agencies and Council has limited influence in determining how these agencies allocate their resources despite the strong advocacy Council has been pursuing on these issues. Much of the infrastructure demands are the result of the State Government’s support for strong population growth and there has been a long-standing concern by many Councils that the State Government is not adequately planning and funding for the infrastructure needed to support the rapid growth. It is somewhat curious that the Panel expressed concerns about the infrastructure constraints in neighbourhood centres but one of the reasons given to not support mandatory heights is to maximise the development opportunities to meet population and housing demands.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 375

There is no obligation on Council to implement the Panel’s non-formal recommendations on this matter because they are advisory only and should not have been included in the Panel’s report. Irrespective, Council has a long-term, comprehensive approach to planning for the infrastructure through its 10 year capital works program and has taken the opportunity to raise additional revenue through the DCP and open space levy. It has also been a strong advocate on improving State infrastructure, particularly in relation to public transport. Council officer recommendation No change to the Amendment other than as originally recommended to include an infrastructure map in the Neighbourhood Centres Strategy to help clarify which projects are committed through the Capital Works Program and the Development Contributions Plan. This information is yet to be inserted into the updated Neighbourhood Centres Strategy updated reference document but will be done so before the Amendment is submitted to the Minister. 3.8.2: Traffic and car parking There were a number of submissions that expressed concern about traffic congestion and lack of car parking. The Panel observed during its site inspections that a number of neighbourhood centres already experience considerable congestion and that car parking appears to be near or at capacity, especially near railway stations. The Panel requested that VicRoads make a submission however they declined to do so. Panel conclusions and recommendations The Panel concluded:  Council’s Moreland Integrated Transport Strategy (MITS - 2010-2019), its associated strategies and its Parking Management policy provide a sound and appropriate base to manage traffic congestion and parking challenges.  There are existing traffic and car parking issues in several neighbourhood centres that growth will only exacerbate, however there is insufficient information to conclude the extent of the impact the Amendment will have on traffic congestion and car parking issues.  Commuter car parking particularly in the vicinity of the railway stations is at or near capacity which will become a bigger issue as growth occurs in the neighbourhood centres. Council officer response Similar to the issues raised about infrastructure, it is not clear why the Panel provided detailed analysis on traffic and car parking issues when the Amendment is not proposing a change to the Moreland Activity Centre Framework (MACF). Despite the Panel’s commendation of MITS and Parking Management policy, it appears the Panel is not convinced that encouragement to sustainable transport modes will be adequate to address traffic congestion and car parking demands. As the Panel noted, the required infrastructure will need to be funded by non-Council sources. There is no obligation on Council to implement the Panel’s non-formal recommendations on this matter because they are advisory only. In any case, Council has adopted a strategic approach on transport matters through MITS and the Parking Management Policy. As noted above, it has also been a strong advocate on improving State infrastructure, particularly in relation to public transport.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 376

Council officer recommendation No change to the Amendment other than as originally recommended to include an infrastructure map in the Neighbourhood Centres Strategy to help clarify which projects are committed through the Capital Works Program and the Development Contributions Plan. 3.8.3 Public transport Public Transport Victoria (PTV) made a submission to the Panel that increased density will help justify State investment in priority and capacity improvements. It opposed mandatory heights because it would limit residential growth opportunities in some areas well serviced by public transport. A number of submitters also expressed concern about public transport services already being at capacity. Panel conclusions and recommendations The Panel reached the following conclusions:  Mandating maximum building heights in the eight neighbourhood centres identified by PTV may, to some extent, adversely impact the ability to justify further public transport service investment.  Conversely, existing public transport capacity issues on some routes may adversely impact the ability to implement the Neighbourhood Centres Strategy.  The Panel has already concluded that mandatory maximum building height is not appropriate or strategically justified for the 11 neighbourhood centres. Council officer response It appears PTV’s approach to seek funding from the State Government to improve public transport services is to argue for more funding in response to existing demand for their services. This can be contrasted to an approach which undertakes a long-term plan that predicts future demand and identifies long-term funding needs. It is interesting to note that Victoria’s 30 Year Infrastructure Strategy released in November 2016 includes guiding principles to integrate land use planning and infrastructure planning and to promote responsible funding and financing. It is curious that a State Government agency would use a local planning scheme amendment to argue for increased density so they can receive more funding. This approach does not take into account the more limited role neighbourhood centres play in meeting population and dwelling projections in Moreland’s Activity Centre Framework. Further, whether heights are mandatory or discretionary should not result in a significant difference in density because proposals above preferred height would still need to meet neighbourhood character built form objectives necessarily requiring them to be low rise. Council Officers recommendation to allow for buildings higher than 4 storeys on strategic redevelopment sites should go some way in addressing PTV’s submission. Council officer recommendation As per Council Officer recommendation for item 3.4 in this report. Human Rights Consideration The implications of this report have been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 377

4. Consultation Consultation on the draft NCS and public exhibition of Amendment C159 was undertaken concurrently from 4 February to 17 March 2016. Consultation was supported by:  Letters and Information Sheets sent to all affected property owners and businesses, as well as residents who live close to Neighbourhood Centres (approximately 12,050 letters).  Notices in the Victoria Government Gazette and Moreland Leader newspaper.  A project website where people can search their property address to understand how they are affected. The website was accessed approximately 1300 times.  Seven public information sessions were held at:  Holmes Street/Nicholson Street/Moreland Road, Brunswick East  Gaffney Street/Sussex Street, Coburg North; Gaffney Street/Pascoe Vale Station, Pascoe Vale; and Snell Grove, Oak Park  Moreland Road/ Melville Road and Bell Street/Melville Road, Brunswick West  Grantham Street/Union Street and Melville Road/Albion Street/Victoria Street, Brunswick West  West Street, Hadfield  Merlynston Station, Merlynston  Bonwick Street, Fawkner. Attendance at these sessions varied from 7 community members attending the Holmes/Nicholson/Moreland Road session versus the Grantham Street/Union Street and Melville Road/Albion/Victoria Street, Brunswick West session, which had over 110 attendees.  Council staff meeting with members of the public when requested. Three meetings were held, including the Union Street residents, which were attended by 11 people. Notice of the additional residential rezonings in Brunswick West was sent to all land- owners and adjoining landowners. These involved 506 properties. Councillors have been consulted throughout the preparation of the draft NCS and Amendment C159. The Panel hearing provided a further opportunity for submitters to have their issues considered. The Panel hearing was conducted over six and a half days. All submitters have been notified of the timing of this report. 5. Officer Declaration of Conflict of Interest Council Officers involved in the preparation of this report have no Conflict of Interest in this matter. 6. Financial and Resources Implications A total budget of $175,000 was allocated in the 2015-2016 budget. Approximately $70,000 was spent in 2015-2016 and $100,000 was carried over to 2016-2017. The main costs expended in 2015-2016 on the Strategy and Amendment have been the production of documents (including graphic design, artist impressions and printing), public notification and community consultation. The Panel costs were $60,000. The remaining budget will be spent on finalising the relevant documents and paying the fee for requesting Ministerial approval of the Amendment.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 378

A letter has been sent to Planning Panels Victoria questioning why the Panel made these non-formal recommendations when they were not directly relevant to the purpose of the amendment and why it recommended the introduction of a common street wall height in neighbourhood centres when there has been no strategic analysis to justify this change and that such a change would transform the amendment. The letter also queries the Panel costs which are higher than expected. A response has not been received at the time of writing this report. 7. Implementation Should Council adopt the Amendment the next step in the process is to submit the Amendment to the Minister for Planning for approval (known as Decision Gateway 3) Under Ministerial Direction 15 the Minister should make a decision within 40 days of receipt of the request for approval. However, Council’s experience is that it takes anywhere between six months and two years before decisions are made on major amendments.

Attachment/s 1 Panel report - Amendment C159 D16/380074 2 Officers response to Panel recommendations - Amendment C159 Panel D17/18493 report 3 Clause 21.03 - Post Panel version - Amendment C159 D17/18498 4 Clause 22.01 - Post Panel version - Amendment C159 D17/18508 5 DD024 - Post Panel version - Amendment C159 D17/19561 6 RGZ2 - Post Panel version - Amendment C159 D17/19575 7 Neighbourhood Centres Framework Reference Document - Post Panel D17/19692 version

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 379

DED11/17 LEVEL CROSSING REMOVAL PROJECTS IN MORELAND - AN UPDATE (D16/437083) Director Planning and Economic Development Places

Executive Summary This report updates Council on the progress being made in relation to Council Action Plan Item 27 action:  advocate with the State Government and the Level Crossing Removal Authority (LXRA) charged with the delivery of all grade separation projects and seeks endorsement of a set of principles and place specific outcomes which will form the basis of Council’s advocacy to the LXRA. This report also responds to Council General Business items GB54/16 and GB55/16 from the November 2016 Council meeting which called for reports in relation to advocacy for the Camp Road, Campbellfield crossing in the City Of Hume (immediately north of Fawkner); and clarification on the methods of community engagement the LXRA will likely use in Moreland. Following the State Government elections the Victorian Government announced its intention to remove 50 level crossings across Melbourne, and established the LXRA to deliver these projects. In September 2016 details of 11 crossing removals were announced which included three within Moreland:  Glenroy Road, Glenroy;  Bell Street, Coburg; and  Moreland Road, Brunswick. These projects are very significant State investments and have the potential to be very positive ‘place shapers’ for Moreland. These are welcome projects after many years of Council-led advocacy to prioritise removal of level crossings in Moreland. Each of these projects are within our Activity Centres where Council has strong policy positions through endorsed Structure Plans, to encourage growth and to make great places for people. Specifically, Council’s current plans envisage rail tunnels solutions. Each of the three level crossing projects are at early planning stages, and the LXRA are still in the process of procuring a design and build ‘alliance partner’ for the northern group of level crossing removal projects (which include six projects outside the City of Moreland). The LXRA have scoped a number of high level options for each project, however no ‘solution’ has yet been decided upon. This report sets out the LXRA’s process and timeframes around the three level crossing removals proposed in the City of Moreland. Council’s role is to advocate to the LXRA to seek the best possible urban design outcomes. The principles and place specific outcomes outlined in this report will form the basis of Council’s advocacy to the LXRA. Council can also assist the community to be informed and engaged in a conversation with the LXRA about the projects by ensuring any relevant information and opportunities to be involved are available on the Moreland website.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 593

Recommendation Council resolves to: 1. Endorse the principles and place specific outcomes set out in this report to guide Council’s negotiations with the Level Crossing Removal Authority and State Government agencies, to achieve optimal outcomes for the community. 2. Note that Officers will continue to proactively engage with the Level Crossing Removal Authority throughout their consultation and planning for level crossing removal projects in Moreland, in order to optimise community benefits.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 594

REPORT

1. Policy Context The three nominated level crossing removals in the City of Moreland are within the Activity Centres of Brunswick, Coburg and Glenroy. As such, the aspirations of Council are described within the relevant Structure Plans, which are  Brunswick Structure Plan (2016)  Coburg Structure Plan (2016) and Place Framework (2010)  Glenroy Structure Plan (2008) Coburg and Glenroy Structure Plans envisage a rail tunnel removing the level crossing, and the Brunswick Structure Plan does not directly anticipate level crossing removals. Ensuring good place outcomes for each level crossing removal project is also an action within Council’s Action Plan 2017-2018 (CAP item no. 27). 2. Background The State Government has announced its intention to remove 50 level crossings across Melbourne, and has established the Level Crossing Removal Authority (LXRA) to deliver these projects. Within the City of Moreland, three level crossing removals are proposed, these are:  Glenroy Road, Glenroy  Bell Street, Coburg  Moreland Road, Brunswick. Each of these projects will also involve redevelopment of the relevant train station. Over the last year, a number of level crossings have been delivered across Melbourne. This provides Council and the community the advantage of being able to review what has happened and the possibilities for level crossing removal projects within the City of Moreland. 3. Issues LXRA’s timeframes for project delivery Each of the three level crossing projects in Moreland are at early planning stage, and the LXRA are still in the process of procuring a design and build ‘alliance partner’ for the northern group of level crossing removal projects. It is expected that the Glenroy Road level crossing removal will be first in the City of Moreland. Formal community consultation on the Glenroy proposal will likely take place in mid-2017, with a view to commencing the project in 2018. It is likely that consultation on the level crossing removals on Bell Street and Moreland Road will take place later in 2017. The Camp Road, Campbellfield level crossing removal (outside Moreland) is further advanced, with LXRA’s preferred design being a rail trench under Camp Road. The LXRA has announced community information sessions on the Camp Road project on 6 and 11 February 2017.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 595

Council’s role in ensuring good outcomes The level crossing removal projects are funded and delivered by the State Government through the LXRA. As such, Council does not have a direct decision making role in the projects. However, Council does have a number of important roles to play in these projects which are:  Providing the community with information about the LXRA process, timing and what is proposed and what influence the community can have over the projects.  Advocating for a design outcome that aligns with Council’s existing strategic plans and programs. For example, ensuring that Council’s priority for a tunnel solution is given due consideration by the LXRA and plans for bike path extensions are fully integrated into t designs.  Ensuring a clear Council position is strongly advocated for with LXRA. Options available Following conversations with LXRA officers, and review of other level crossing removal projects across Melbourne, the options likely to be considered by the LXRA are as follows:  Rail under road (rail trench)  Rail over road (elevated rail)  Some form of hybrid of the two (dependent on specific site circumstances) A ‘rail tunnel’ option as preferred by Council’s strategic plans for Coburg and Glenroy does not appear to be part of the LXRA’s design options for any level crossing removal sites at this stage. It is understood that this is primarily due to the financial cost of rail tunnels – Melbourne Metro Rail Tunnel is estimated to cost $1billion per kilometre. The Coburg Place Framework and Glenroy Structure Plan both identify a ‘rail tunnel’ option as the preferred solution. This option should continue to be advocated for at this stage in the LXRA’s process. However, given this option may not be entertained by the LXRA, it is considered prudent for Council to also explore the pros and cons of alternative options in conjunction with the LXRA and the community. Design principles and place specific outcomes In order to facilitate good outcomes across the Moreland level crossing projects, it is recommended that Council endorse the following high level principles and place specific outcomes to form the basis of Council Officers’ advocacy to the LXRA. Following the LXRA’s public consultation, Council may wish to refine these principles and place specific outcomes for each level crossing removal project. Local identity Each project should seek to enhance local identity through design, materials, public art and a celebration of local distinctiveness. Place integration Each project should seek to integrate with and enhance the surrounding activity centre. In relation to the Upfield line, Council should advocate for a ‘whole of line’ response, as the Upfield line is designated as a significant growth corridor for the metropolitan area. Increased activity Each project should seek to enhance activity around each new station precinct. This will involve creation of quality, safe public spaces and potential commercial and community opportunities, consistent with the relevant Structure Plan. In the event that elevated rail becomes the LXRA preferred option, seek the creation of open space under the rail line.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 596

Greening and sustainability Each project should integrate best practice sustainability in design and delivery. Trees should be retained where possible. Significant planting for amenity and shading should be provided. If retention of trees and planting is not feasible within project boundaries, offset tree planting within the relevant Activity Centre should be provided for. Connectivity Each project should integrate pedestrian, bike and bus connectivity in and around the new station precinct and across the rail line. Universal accessibility should be provided for. Minimise impacts on adjoining properties Each project should minimise negative impact on adjoining properties in terms of noise and visual impact. Whole of life management and maintenance Council will be a key stakeholder in the long term management and maintenance of new public spaces created through the level crossing removal projects. Ensuring a whole of life approach to sustainable management and funding of maintenance is a central concern of Council. The following place specific outcomes for each level crossing project should also be advocated for: Glenroy  Consider a rail tunnel as identified in the Glenroy Structure Plan, maximising opportunities for new mixed use development and potentially commuter car parking over the rail line.  Create an expanded ‘green’ station forecourt, or new public space, which fronts Glenroy Road – ‘the heart of Glenroy’.  The north-south shared bike and pedestrian path should be accommodated in the project.  High quality bike and pedestrian crossings at Post Office Place, Glenroy Road and Blucher Street should be included.  A tree planting program for central Glenroy should be identified if there is a need to remove existing trees. Coburg  Consider a rail tunnel as identified in the Coburg Structure Plan and Place Framework, maximising opportunities for new mixed use development over the rail line.  Maximise the number of level crossings removed as part of the project, including consideration of other key traffic circulation streets within the activity centre such as Gaffney, O’Hea and Munro Streets.  Retain the key east-west traffic and pedestrian link across the rail line at Munro Street. This is a key traffic circulation street in central Coburg.  Ensure urban intensification plans and value uplift opportunities in central Coburg are considered and accommodated.  Ensure the Upfield shared path is improved and enhanced as part of the project.  Ensure the heritage values of the station are integrated into the project

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 597

Moreland Road  Ensure the Upfield shared path is improved and enhanced as part of the project.  Ensure consideration of ‘whole of line’ solutions through Coburg and Brunswick are adequately considered. Bell Street and Moreland Road should be considered as one project at the very least.  Ensure the heritage values of the precinct and Gandolfo Gardens are integrated into the project. Upfield bike path and cycling infrastructure General Business item GB54/16 called for a report on advocacy to the State Government and level crossing authority for incorporating cycling infrastructure into the plans for the level crossing removal at Camp Road, Campbellfield incorporating:  A facility for cyclists to cross Sydney Road from Fawkner and to extend the Upfield shared path from Box Forest Road to the Western Ring Road (M80).  To establish a shared user path along the railway bridge that crosses the Western Ring Road (M80). Council has endorsed a plan to complete the Upfield cycle path as far as the M80 (boundary of City of Moreland) and officers continue to work with VicRoads to this end. This plan has informed officer discussions with the LXRA. The LXRA has informed Council officers that the Camp Road level crossing removal project is making provision for a shared user path adjoining the rail bridge crossing over the M80. This aligns with Council’s plans for a shared user path as far as the M80. Incorporating a cyclist crossing facility on Sydney Road is the responsibility of VicRoads and Council, and is outside the remit of the level crossing project at Camp Road. There are six existing pedestrian crossings on Sydney Road between Lorne Street and Box Forest Road. Council is working to improve cycle access from Fawkner to the Upfield Shared Path, investigating making the current footpath a shared path on the western side of Sydney Road. This will allow cyclists to travel along a shared path to cross Sydney Road at one of the signalised crossings to then connect to the Upfield bike path. Community engagement General Business item GB55/16 calls for a report on level crossing removals in Moreland in terms of the likely methods to be used and the likely community engagement program. Officers have sought clarification from the LXRA in this regard. Council can play a role to provide the community with information about what is proposed by the LXRA and opportunities for the community to have a say on the projects. The level crossing removal projects are high profile and have already elicited significant community interest. Test drilling at the three sites has been ongoing since October 2016. A number of community based groups, as well as general residents, have expressed an interest in the projects, these groups include:  Friends of Upfield Linear Park  Glenroy Rotary Club  Moreland Bike User Group  Upfield Urban Forest Group  Brunswick Residents Network  Living Streets Coburg From a review of public engagement on existing level crossing removal projects, it can be expected that the LXRA will deliver an engagement program for each project which will include letter writing, on-site community listening posts, community billboards, trader workshops, online interactive feedback and newsletters.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 598

In tandem with LXRA’s engagement activities, there is a role for Council to inform the community about the LXRA’s process and timeframes and to help disseminate information the LXRA makes publicly available about the projects. It is recommended that Council ensure that LXRA’s engagement information is promoted through Council’s communication channels (e.g. information on Council’s website). Human Rights Consideration The implications of this report have been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities and the contents of this report have been prepared giving regard to these considerations. 4. Consultation To date, the following consultation and engagement activities have occurred on Moreland’s proposed level crossing removal projects:  LXRA officers presented the level crossing removal program at a Councillor briefing session in August 2016.  At the time of writing this report a briefing session with the current Council is scheduled for 31 January 2017.  Senior Council officers are engaged in regular and ongoing liaison with LXRA staff. This has occurred throughout 2016 and will continue throughout 2017 and beyond. The design principles and place specific outcomes included in this Council report were developed in collaboration between Council’s Places, Urban Design and Transport Officers. The level crossing removal projects are high profile projects and it is anticipated that that there will be strong community interest. As discussed in this report Council has a role to play in providing information to the community so that they can be well informed and engaged in a conversation about future outcomes. Formal community engagement, led by the LXRA, will occur on the Glenroy Road removal project in mid-2017. As noted in this report, the LXRA has recently announced community information sessions on the Camp Road, Campbellfield project (outside of Moreland) will be held on 6 and 11 February 2017. Officer Declaration of Conflict of Interest Council Officers involved in the preparation of this report have no Conflict of Interest in this matter. 6. Financial and Resources Implications The level crossing removals are State Government projects and do not require any capital from Council. 7. Implementation It appears likely that the Glenroy Road level crossing removal will be ‘first cab off the rank’ in the City of Moreland. Formal community consultation on the Glenroy proposal will likely take place in mid-2017, with a view to commencing the project in 2018. It is likely that consultation on the level crossing removals on Bell Street and Moreland Road will take place later in 2017. Council officers will continue to liaise pro-actively with the Level Crossing Removal Authority on the projects. Council officers will facilitate the availability of information to the community about the projects, primarily through Council’s website.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 599

Attachment/s There are no attachments for this report.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 600

NOM1/17 TREVOR (TURBO) BROWN (D17/30897) Cr Natalie Abboud

1. Background Trevor (Turbo) Brown was a talented Latje Latje man artist who spent much of his time at Brunswick, painting. He was born in Mildura in 1967 and grew up along the Murray River. Introduced to the arts by his adopted parents Herb and Bunta Patten, he completed a Diploma of Visual Arts at RMIT. He won the Deadly Art award, one of the highest honours for an Indigenous artist, for his painting Owl Dreaming at the 2012 Victorian Art Awards. His art is in the collections of the National Gallery of Victoria, the National Gallery of Australia and the Koori Heritage Trust. Three pieces of Turbo Brown’s artwork are in the Moreland Art Collection and are currently on display at the Brunswick Library. A mural acknowledging him exists in Sparta Place, Brunswick and a short film was commissioned by Moreland City Council about his art practice in 2012. Sadly, he suffered a heart attack and passed away recently. 2. Policy Context Officer comments: One of the key objectives of the Moreland Arts and Culture Strategy is to ‘Value. Acknowledge and advocate for artists and the contribution of the arts to Moreland’. 3. Financial Implications Officer comments: Once an appropriate memorial to acknowledge Trevor (Turbo) Brown’s work has been decided, the financial implications will be scoped. The current public art budget could accommodate a discrete dedication either as part of the existing mural in Sparta Place or in the form of a plaque in the vicinity of where Trevor often worked, by reprioritising some of the public artwork maintenance planned for 2017. 4. Resources Implications Officer comments: The Council Officer resource will depend on the appropriate dedication chosen. A discrete public art acknowledgement can be provided within existing resources by the Arts and Culture Unit. Council may decide to name the alleyway near Brunswick Bunnings, in which Trevor was renowned for selling his artwork, in honour of him. In this case, in accordance with Council’s Naming Moreland Places Policy, this process would be managed by the Corporate Services Directorate. In addition, it is expected that Trevor’s work from the Moreland Art Collection will be exhibited as part of the 2017 NAIDOC week exhibition at the Counihan Gallery in Brunswick and an appropriate acknowledgement will be made there also. This is within existing Arts and Culture resources for that exhibition. Motion Council resolves to acknowledge the passing of Trevor (Turbo) Brown and convey its condolences to his family; request officers to liaise with his family to consider an appropriate memorial to acknowledge his important work and contacts Mildura Rural City Council to investigate the possibility of a similar memorial.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 601

NOM2/17 HERITAGE CONTROLS (D17/30885) Cr John Kavanagh

1. Background In light of recent examples of heritage controls being ignored - most notably the Corkman Irish Pub on the corner of Leicester and Pelham Streets, Carlton - it has bought to the public’s attention that there is clearly a failing in the current penalties for breaching heritage controls. Moreland Council values heritage and supports the strongest heritage controls possible. 2. Policy Context Officer’s comments: Land (and buildings) covered by a Heritage Overlay throughout Victoria triggers a requirement for a planning permit for demolition. Buildings that are demolished without a planning permit are a breach of the Planning Scheme under Section 126 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Such breaches can be prosecuted at the Magistrates Court with penalties of up to $186,552 possible along with convictions for offenders. It is likely that changes to the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and potentially other Acts and legislation would be required through Acts of Parliament to provide powers to revoke private property ownership and rights. 3. Financial Implications Officer’s comments: Nil to write a letter. If supported by the State Government the preparation and process for all necessary legal documentation would be at the State’s expense. 4. Resources Implications Officer time to write the letter. Motion Council resolves to – 1. Write to the Minister for Planning, Mr. Richard Wynne, proposing that if a person or persons is found guilty of demolishing a heritage building without a planning permit then the said property should automatically become the property of the municipality in which it is located and is rezoned public open space in perpetuity. 2. Forward copies of this letter to all local State and Federal MP's.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 602

NOM3/17 GLENROY ART GROUP (D17/30854) Cr John Kavanagh

1. Background For over fifty years the Glenroy Art Group has been providing an important social outlet for budding artists in the north of the municipality. They hold two art shows a year and these art shows both the depth of their talent and the regard that the local community cherish this group. With an ageing membership base it is becoming increasingly difficult for the group to afford the costs of hiring the Pascoe Vale Neighbourhood Facility, albeit at what is a reduced rate for community groups. 2. Policy Context Officer’s comments: The Glenroy Arts Group and Spinners & Weavers share a joint Licence agreement for a room at the Pascoe Vale Neighbourhood Facility. The licence fee is $1.00 per year (peppercorn). In April 2015, Council resolved (NOM19/15) to provide free use of the Pascoe Vale Neighbourhood Facility (the hall) for the Glenroy Art Group to hold both their Annual Art Exhibition in May and their Annual Art and Craft Show in November for both 2015 and 2016. 3. Financial Implications Officer’s comments: Based on their previous use of the Hall, the hall hire fee, calculated on the community rate of $11.15 per hour for 3 days hire, amounts to $423.70 per event ($847.40 for two art shows each year). In addition there is a $26.55 Public Liability Fee if applicable. 4. Resources Implications Officer’s comments: The report can be prepared with existing resources. Motion Council resolves that officers work with the Glenroy Art Group to understand their financial and membership issues and prepare a report that considers how they might be assisted by Council’s community grants program to afford the costs of hiring the Pascoe Vale Neighbourhood Facility for their two art shows a year.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 603

NOM4/17 ARTWORK BY ELLIOTT RONALD BULL - PENTRIDGE PRISON WALL IN F DIVISION (D17/30836) Cr Sue Bolton

1. Background A most important artwork by noted Aboriginal artist Elliott Ronald Bull is on the Pentridge Prison wall in F Division. The artwork is the most important surviving artwork by the artist and is the first artwork of its kind by an Aboriginal artist in Victoria. The mural is registered on the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register but it has decayed significantly over the years. The artist’s only surviving relative is his elderly brother in East Gippsland. There is little knowledge of the existence of such a significant artwork in the middle of Moreland. 2. Policy Context This motion is consistent with resolutions passed at Council meetings in February and March 2016. Officer comments: The report presented to the March 2016 Council meeting (DED15/16) outlined that the artwork is registered on the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register and as such, a person must apply to the Secretary of the Department of Premier and Cabinet if they are proposing to:  Disturb or excavate land to uncover or discover Aboriginal cultural heritage.  Carry out scientific research on an Aboriginal place.  Carry out an activity that will, or is likely to, harm Aboriginal cultural heritage.  Buy or sell an Aboriginal object (where it was not made for the purpose of sale).  Remove an Aboriginal cultural heritage object from Victoria. At that meeting Council resolved to write to Aboriginal (Affairs) Victoria calling for urgent steps to be taken to assess the level of deterioration of and to preserve the painting by renowned Aboriginal artist Ronald Bull and any other paintings by former Aboriginal and other prisoners. This resolution was actioned. No response was received from Aboriginal Victoria. It is also noted that in accordance with the Heritage Victoria covenant, the landowner has an obligation to maintain the site in accordance with both the Heritage Act 1995 and the Management Plan which forms part of the covenant. This Management Plan notes that the: Ronald Bull mural will be inspected every two years or more frequently if necessary by an appropriately qualified paintings conservator and undertake conservation in accord with the conservator’s recommendations. Heritage Victoria is responsible for enforcing the covenant. 3. Financial Implications Officer’s comments: Nil financial implications 4. Resources Implications Officer’s comments: Further Officer time to prepare a Council report and draft correspondence to Aboriginal Victoria.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 604

Motion Council resolves to: 1. Receive a report on the steps which have been undertaken by the relevant authorities and the developer to preserve and restore the unique mural on the Pentridge Prison F Division wall by renowned Aboriginal artist Elliott Ronald Bull. 2. Write to Aboriginal Victoria to seek their assistance in: a) Enabling Ronald Bull’s last surviving immediate family member to visit the mural in a private viewing; and b) To initiate discussions with Ronald Bull’s surviving family member and the landowner to hold a public event recognizing the mural and the artist, Elliott Ronald Bull.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 605

NOM5/17 NOTIFICATION REGARDING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS (D17/30603) Cr Sue Bolton

1. Background There have been a number of complaints about too few residents being notified about development applications in their neighbourhood. 2. Policy Context The Planning and Environment Act 1987 and Moreland Planning Scheme includes provisions for notification of persons residents about developments. Officer’s comments: The Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act) includes provisions for notification of owners and occupiers of adjoining land about planning permit applications, unless Council is satisfied that the grant of a permit would not cause material detriment to any person. Additionally S52(1)(d) of the Act provides that Council must give notice of an application: to any other persons, if the responsible authority considers that the grant of the permit may cause material detriment to them. In respect to S52(1)(d) the Act provides that Council can give notice to any other persons by either the display of an onsite notice, publishing a notice in a local newspaper, direct mail or in any other way that the responsible authority considers appropriate. The Act therefore establishes practical methods of notification to persons beyond the immediately adjoining properties without potentially imposing an unreasonable statutory costs and resource burden upon Council ratepayers from extensive mail outs to owners and occupiers of surrounding land. This is of importance to Council in the light of almost 2000 planning permit applications lodged with Council annually. Statewide, decisions in respect to notification of planning applications are commonly made under delegated authority of Council by qualified planning professionals employed by Councils to review the specifics of each application, and interpret the legislation and prior VCAT and Supreme Court rulings concerning planning notification. Importantly the Act does not specify any notification area beyond the immediately adjoining properties. This is considered appropriate as the details and impacts of each planning permit application, and the contextual surrounds of each site, will be different requiring individual professional assessments of the extent of notification. There is however, an accepted practice at Moreland and many other Council’s to direct mail to a number of properties either side, opposite and surrounding a site which is increased for more significant development to potentially entire street blocks, together with the display of one or more on site notice(s) to each street frontage. Notices in the local newspaper are also directed for the more significant development and land use applications with potentially broader impacts. Council’s delegated decisions on notification are also subject to review before VCAT by permit applicants, should the need for notice or the extent of notice directed by Council be considered excessive. Council is responsible for defending any application for review lodged with VCAT.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 606

3. Financial Implications Officer’s comments: The costs of preparation of a report to Council can be accommodated with the City Development base budget. The cost of the outcome of any future decision to expand notification requirements would be considered at that time. 4. Resources Implications Officer’s comments: The resources for preparation of a report to Council can be accommodated with the City Development base budget. Motion Council resolves to receive a report by April 2017 that explores the options and implications of increasing the notification area required when advertising planning applications.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 607

NOM6/17 IT SUPPORT FOR COUNCILLORS (D17/30820) Cr Sue Bolton

1. Background A decision was made to shift Councillors from the email system used by all other Council staff to a new email system only for the Councillors. The decision was made between the end of the previous Council and before the swearing in of the new Council. 2. Policy Context The Local Government Act 1989 requires Councils make their decisions in meetings open to the public, subject to exceptions set out section 89(2) of the Local Government Act 1989. Officer Comment: The Chief Executive Officer and nominated officers are delegated authority to make a range of operational decisions, and the decision to contract additional support for Councillors’ IT help was made within this delegation. The delegation exists to allow the running of the $180 million organisation, which could not practically be achieved otherwise. This delegation is provided formally and is consistent with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1989. The proposed change was discussed with Councillors who attended the briefing session on 26 September 2016, during a presentation on the outcome of the review of support provided to the Mayor and Councillors. Councillors were invited to a one-on-one interview during 2016, to better understand their needs and a broad range of changes were made as a result of these. 3. Financial Implications There are no financial implications to writing this report. Officer Comment: Council has purchased 3 packages of 20 hours (total of $60 hours) of support from Centorrino Technologies for $7,923 (excluding GST).There is no further commitment at this stage. 4. Resources Implications The preparation of this report can occur within current staffing resources. Motion Council resolves to: 1. Receive a report on the decision to outsource Councillor IT support to a private company and shift the 11 Councillors to separate email system from the rest of Council staff. The report should provide the following information: a) The reason for the decision. b) Why the decision was made prior to the swearing in of the new Council. c) Why the service couldn’t be provided by Council staff. d) The cost of the contract.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 608

NOM7/17 LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR ALLARD PARK, BRUNSWICK EAST (D17/30849) Cr Annalivia Carli Hannan

1. Background Allard Park is home to the North Brunswick Junior Football Club (AFL) and the North Brunswick Football Club (AFL), and is also used by the Rosebank/North Brunswick Cricket Club and a frisbee club. It is in a prime location between Merri Creek and Holmes Street, in the fastest growing suburb in Moreland: Brunswick East. North Brunswick Junior Football Club has a strong commitment to junior football and is an established and successful club. It caters for children from our culturally and linguistically diverse community. It is a community club which values inclusiveness and has a focus on participation and enjoyable physical activity. They also run a very successful Auskick clinic where children can learn the skills of football in an enjoyable and safe environment. Allard Park is well utilised and has a quite modern pavilion but the playing surface is in need of an upgrade and the ground needs to be properly maintained. I have inspected the ground on several occasions and it is in a terrible condition. During the football season training is regularly cancelled as a result of the poor playing surface. Although Council is planning for irrigation works to be undertaken on Allard Park, this will not address the poor playing surface. The irrigation work should be done at the same time as resurfacing the ground, ideally in the October to February off-season window. Allard Park needs planned approach to identify options for future works and to determine the overall use of its facilities, which also includes a bocce club and a Scout Hall. For example, Allard Park does not have a fence around the oval and therefore the football clubs cannot host finals. This is a major disadvantage both for the Junior club and the local community, as finals bring an increase in spectators and this also provides the club with greater fundraising opportunity, and therefore self- sufficiency. Furthermore, the goal posts are skewed and there is no seating or scoreboard. The cricket pitch is also in poor condition and in need of attention. The condition of the cricket pitch deteriorates during football season and Council should review the safety of its current state. Pathway lighting issues have also been identified, with public safety concerns for junior players and local residents alike. With the introduction of the Child Safe Standards on 1 January 2017, the state of grounds used by junior clubs is now in sharp focus. The North Brunswick Juniors are planning for their first girls’ team in 2018 and preparing for the growth experienced by their immediate rivals, Brunswick Juniors and Fitzroy Juniors. However, they have been losing many players to these teams as disgruntled parents object to the ground conditions and poor lighting. 2. Policy Context Officer’s comments: This Notice of Motion aligns to the Council Plan 2013 – 2017 themes: Moreland’s People: Moreland community members are mentally and physically healthy and active. It also aligns to the Moreland Sport and Physical Activity Strategy 2014-2018:  Goal 1: To encourage participation in sport and physical activity.  Goal 2: To ensure an adequate supply and distribution of good quality sporting infrastructure, used in the most effective and efficient manner possible.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 609

3. Financial Implications Officer’s comments: A landscape plan would be beneficial for Allard Park as it would assist in providing an understanding of project scope, and would need to include lighting capacity, feature survey and details on any site constraints that would impact upon the delivery of works. There are a number of works projects identified above that are not currently part of the forward capital works program, and would have financial implications for delivery. These works need to be scoped and costed, and referred to future capital budgets for consideration. The development of a landscape plan would cost approximately $10,000. This amount is unbudgeted, and would need to be considered as part of a future budget process, if the decision is made to proceed with this course of action. 4. Resources Implications Officer’s comments: If a landscape plan is approved, project management can occur within existing officer resource. In the event this occurs, this would supersede the planned irrigation works. These works would be deferred indefinitely pending the outcome of the plan and priority works identified through the process. Motion Council resolves to: 1. Prepare a landscape plan for the Allard Park sporting precinct. This is to include investigation into the costings for a refurbishment of the ground and to assess the future uses of the facilities and ways to maximise its potential. All with a view to future- proof a resource which will come under increasing pressure in the years to come, to create a surface that can cope with both the weather and the human traffic. Considerations to include: a) The North Brunswick Junior Football Club and other relevant stakeholders to be consulted throughout. b) The landscape plan is required in time for Council to make a decision for the 2017-2018 year otherwise, the tenant clubs will experience a further not one, but two or more years of sub-standard playing conditions.

Council Meeting 8 February 2017 610