ordinary meeting of council · 2019. 5. 8. · profit’ clubs play within our community is...

Ordinary Meeting of Council

Olympia, Ibbott & Hawdon Rooms

Level 4, 1 Flintoff Street, Greensborough

8 April 2019 commencing at 7.00pm

ATTACHMENTS

3.1 Gambling Policy - Gambling Reduction and Harm Minimisation

Attachment 1. Banyule Gambling Background Paper 2018 ......................................... 3

Attachment 2. Gambling Policy – Gambling Reduction and Harm Minimisation 2019-2022 ...................................................................... 25

5.1 Postcode 3081 Urban Design Framework - Planning Scheme Amendment C120

Attachment 1. Postcode 3081 UDF Study Area and Diversity Areas ......................... 37

Attachment 2. Summary of Submissions ................................................................... 39

Attachment 3. Map of Zoning and Height Changes for Options 2 and 3 ..................... 59

Attachment 4. Map of Option 3 Sub-options - Creekside ........................................... 61

Attachment 5. Shadow Anaysis for the Creekside Area ............................................. 63

Attachment 6. Postcode 3081 UDF Recommendations for Buna Street Site ..................................................................................................... 67

5.2 4 Poulter Avenue, Greensborough - Options for public car park to enable redevelopment

Attachment 1. Heads of Agreement ........................................................................... 69

5.3 State of Assets Report

Attachment 1. State of Assets Report 2018 ............................................................... 73

Item: 3.1 Attachment 1: Banyule Gambling Background Paper 2018

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 8 April 2019

Item: 3.1 Attachment 2: Gambling Policy – Gambling Reduction and Harm Minimisation 2019-2022

Ordinary Meeting of Council - 8 A

Banyule City CouncilGambling Policy –Gambling Reduction &

Harm Minimisation2019-2022

pril 2019

2019-2022



INTRODUCTION

Gambling can be defined as the wagering of money or something of value on an uncertain event that is dependent on chance, or partly on chance and partly on skill.

Australians spend more on gambling per head than any other country in the world with $23.64 billion in total gambling losses in 2016-20171. In the previous financial year, Australians were spending $1100 per annum per person on gambling. The next highest losses were in Singapore ($800 per person) and then Ireland ($600 per person). Australia has 20% of the world’s poker machines as compared with 0.3% of the world’s population2. Poker machines are the source of over two thirds of total gambling losses. Poker machines in hotels and clubs are the source of almost half of these total losses.

The total gambling expenditure in Victoria was $5.4 billion in 2016/2017, with more than half of this spent on poker machines1. People who identify as having a gambling problem have high gambling participation in the following six activities: electronic gambling machines (EGMs), also known as poker machines or pokies; race betting; sports betting; casino table games; private betting; and poker3.

In Banyule, during 2017-2018, EGM losses totalled more than $58.5 million4. This was an increase of more than $2.7 million from the 2016-2017 financial year5.

Gamblers in low-income households spend a greater proportion of their household’s total disposable income on gambling than high-income households (10% v 1%), and those who experience problem gambling from low-income households spend 27% of their disposable income on gambling3.

The prevalence of gambling advertising on all social media and advertising platforms has increased during the past three years. This has seen an increase in losses in gambling venues and alternative gambling avenues such as sports betting, online gambling and lotteries.

POLICY POSITION

Banyule City Council recognises the destructive impacts that gambling has on our community and is committed to minimising these harms, and progressively reducing all forms of gambling within our city.

Banyule City Council will:

1. Actively work to reduce adult financial losses from gambling in Banyule.

2. Ban the use of Council Wi-Fi for online gambling.

3. Ban any form of advertising for gambling on Council operated facilities.

4. Inform the community on programs and services available to prevent gambling harm.

5. Advocate to the State Government on reforms in the gambling landscape.

6. Partner with the local government networks, and community organisations such as the Alliance for Gambling Reform to utilise their expertise in broader advocacy issues.

7. Support community based organisations in Banyule that generate some of their income from gambling activity to reduce their reliance on gambling income streams.



8. Meet its requirements as a responsible authority in accordance with the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

POLICY OBJECTIVE

Banyule City Council acknowledges that gambling is a legal activity and advocates for a society where the social and financial impacts of gambling no longer cause harm in our society.

This Policy Statement outlines Banyule Council’s position on gambling related matters, although the main focus is upon minimising the harms associated with gambling, particularly electronic gambling machines (EGMs) within Banyule and in close proximity to our municipality. This policy guides how the Council will respond to applications for new venues with EGMs, additional machines and transfers of machines between venues. The Policy also guides how Council will work towards reducing gambling within the municipality, and Council’s response to other gambling related matters.

To reduce harm from gambling, Banyule City Council applies a public health approach to harm minimisation from gambling. Council will work in partnership with the community, service providers and gambling venue operators towards reducing harm from gambling activities. An evidence-based approach to planning, regulation, advocacy and community education will seek to reduce the negative impacts of current and emerging forms of gambling.

Council recognises that EGMs are legal technologies used at least occasionally by 20 – 25 % of Banyule residents. Council is concerned about their potential to harm those at risk from problem gambling. Advocacy for enhanced consumer protection measures for poker machine users is therefore a central policy objective.

BACKGROUND

This Policy Statement has been developed in line with Part1A—Local Government Charter of the

Local Government Act 1989 and in line with current State Government Policy, Legislation and

Victorian Planning Provisions (VPP’s).

THE COUNCIL’S INFLUENCE

All forms of gambling can lead to a range of complex social issues, and local governments are well

placed to take a range of actions to minimise the harm from gambling. Banyule City Council identifies

and acknowledges that it has a number of roles around minimising harm from gambling, and EGMs in

particular, which include:

• Responsible authority - in accordance with the Planning and Environment Act 1987, in deciding on applications for planning permits;

• Site, premises or land owner/manager - in situations where gambling venues are already established or proposed to be situated, are owned, managed or vested in the authority of Banyule City Council;

• The referral authority - where an application for planning permit is made within a neighbouring municipality (Darebin, Yarra, Boroondara, Manningham, Nillumbik and Whittlesea) and is referred to Banyule City Council for comment;

• Key stakeholder and community advocate - during times of government review or

alternative mechanisms involving community consultation and community advocacy.



This Policy therefore has gambling reduction and harm minimisation from EGMs as its main focus,

whilst also acknowledging other forms of gambling.

ELECTRONIC GAMBLING MACHINES

EGMs can be found in clubs and hotels within Banyule. The community building role that ‘not for

profit’ clubs play within our community is recognised, while balanced against the backdrop of the

negatives associated with gambling harm.

In Victoria, losses from EGMs totalled $3.2 billion in 2017-20186. There are 635 EGMs across the

municipality, which equates to 6.25 per 1000 adults5. During 2017-2018, EGM loss totalled more

than $58.5 million for Banyule alone4. This was nearly a 5% increase on the loss from the previous

financial year5. Australian research also shows that people for whom welfare payments formed their

main source of income are over-represented amongst people who use EGMs3. As well as there

being a strong relationship between EGM losses and social disadvantage, the density of EGMs

available also impacts on the financial level of loss, and the highest mean annual EGM losses occur in

the most disadvantaged areas, where the density of EGMs is also the highest7.

In each situation the application or proposal to increase numbers of EGMs will be assessed on its

own individual merits, based on the proponent’s ability to demonstrate no net community harm. As

this will be evidenced by the proponent’s Social Economic Impact Assessment (SEIA), each proposal

is expected to be accompanied by a SEIA.

POLICY DIRECTIONS

The following Policy Directions will guide Banyule City Council when determining an application or

matters directly associated with EGMs and other forms of gambling:

RESPONSIBLE MANAGEMENT OF EGM DENSITY AND REDUCING GAMBLING LOSSES

Gambling is recognised as a legal activity, however it is acknowledged that local government has a

responsibility to explore approaches to prevent and reduce harm from gambling in our community.

The introduction of mandatory and systematic management programs by the Victorian Commission

for Gambling and Liquor Regulation (VCGLR) is supported. For example, Banyule City Council

supports capping the number of EGMs in the municipality, particularly in areas where community

indicators represent higher levels of vulnerability as the most disadvantaged communities incur the

highest gambling losses. In areas where greater vulnerability is identified, Banyule City Council will

advocate to decrease EGM numbers.

In 2017, the cap for Heidelberg West was extended by the Minister for Consumer Affairs, Gaming

and Liquor Regulation to include the suburbs of:

• Bellfield

• Bundoora

• Eaglemont

• Heidelberg



• Heidelberg Heights

• Heidelberg West

• Ivanhoe

• Ivanhoe East

• Rosanna

• Watsonia

• Watsonia North

Banyule Council also advocates and supports the extension of the cap to include the suburb of

Greensborough.

While the extension of the capped area is supported, it also recognised that considerable harm

occurs within the existing EGM numbers, thus further actions are required to reduce harm at

existing EGMs numbers within the capped areas. This remains even with forecasted population

growth, particularly within and surrounding the 3081 postcode area, due to the harm EGMs causes

within vulnerable communities.

It is also recognised that the potential for negative impacts on our community is not solely related to

the number of EGMs within Banyule, but also relates to access to gambling machines within a 5km

radius of Banyule’s municipal borders.

All EGM applications will be considered against their ability to demonstrate comparative community

benefit. Any increase in EGMs would be of particular concern and will be opposed where a negative

impact can be reasonably anticipated.

The transfer of EGMs between venues will not be supported in situations where the potential for a

negative social impact is demonstrated, including when the transfer will result in the concentration of

EGMs in areas of vulnerability, as identified by the Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIA) and

other relevant indicators of health and wellbeing disadvantage.

Collaboration with neighbouring and other Councils, State and Federal Governments, and

proprietors to ensure best practice gambling operations is supported. Banyule will support evidence

informed measures to reduce gambling harm, such as reducing the operating hours of venues,

reducing the bet limit per spin, removing the addictive features of machines, and lowering the daily

cash out EFTPOS limit at venues.

SUPPORTING THOSE AFFECTED BY GAMBLING HARM

It is acknowledged that harm from gambling is a complex social issue, which requires a series of

interrelated interventions. Gambling harm has personal, financial, family, legal and employment

consequences. Approximately 80% of gamblers seeking gambling assistance use EGMs5, and

approximately half of the participants categorised as moderate risk or problem gamblers indicated

that EGMs made the largest contribution to their gambling problems8.

Research from the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation in July 2017 found that nearly 9% of

Victorian adults are low-risk gamblers, and that low-risk and moderate-risk gamblers do experience

harm. In fact, they account for 85% of people experiencing gambling harm in Victoria9.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/by Subject/2033.0.55.001~2011~Main Features~Main Page~1



In recognition of the harms experienced by even low-risk and moderate-risk gamblers, Council will

discourage Council related use of venues with EGM’s.

Council will promote the availability of locally accessible support services for gamblers experiencing

harm, together with inclusive community support services for citizens adversely affected by gambling.

The mandatory subscription of the gambling industry to the State Government managed, best-

practice responsible gambling and harm minimisation principles is also supported by Council.

Council will also advocate for all information and resources to be made available, particularly in

relation to Gamblers Help, in all relevant languages and in formats suitable for people with disabilities

i.e. large print, braille, audio and easy to understand English.

UNDERSTANDING THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF GAMBLING

A Social and Economic Impact Assessment (SEIA), will be required to be provided with all

applications for additional EGMs or new Electronic Gambling venues. The SEIA will be prepared by a

suitably qualified practitioner and will incorporate a report that demonstrates appropriate

community engagement has been undertaken.

A SEIA involves a process for managing potential outcomes of a proposal, more than the delivery of

a report as an outcome in itself. It is not just about demonstrating awareness of potential changes

but more so, what is proposed to be done to manage those anticipated changes. The aim of a SEIA is

to demonstrate a proponent’s commitment and ability to do no harm, or at least an ability for

managing the changes anticipated to produce less harm. Council will discourage new machines in

disadvantaged areas as defined by the SEIFA index of relative disadvantage.

Strength for Council’s authority to request a SEIA is offered by Sections 4(2)(c) and (2)(d) of the

Planning and Environment Act 1987 which sets out the objectives of the planning framework

established by the Act and enables the integration of environmental, social and economic policies in

land use and development planning. In addition, Section 60(1A)(a) of the Act allows the Council as

the Responsible Authority to consider “any significant social and economic effects of the use or

development for which the application is made”.

According to the Gambling Regulation Act, the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor

Regulation (VCGLR) must not grant an application for approval of premises as suitable for gambling

unless it is satisfied that the net economic and social impact of approval will not be detrimental to

the wellbeing of the community in the municipality in which the premises are located.

Proponents will be expected to demonstrate a considered planning approach to internal venue

design, with clearly defined activity separation and compatible land uses within and external to the

building envelope.

Banyule City Council supports responsive social and recreational policies which encourage

proponents for new EGM venues to demonstrate sustainable and adaptive building construction

principles that will provide opportunities for the venue to cater for a range of alternative recreation

uses in the future. Council will aim to ensure that the location, design and operation of a gambling

machine premises minimises the social and economic impacts caused by gambling machines and

delivers a net community benefit.



Council will complete a SEIA for each EGM licence application. The following factors will be

considered to determine whether or not there will be harm caused by the application on the health,

social and economic wellbeing of the community:

• The degree of the density of gambling venues and EGMs in the local area (5.0 km radius);

• Whether the relocation of EGMs would result in a reduction of EGMs in an area of socio-

economic disadvantage;

• The degree to which the community has choices of other types of recreational activities and

entertainment facilities in the venue and the local area;

• The degree to which established social infrastructure, services and networks exist within the

local area for community members to engage with for support when required; and

• The extent to which the applicant has demonstrated a commitment to the Industry Code of

Practice for Responsible Gambling.

Furthermore, new gambling venues and additional EGMs should not be: • In areas of relative socio-economic disadvantage.

• In strip shopping centres and shopping complexes.

• Where they are convenient to core retail areas, supermarkets, community facilities and

services or bus interchanges where large numbers of pedestrians are likely to pass by in the

course of their daily activities, increasing the likelihood of impulse decisions to play gambling

machines.

• Within 400 metres of social security offices, welfare agencies, gambler support services,

schools, kindergartens, childcare centres, medical or health centres, libraries, community

halls, supported or special accommodation or social housing developments.

Council will oppose the transfer of machines within the municipality where a negative social and

economic impact will result.

In relation to the economic effects of gambling, Council will be mindful that the Productivity

Commission10 and Competition and Efficiency Commission11 concluded that gambling losses displace

expenditure from other sectors of the economy, with the result that employment generated by

gambling is at least matched by job reductions in other industries, making the net economic

contribution of the industry insignificant.

ADVOCACY, ADVICE AND ACTION

All decisions and advice provided by Banyule City Council in relation to matters of gambling will be

made in accordance with this policy, the relevant provisions of the Banyule Planning Scheme and

relevant implementation guidelines.

When an application for additional machines, new venues or transfers of machines between venues,

is not supported, Banyule City Council will coordinate a submission to the Victorian Commission of

Gambling and Licensing Regulation (VCGLR).



The VCGLR will continue to be lobbied as required to ensure the role and views of Banyule Council

are considered.

The wellbeing of the community, in particular the impacts of harm from gambling will continue to be

monitored and an understanding of the impact of gambling on our local community will be used to

inform strategic action plans.

Banyule City Council will work with other Councils and like-minded organisations to advocate for

evidence-based regulatory changes at state and national levels which reduce gambling harm and

opportunity to participate in gambling activities. Examples of changes which have received support

from the Productivity Commission, academic researchers, and the community are:

• A maximum $1 bet limit per button push;

• Redesigning machines to remove addictive features such as losses disguised as wins, and

‘near misses’;

• Reducing venue operating hours;

• Creating a duty of care for venue operators;

• Limiting the daily EFTPOS cash out from venues to $200; and

• Adopting the New Zealand model which gives Councils the capacity to retire machines

permanently where a venue decides to surrender them.

Banyule City Council will also work with local partners and community groups to raise awareness

about gambling harm and promote harm reduction.

REFERENCE AND WORKING GROUPS AND PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES

An internal Council Working Group will oversee the development, implementation, and evaluation

of an Action plan for this Policy Statement.

POLICY REVIEW AND REVISION

This Policy Statement will be reviewed within four years from the date of adoption or as triggered

by changes to legislation, Government or Council policy direction, or in response to any other

requirement which may trigger the need to do so.

Notional Policy Review date: 30th May 2022.



REFERENCES:

1. Queensland Government Statistician’s Office. Australian Gambling Statistics, 34th edition.

Queensland: Queensland Treasury. Available from: http://www.qgso.qld.gov.au/products/reports/aus-

gambling-stats/aus-gambling-stats-34th-edn.pdf

2. The world’s biggest gamblers. The Economist. 2017 February 9. Available from:

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2017/02/09/the-worlds-biggest-gamblers

3. Armstrong A, Carroll M. Gambling activity in Australia. Melbourne: Australian Gambling Research

Centre, Australian Institute of Family Studies; 2017. Available from:

https://aifs.gov.au/agrc/sites/default/files/publication-documents/rr-

gambling_activity_in_australia_0.pdf

4. Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation. Gaming expenditure by local area

(Internet, cited 08 January, 2019). Available from: https://www.vcglr.vic.gov.au/resources/data-and-

research/gambling-data/gaming-expenditure-local-area

5. Banyule City Council. Gambling policy: background discussion paper; 2018.

6. Alliance for Gambling Reform. Victorian Data (Internet, cited 08 January, 2019). Available from:

http://www.pokiesplayyou.org.au/victorian_data

7. Livingstone C, Francis M. What is the evidence to support reduction of maximum bets on

electronic gambling machines? Discussion of the current arrangements for community benefit

statements by Victorian club gaming venues. Discussion of the likely effects of further local caps on

EGM numbers on gambling harm and the prevalence of problem gambling. Report to Municipal

Association of Victoria. Melbourne: Monash University, MAV; 2014. Available from:

http://www.mav.asn.au/news-resources/campaigns/pokies

8. Gainsbury S, Russell A, Hing N, Wood R, Lubman D, Blaszczynski A. The prevalence and

determinants of problem gambling in Australia: assessing the impact of interactive gambling and new

technologies. Psychology of addictive behaviours, 2014;28(3):769-779. DOI: 10.1037/a0036207

9. Lubman D, Manning V, Dowling N, Rodda S, Lee S, Garde E, Merkouris S, Volberg R. Problem

gambling in people seeking treatment for mental illness; 2017. Melbourne: Victorian Responsible

Gambling Foundation. Available from:

https://responsiblegambling.vic.gov.au/resources/publications/problem-gambling-in-people-seeking-

treatment-for-mental-illness-61/

10. Productivity Commission. Gambling, Report no. 50; 2010. Canberra: Australian Government.

Available from: https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/gambling-2010/report/gambling-report-

volume1.pdf

11. Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission. Counting the cost: inquiry into the costs of

problem gambling, final report; 2012. Melbourne: Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission.

Available from: https://www.dtf.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2018-02/counting-the-cost-inquiry-into-

the-costs-of-problem-gambling.pdf

http://www.qgso.qld.gov.au/products/reports/aus-gambling-stats/aus-gambling-stats-34th-edn.pdf

http://www.qgso.qld.gov.au/products/reports/aus-gambling-stats/aus-gambling-stats-34th-edn.pdf

https://aifs.gov.au/agrc/sites/default/files/publication-documents/rr-gambling_activity_in_australia_0.pdf

https://aifs.gov.au/agrc/sites/default/files/publication-documents/rr-gambling_activity_in_australia_0.pdf

https://www.vcglr.vic.gov.au/resources/data-and-research/gambling-data/gaming-expenditure-local-area

https://www.vcglr.vic.gov.au/resources/data-and-research/gambling-data/gaming-expenditure-local-area

https://responsiblegambling.vic.gov.au/resources/publications/problem-gambling-in-people-seeking-treatment-for-mental-illness-61/

https://responsiblegambling.vic.gov.au/resources/publications/problem-gambling-in-people-seeking-treatment-for-mental-illness-61/



2019 Banyule Gambling Reduction and Harm Minimisation Action Plan: These actions have been developed for the first twelve months of policy. They will be reviewed

annually to ensure that yearly action continues to respond to current gambling issues, legislation and community needs.

GOAL ACTION TIMELINE

1 Actively work to reduce adult financial losses from gambling in Banyule

• Investigate and monitor gambling statistics and trends to determine target percentage reduction

• Review the process for Applications received - To increase machines or venues within municipality - To increase machines or venues within neighbouring municipalities

• Investigate, review and develop internal policies that may interface with gambling activities e.g. Planned Activity Group Outings

April 2019 July – Sept 2019

April – June 2019

2 Ban the use of Council Wi-Fi for online gambling

• Investigate, review and develop internal policies

• Promote gambling support through workplace wellbeing program

June 2019 July – Nov 2019

3 Ban any form of advertising for gambling on Council operated facilities

• Investigate, review and develop processes for prohibiting the advertising of gambling on Council operated facilities. July – Sept 2019

4 Inform the community of programs and services available to prevent gambling harm

• Build capacity in the community to participate in alternative entertainment and recreational options

• Improve community understanding about the risks posed to the community and individuals associated with the gambling industry (including statistics)

• Conduct one education and awareness building session with Banyule City Council employees

• Conduct one activity during Gambling Harm Awareness Week

• Promote support programs and services for people experiencing problem gambling and gambling-related harm

April – Dec 2019 April – Dec 2019

October 2019 October 2019 March – Dec 2019

5 Advocate to the State Government on reforms in the gambling landscape

• Consider the impact of EGM changes in neighbouring municipalities and contribute to advocacy action if deemed appropriate

• Participate in advocacy campaigns that aim to reduce harm from gambling which may include: - Harm reduction strategies for EGMs such as $1.00 maximum bets; - Municipal caps on machines; - Reduction of number of machines; - Victorian Planning Provision changes - Advertising of gambling

April – Dec 2019

Feb – Dec 2019

6 Partner with the local government networks, & community organisations to utilise expertise in advocacy issues

• Keep informed of gambling related issues and legislative changes

• Prepare Councillor Briefing documentation in September to assess benefits of Alliance for Gambling Reform partnership continuation

• Attend network meetings and activities

• Seek support and advice when required

Feb – Dec 2019 Aug – Sept 2019 Feb, May, Aug, Nov Feb – Dec 2019

7 Support community based organisations in Banyule that generate some of their income

• Investigate processes that other Councils are undertaking to support clubs and organisations to transition to alternative funding sources that are not reliant on gambling

Sept – Dec 2019



from gambling activity to reduce their reliance on gambling income streams

8 Meet its requirements as a responsible authority in accordance with the Planning and Environment Act 1987

• Use the Act to guide decision making in regards to applications for new gambling venues, increased numbers of EGMs etc Ongoing

Implementation and Future Policy Development: • Oversee the implementation of the Gambling Policy and annual Action plan;

• Review and update the policy to reflect changes to State and Federal Legislation as required;

• Evaluate the implementation of the Policy and annual Action Plan;

• Prepare a Revised Policy and Background Paper for adoption by Council in 2022.

Item: 5.1 Attachment 1: Postcode 3081 UDF Study Area and Diversity Areas


Item: 5.1 Attachment 2: Summary of Submissions


SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS AMENDMENT C120 AND POSTCODE 3081 URBAN DESIGN FRAMEWORK

Submitter No.

Theme Summary of Submission Initial Officer Response

1 Building heights along Main Roads area

OpposedConcerned with building heights up to 6 storeys along the Main Roads (Waterdale Rd and Oriel Rd) and associated overshadowing, overlooking and neighbourhood amenity.

Concerned with increased housing affecting current local infrastructure, shared utilities, traffic and parking.

• Six storeys is considered appropriate along Main Roads to enable increased residential densities. Main roads provide a good opportunity for intensification given their width, accessibility to public transport and local activity centres.

• Any proposed development is required to be consistent with the proposed front, side and rear setbacks and upper level setbacks in the Design and Development Overlay which have been determined to protect existing neighbourhood character and reduce overlooking and overshadowing impacts.

• Council has prepared a Joint Community Infrastructure Plan for the Latrobe National Employment and Innovation Cluster (NEIC). The plan prepared with the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, Department of Health and Human Services, Darebin Council, Latrobe University, Banyule Community Health and Austin Health provides an integrated platform for infrastructure and service delivery into the future taking into consideration the likely impacts of proposed population growth within the Cluster. A detailed implementation framework included in the plan sets out short, medium and long term actions for community service provision including childcare and kindergarten facilities, maternal child health, a multipurpose community hub, library, improved and additional sport and recreation facilities, improved pedestrian and bicycle connections along/to the Darebin Creek, increased open space, aged care facilities, improved social housing, more tennis, netball and highball courts, arts/cultural facility and



Darebin creek environmental/cultural improvements.

• Any development proposal must meet the parking requirements of the planning scheme at Clause 52.06 that specify the required number of car spaces required per dwelling based on the number of bedrooms.


Support if changes madeOverall in support of the amendment for increasing innovation, jobs and liveability.

Concerned with allowing up to 6 storeys along the Main Roads area and associated overshadowing and overlooking.

• Support noted.

• See response to submission 1 regarding development on Main Roads.

3 Building heights and community consideration

OpposedConcern for building heights and overshadowing. Particular concern for loss of community spaces, loss of trees and wildlife, insufficient community infrastructure and lack of consideration for social housing.

• See response to submission 1 regarding development on Main Roads and community infrastructure provision. Height limits throughout the UDF have been informed by shadow analysis and consideration of other amenity and neighbourhood character impacts that will be further discussed in an Urban Design Expert Witness Statement to be presented to the Panel Hearing.

• The Urban Design Framework contains as a key principle the promotion of affordable housing in particular co-housing as a model to provide social housing. Council continues to work with the State Government and explore opportunities to increase social housing in developments. This is contained as an action in the UDF.

• Current planning scheme overlays including a Vegetation Protection Overlay and Environmental Significance Overlay will continue to apply to the area to ensure protection of Banyule’s vegetation and treed streetscapes that contribute to the City’s neighbourhood character.




OpposedConcern for building heights up to 6 storeys along the Main Roads (Malahang Pde and Coral St) and associated overshadowing. Concern for traffic and facilities including schools and public transport including train lines.

• Recommend removing Malahang Parade and Coral Street (adjoining Malahang Park) from the Main Roads Area controls. Consider including in the Local Park Interface Area (which has lower height limits) instead.

• See response to Submission 1 regarding community infrastructure.

• The Banyule Integrated Transport Strategy 2015-2035 sets the vision and objectives to guide decision making to achieve a safe, accessible integrated transport system within Banyule.

Concentrating development within and close to activity centres and emerging centres such the La Trobe NEIC supports the 20 minute neighbourhood concept of living locally by reducing the need to travel long distances. The Strategy sets out some of the ways in which new developments can support and encourage sustainable transport modes and assist in reducing parking demand and traffic. These include requiring developers to provide adequate end of trip facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, providing good connections to the public transport network, requiring all new developments to prepare and implement Green Travel Plans and preparing parking plans for centres.

5 Building heights along Main Roads area, parking and facilities

OpposedConcern for building heights up to 6 storeys along the Main Roads area. Suggests changing Malahang Pde and Coral St as ‘local park interface’ streets/areas.

Suggests parking permits be allocated per dwelling to address concern for increased parking

• See response to Submission 4 regarding proposed controls along Malahang Parade and Coral Street.

• See response to submission 1 and 4 regarding parking and community infrastructure.



issues associated with apartments. Concern for increased high-density housing affecting local community infrastructure, public transport and current/future occupants needing larger dwellings.

6 Specific property concern.

OpposedConcern regarding specific property and future building heights causing overshadowing and overlooking.

See response to submission 1 and 4 regarding height limits and overshadowing.


OpposedConcern regarding change from General Residential Zone Schedule 1 (GRZ1) to General Residential Zone Schedule 2 (GRZ2) decreasing the value of their property.

Consider keeping all of the Hinterland (Area 5) in existing GRZ1 rather than having different planning scheme controls applying within this area.

8 Population density and traffic

OpposedConcern around living in a growth zone and associated population density and traffic.

See response to submission 1 and 4.

9 Infill development and social housing

Support if changes madeSuggests higher flexibility in the infill within Area 5 Hinterland. Suggestion to increase distribution of social housing and ensure inclusion of social housing in unit developments.

• It is not proposed to amend the current General Residential Zone applying to the Hinterland areas, only the schedule to the zone. The GRZ currently allows development up to 3 storeys.

• The Urban Design Framework contains as a key principle the promotion of affordable housing in particular co-housing as a model to provide social housing. Council continues to work with the State Government and explore opportunities to increase social housing in developments. This is contained as an action in the UDF.

10 Building heights, traffic, parking and community infrastructure

OpposedConcerned with:

• Traffic along Waterdale and Bell St, Malahang and Coral St and lack of sufficient public transport and parking

• See response to submission 1 and 4 regarding traffic, public transport, parking and community infrastructure.

• See response to Submission 4 regarding proposed controls Malahang Parade and Coral Street.



• Building heights of 4-6 storeys affecting overlooking and decreasing property values.

• Overshadowing on Narvik, Buna and Ramu Reserves.

• Strategies not addressing community infrastructure such as childcare and education needs

• Consider removing the proposed RGZ Schedule 7 from around Narvik Community Reserve.

• Consider removing the proposed RGZ Schedule 7 from Alamein Road, Morobe Street and Corvette Street (adjoining Olympic Village Primary School) as these are not part of a local park interface.

• Buna Street is identified as a key redevelopment site. See response to Submission 48.

• Shadow analysis has informed the proposed height limits and will be demonstrated in an Urban Design Expert Witness Statement to the Panel.

11 Addressing future growth

SupportEndorses the UDF in addressing urban sprawl currently and in the future and providing a framework to support affordable medium density housing to achieve social cohesion.

• Support noted.

12 Parking, building heights and community infrastructure

OpposedConcern for increased density affecting parking, overshadowing and sustainability. Concerned that community needs are not being addressed.

• See response to submission 1 and 4.

13 Addressing future growth

SupportConsiders Heidelberg West needs a new vision and the UDF aligns well with Plan Melbourne strategies to foster and promote growth in the area while still maintaining character.

Suggests future work should be focused on the Heidelberg West Industrial area.

• Support noted. The La Trobe National Employment and Innovation Cluster Framework Plan, due to be finalised by the Victorian Planning Authority in 2019, will provide direction and future actions for the Heidelberg West Industrial Estate.



14 Amenities and community infrastructure

OpposedConcern with lack of existing community infrastructure including walking/bike tracks, shop and local park amenities and access to public transport. Suggests a Bell Street overpass and Heidelberg Road underpass.



OpposedConcerned with rezoning from GRZ Schedule 1 to GRZ Schedule 2 and reducing the overall net developable land and impact on property value.

• See response to Submission 7.

16 Various concerns OpposedConsiders proposed level of change is inappropriate for Heidelberg West.

Particular concerns include:

• Overdevelopment – considers proposed height limits are excessive for the area and should only occur around activity centres. Suggests a two storey height limit for Creekside and Local Parks and three storeys along Main Roads.

• Profits – considers council’s motivation is for increased rate collection and profits.

• Parking – considers there is a lack of consideration for parking.

• Setbacks –considers flaws with setbacks.

• Community Consultation – suggests that consultations should have been conducted similar to the consultations for Ivanhoe Structure Plan and concerns about the processes being rushed disallowing adequate community engagement.

• Community Infrastructure - Concerned

• Heidelberg West is within the Latrobe National Employment and Innovation Cluster that has been identified by the State Government through Plan Melbourne as an area where housing renewal and improved diversity is needed to support expanded job opportunities and employment growth. Council’s existing housing framework in the Banyule Planning Scheme supports urban renewal across the suburb with more change along major roads, around centres and at interfaces with parks. The existing Residential Areas Framework at Clause 21.06 identifies Heidelberg West as an area for urban renewal.

• The existing height limit currently applying to all the UDF area is three storeys or 11 metres. This has been set by the State Government and can’t be changed.

• The UDF was prepared through two initial rounds of consultation. The final draft UDF and Amendment C120 were publically exhibited for a 10 week period with direct notification given to all owners and occupiers in 3081 and other notice given in accordance with the statutory requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Five focus group sessions were also held throughout the exhibition period to enable affected/interested parties to obtain information and discuss



with lack of police station, schools, kindergarten, childcare, libraries and community centres required to accommodate increased population.

• Other considerations - Supports setback requirements for trees and landscaping, queries future waste management services, future public transport provisions including impact on bus services, impact on local roads and increased traffic.

concerns with the proposal. Information was also provided on Council’s Shaping Banyule website that was regularly updated during the exhibition period.

• Recommend that setback diagrams in the Schedules to the Design and Development Overlay be clarified.

• See response to submission 1 regarding community infrastructure provision and transport.

17 Building Heights and Traffic

OpposedConcerned with the character of the suburb changing, increases in traffic, inadequate public transport access and reliability, adequate parking and impact on rental prices and affordability. Concerned with 3 storey height limit in the Hinterland areas and up to 5 stories in other areas.

• See response to submission 9 regarding existing 3 storey height limits.

• See response to submission 1 and 4 regarding transport and parking.

18 Various concerns Opposed

Concerned with:

• Rezoning GRZ1 to GRZ2 – and that this will create restrictions on future development.

• Proposed Residential Growth Zone – suggests only applying this zone to Main Roads and that RGZ should be removed from parklands.

• Suggests extending RGZ further along Oriel Road to include properties between Bell Street to Banksia Street.

• See response to submission 4 regarding application of RGZ to parklands. It is proposed that the three larger parks in the study area being Ford Park, Shelley Park and Malahang Reserve will still have the RGZ applied.

• See response to submission 7 regarding rezoning of GRZ1 to GRZ2.

• The suggestion of extending the study area is noted, however as this area was not included in the exhibition of Amendment C120, it is not possible to now include these properties without further public consultation.



19 Building Heights and Infrastructure

OpposedConcerned with proposed building heights, impact on existing neighbourhood character, need for additional community infrastructure to support the population increase, traffic and congestion of main roads in the area.


20 Building Heights and Infrastructure

OpposedConcerned with proposed building heights, impact on public transport and retail provision and the area becoming a future slum.



OpposedConcerned with impact on infrastructure due to population increase, overshadowing of properties to the south of Bell Street (Area 1), increased traffic and parking issues.



OpposedAs above submission



OpposedAs above submission


24 Specific Property SupportSupports the amendment on the basis:

• It appropriately seeks to advance urban consolidation objectives in an identified NEIC.

• It supports the provision of increased residential densities and housing diversity.

• Promotes design outcomes that balance urban consolidation objectives and appropriate landscape and residential amenity outcomes. Suggests several improvements to the wording of the RGZ Schedule 6 and Design and Development Overlay (DDO) Schedule 15 to improve clarity and to ensure requirements are discretionary not mandatory.

• Support noted.

• Council can consider minor improvements to the schedules to the Residential Growth Zone and Design and Development Overlay, including wording in the DDO regarding footpaths.



25 Building Heights Support if changes madeIs concerned that three storey height limits will apply in the hinterland area and that they should remain at two.

• See response to submission 9 regarding existing height limits.

26 Housing and Infrastructure

OpposedConcerned that the proposal will introduce excess housing supply and the impact this will have on infrastructure.


27 Design and Infrastructure

OpposedConcerned with the design of current development in the area and impact on infrastructure in particular schools and poor road quality.

• See response to Submissions 1 and 4 regarding infrastructure and transport.

• The inclusion of design requirements in the Design and Development Overlay will provide a statutory framework that must be considered when assessing a planning application.

28 Various concerns OpposedSubmitter is concerned with overdevelopment and future development not maintaining neighbourhood character. Particular concerns include:

• Increased Building Heights – impact on neighbourhood character with no upper floor side or rear setbacks as per the current requirements in Clause 55.04-01 of the scheme, creating wind tunnels and overshadowing.

• Front setbacks – proposed front setback of 4m resulting in overcapitalisation of the land and would not support character of the area and impacts vegetation/garden requirements.

• Side setbacks – (Area 4) concerned with buildings with shear walls on all sides will create visual bulk to existing residential development.

• Gardens/Vegetation – considers the

• Clause 55 does not apply to buildings over 4 storeys, instead the provisions of Clause 58 apply. References to Clause 55 in the UDF could be clarified.

• The application of a 4 metre setback in the Hinterland area is an error in the UDF at Figure 22 and could be considered for removal.

• The proposed front setback in the DDO schedules will enable the planting of medium size trees and retention of existing vegetation.

• The minimum garden area requirements do not apply in the Residential Growth Zone. The DDO landscaping requirements take precedence.

• The RGZ is the appropriate VPP planning tool to encourage a diversity of housing types in locations offering



proposed setbacks aren’t adequate for meaningful tree planting and retention.

• Amenity impacts – concerned with resident and visitor traffic impacting small streets.

• Rezoning–Considers the Residential Growth Zone should only apply along Main Roads with close proximity to commercial facilities.

good access to services and transport, and to encourage a scale of development that provides a transition between areas of more intensive use and development and other residential areas.

• See response to Submission 1 regarding parking.

29 Rezoning and Oriel Road OpposedConcerned with rezoning GRZ1 to GRZ2 restricting future development opportunities and would like to see the RGZ extended along Oriel Road south of Bell Street.

• See response to submission 7 regarding GRZ1 and GRZ2.

• See response to submission 18 regarding extension of RGZ to Oriel Road south of Bell Street.

30 Various Concerns OpposedConcerned that the UDF does not reflect concerns raised through earlier consultation on the document.

General concerns relate to safety, community service provision, services for the homeless, lack of consideration of existing building style and scale, particularly in the Olympic Village area, future affordability of the area, drainage, loss of vegetation, need for a Cultural Heritage Management Plan is required, current zoning along the Darebin Creek and possibility of a linear park on the Eastern side of Liberty Parade and better links between parks, recreation zones and the creek.

Specific concerns include:

• Development along Darebin Creek – visual severance of the creek from Liberty Parade and wildlife corridors, disturbance during

• See response to Submission 1 and 4 regarding community infrastructure and transport.

• Development along the Creek corridor provides an opportunity for more intense development to capitalise on the amenity of the Creekside reserve and to contribute to more active space surveillance and enhanced access to the creek.

• Consider reviewing heights in the Creekside Area.

• The existing inclusion of the Darebin Creek Parklands in a Public Park and Recreation Zone and Public Conservation and Resource Zone are the correct state planning zones to reflect the use of the land.

• Parts of the Olympic Village are included in a Heritage Overlay in the Planning scheme. This overlay requires a planning permit for specified works that may impact on the significance of a property or area protected by an overlay.

• A Cultural Heritage Management Plan is only required



construction, overshadowing, encroachment of private use into public natural space.

• Building Height – Creekside not appropriate for multi-storey development.

• Community –Housing models such as Nightingale to support the community.

• Traffic and Parking –considers UDF should incorporate alternative transport systems such as car-sharing schemes to be mandated in proposed developments. Concerns that the UDF is supporting car ownership and usage though on-site parking.

when proposing a specific development, not for introducing planning scheme controls.

31 Specific property OpposedConcerned with decreased density proposed in Area 5 Hinterland and hopes to see a contemporary intercity suburb to accommodate the increasing population.


32 Various concerns OpposedConcerns regarding lack of strategic justification for Area 4 Local Park Interface and the impact on these streets and that proposed height, setback and site coverage regulations would not respect the existing character of the suburb.

• See response to submission 10 regarding local park interfaces.

• Council’s existing housing framework in the Banyule Planning Scheme supports urban renewal across the suburb with more change along major roads, around centres and at interfaces with parks. The existing Residential Areas Framework at Clause 21.06 identifies Heidelberg West as an area for urban renewal.

• Current planning scheme overlays including a Vegetation Protection Overlay and Environmental Significance Overlay will continue to apply to the area to ensure protection of Banyule’s vegetation and treed streetscapes that contribute to the City’s neighbourhood character.



33 Building Heights and Amenity

OpposedConcerned with impact from multi-level buildings on the area.


34 Specific Property Concerns

OpposedConcerned with GRZ1 to GRZ2 and minimum 4m setback that will limit redevelopment opportunities.


• See response to submission 28 regarding 4 metre setback.

35 Support if changes madeConcerned with ensuring new development is of a high quality including sustainable design with high amenity and energy efficiency.

Queries the meaning of innovation and if co-housing is exempt from development contributions.

Suggests the following changes:

• “6 storeys is only likely to be achieved with an amalgamation of 3 lots or more” should be “will only be allowed when 3 lots or more are consolidated.”

• Building height upper limit should be restricted to 5 stories for main roads to match the limit on the south side of Bell St.

• Council’s Waste Plan to strengthen the planning scheme for multi-unit developments to make three stream collection mandatory.

• Environmentally sustainable development comments noted. The UDF contains measures to encourage sustainability and best practice. The Banyule Planning Scheme also has an Environmentally Sustainable Development Policy that requires development to achieve best practice in environmentally sustainable development from the design stage through to construction and operation.

• The recently adopted Banyule Development Contributions Plan and Amendment C115 provides an exemption for cohousing development that meets a minimum threshold. The amendment is currently with the Minister for Planning for approval.

• The Victoria Planning Provisions do not allow Council to make lot consolidation a mandatory requirement in an overlay schedule.

• See response to submission 1 regarding heights along Main Roads.

• Council has recently prepared a new Waste Management Plan that contains short and long term actions for waste collection and improvements.



36 Rezoning Area 5 Support if changes madeSupports increased development density and renewal of Postcode 3081.

Concerned with rezoning of Area 5 Hinterland from GRZ1 to GRZ2 and considers leaving the area in GRZ1 will improve quality of surroundings and current development potential.

See response to Submission 7 regarding GRZ1 and GRZ2.

37 Building Heights OpposedObjects to the proposed 6 storey height along Malahang Parade as this is not considered to fit the category of a Main Road.

Concerned with impact on infrastructure from increased population specifically in relation to public transport access.

• See response to Submission 4 regarding proposed controls for Malahang Parade.


38 Various concerns OpposedConcerned with future high rise development which is not close to a train line, job opportunities and limited choice for schools, shopping and entertainment, impact on roads and parking and impact on visual amenity and overshadowing.

Also concerned with design quality and ground floor interfaces of current high-rise developments.


• The inclusion of design requirements in the Design and Development Overlay provides a statutory framework that must be considered when assessing a planning application.

39 Building Height and Infrastructure

OpposedConcern that 6 storey heights and impact on neighbourhood character, lack of local infrastructure (schools and police station), services and investment to cater for increase in density and development activities. Concern

• See response to submissions 1 and 4 regarding infrastructure and transport.

• The Banyule Planning Scheme identifies areas where increased residential development is encouraged. In addition to parts of 3081, these areas are identified as Diversity and



regarding insufficient parking and that the liveability of the local streets.

Is concerned that 3081 is being targeted to take Council’s share of residential development.

Accessible Areas in the planning scheme and include major activity centres at Heidelberg, Greensborough and parts of Ivanhoe and areas in Rosanna, Watsonia, Lower Plenty and Montmorency.

40 Various concerns OpposedVarious concerns including:

• Building Height – Increased height will change the streetscape of the suburb

• Overshadowing – current residences backing onto the areas where buildings up to six/five/four stories may impact access to sunlight.

• Other Council Plans –The amendment is considered in isolation from other plans and changes that are taking place in Bellfield and close proximity to the suburb including (Bellfield Masterplan, Ford Park Masterplan and Bell Street Master Plan and neighbouring municipalities (Gas Works sites).

• Traffic and Parking – Concern that the proposal and other developments in the area will increase traffic and demand for parking, and suggests developers should be required to provide adequate parking.

• Infrastructure –concerned with how Council will ensure increase in community infrastructure for the increase in residential dwellings.

• See response to Submissions 1 and 4 regarding infrastructure, transport and building heights.

• See response to submission 45 regarding overshadowing.

• Preparation of the UDF implements key initiatives in the Banyule Council Plan for planning in the Latrobe NEIC and sits alongside other strategies and plans that affect the area.

41 Specific property concern

OpposedConcerned that reducing the permitted building area block from 60% to 40% would adversely affect the value and options available for the

Refer to response to Submission 7 regarding GRZ1 and GRZ2.



property that do not align with the Victorian Government’s planning strategy for the LaTrobe National Employment and Innovation Cluster.


OpposedConcerned that reducing the permitted building area block from 60% to 40% would adversely affect the value and options available for the property that do not align with the Victorian Government’s planning strategy for the La Trobe National Employment and Innovation Cluster.








45 Various concerns OpposedConcerned that the proposed planning scheme framework will not achieve the objectives for the area and believe more requirements should be mandatory. Various concerns including:

• Overshadowing –Considers Area 1 and Area 2 developments will overshadow adjoining properties even if complying with the ideal setbacks from boundaries and setbacks from

• The inclusion of design requirements in the Design and Development Overlay provides a statutory framework that must be considered when assessing a planning application.

• Overshadowing and overlooking will be addressed by Council’s Urban Design Expert Witness Statement through the Panel Process.

• Refer to response to submissions 1 and 4 regarding



upper levels. Concerns that overshadowing will occur at times of the day when residents returning from school and work and will be unable to enjoy solar amenity in their properties.

• Overlooking – concern that the current proposal for Area 2 development heights will allow overlooking of properties on Eden St, Sackerville St, Law St, Bonar St, Marie Ave, Kokoda St and Setani Cres.

• Neighbourhood Character – concerned with the impact of current development on neighbourhood character.

• Parking – concerned with impact of development on on-street car parking.

• Services Development – concern with the impact on community services and infrastructure.

infrastructure provision, community services and car parking.

• The Banyule Planning Scheme contains a Residential Neighbourhood Character Policy at Clause 22.02 that sets out the preferred character of residential areas in the municipality and guides development outcomes consistent with the preferred character.

46 Various concerns OpposedVarious concerns including:

• Impact of population increase on local infrastructure including school and roads.

• Insufficient off street parking allocation as set through State Government policies.

• Insufficient local jobs to support the 20 minute neighbourhood objective of Plan Melbourne.

• Building heights which have been proposed to extend up to 6 levels along various streets are excessive and will adversely impact the community character or the area and adjacent properties.

• Questions if Council has to comply with State Government policy.

• Refer to response to submissions 1 and 4 regarding parking, community infrastructure provision and building heights.

• The La Trobe NEIC Framework Plan is the State Government’s long term plan to increase jobs in the Cluster leveraging the foundations of existing specialised activities associated with Latrobe University and Austin Health. This will include intensified and rejuvenated employment precincts that increase and diversify employment opportunities.

• All Councils are required by the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to implement the objectives of Planning in Victoria. All planning scheme amendments are required to be demonstrate how they are consistent with the State Planning Policy Framework. The Framework contains requirements to implement the objectives of Melbourne 2030.



47 OpposedConcern that 5 and 6 storey developments are too high for this area and are not near an activity centre with adequate shops and train station.

Concern that consultation has been unfair and that Bellfield and Heidelberg Heights were wrongly included in the UDF at such a late stage and that building height provisions were based purely on the same postcode.

• See response to submission 16 regarding the Latrobe NEIC and consultation process.

• Parts of Bellfield and Heidelberg Heights have always been included in the UDF study area, as these areas are identified as part of the La Trobe NEIC in Plan Melbourne.

48 Various Concerns SupportSupports the amendment and welcomes the initiative to deliver the proposed outcomes.

Makes the following suggestions/amendments:

• Review heights and guidelines for the Key Redevelopment Sites identified in the UDF.

• Amend the four DDO schedules to ensure the diagrams are consistent with the setback requirement tables.

• Amend Clause 21.08 to be consistent with Figure 11 of the UDF.

• Various minor changes to diagrams within the UDF.

• Various amendments suggested for other parts of the scheme not included in this planning scheme amendment.

• Remove the Incorporated Plan Overlay Schedule 2 – Olympic Village Precinct as it is superseded by the UDF.

• Revised options for the Key Redevelopment Sites in the UDF can be considered and will be addressed through the panel process.

• Amendments to diagrams in the UDF and planning scheme controls can be be considered as discussed in Council report.

• Amend Map 1 in Clause 21.08 to be consistent with UDF.

• Changes to other parts of the Banyule Planning Scheme cannot be introduced to Amendment C120 post exhibition. They will need to be considered through a separate planning scheme amendment for consideration by the Minister for Planning.

• Planning Scheme Amendment C114, which proposes minor corrections to the planning scheme, proposes to remove IPO2 from the planning scheme. Amendment C114 has been submitted to the Minister for Planning for approval.



49 Housing and Infrastructure

OpposedConcerned with current development of units in the area and the impact on traffic, parking, unkempt rental houses, rubbish dumping and neighbourhood disputes.

Concerned that multi-storey apartment not suitable for the 3081 area and that new development should be single storey.

• Current planning permit applications are assessed against Council’s Residential Neighbourhood Character Policy, Clause 52.06 Car Parking, and other provisions of the planning scheme designed to protect neighbourhood character.

• Other property maintenance issues cannot be addressed through the Planning Scheme and should be addressed by other areas of Council where appropriate.

• Refer to response to submission 16 regarding current height limits.

50 SupportSupport in principle the proposed amendment and recognise it as an important step towards balancing the need for residential intensification along key transport corridors with development outcomes that support local character.

Recommends taking an integrated transport and land use approach to ensure future developments do not have an adverse impact on public transport operations, pedestrian, cyclist and general traffic movements.

Asks for further information to be provided in the explanatory report on how the amendment meets the objectives and requirements of the Transport Integration Act.

Suggests the inclusion of two new design objectives in the UDF:

“Delivering residential intensification within

• Support noted.

• The State Government is currently preparing a short and long term vision for future transport improvements and transport planning to support the La Trobe NEIC through an integrated transport and land use model.

• The draft La Trobe NEIC framework plan outlines a range of strategic priority outcomes including planning for and delivering transport infrastructure projects. The amendment is consistent with the principles of the NEIC to provide a framework for increased residential development close to housing and jobs.

• The objectives of the Transport Integration Act require the State Government to, amongst a number of matters: maximise access to residences, employment, markets, services and recreation; ensure land use decisions are made having regard for the current and future development and operation of the transport system; and ensure transport infrastructure and services are provided in a timely manner to support changing land use and associated transport demand.



locations that are supported by frequent public transport services’

“Ensuring that vehicle and service access from developments does not have an adverse impact on public transport movements within the corridors”

• The amendment puts in place a long term framework for urban renewal that is consistent with future planned transport improvements in the NEIC. The explanatory report will be amended to further discuss the above information.

• The proposed objectives can be considered for inclusion in the UDF along with some additional information on future transport planning in the area.

Item: 5.1 Attachment 3: Map of Zoning and Height Changes for Options 2 and 3


Item: 5.1 Attachment 4: Map of Option 3 Sub-options - Creekside


Item: 5.1 Attachment 5: Shadow Anaysis for the Creekside Area


Item: 5.1 Attachment 6: Postcode 3081 UDF Recommendations for Buna Street Site


Item: 5.2 Attachment 1: Heads of Agreement


Item: 5.3 Attachment 1: State of Assets Report 2018


Version 1.0 – December 2018

. State of Assets Report



DOCUMENT CONTROL

SCHEDULE OF ADOPTION

Version No.

Date Comment Authority Reference

V1.0 December 2018 Prepared to present to EMT City Assets Coordinator

February 2018 Prepared for Councillors Briefing City Assets Coordinator

March 2018 Prepared for an adoption in Council Meeting City Assets Coordinator



CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 5

2. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 7

3. FINANCIAL INDICATORS ........................................................................................... 7

4. CONDITION OF INFRASTRUCTURE ASSETS ........................................................... 8

3.1 Roads ................................................................................................................... 9

3.2 Footpaths ............................................................................................................ 11

3.3 Bridges ............................................................................................................... 12

3.4 Drainage ............................................................................................................. 13

3.5 Parks and Open Space ....................................................................................... 14

3.6 Buildings ............................................................................................................. 15

5. RISK MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................ 16

6. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................... 17



List of Figures

Figure 1: Condition of All Assets ......................................................................................... 9

Figure 2: Road Asset Condition Profile ............................................................................. 10

Figure 3: Kerb and Channel Condition Profile ................................................................... 10

Figure 4: Footpath Condition Profile .................................................................................. 11

Figure 5: Bridge Condition Profile...................................................................................... 12

Figure 6: Drainage Assets Condition Profile ...................................................................... 13

Figure 7: Shared Trail Condition Profile............................................................................. 14

Figure 8: Carpark Condition Profile ................................................................................... 15

Figure 9: Building Condition Profile ................................................................................... 16

List of Tables

Table 1: Summary of Infrastructure Asset Classes .............................................................. 7

Table 2: Capital Replacement Ratio and Renewal Gap Ratio over 5 Years ........................ 8

Table 3: Condition Rating Definition .................................................................................... 8

Table 4: Summary of Roads Assets .................................................................................... 9

Table 5: Summary of Bridges ............................................................................................ 12

Table 6: Summary of Drainage Assets .............................................................................. 13

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY



The State of Assets Report presents a high level condition summary, at 30 June 2018, of Council’s infrastructure assets with the exception of fleet, plant, equipment, trees and land. It also indicates the renewal funding required over the next four years (2019/20 to 2022/23) to maintain the current level of service. This report is an action arising from Council’s Asset Management Strategy 2018 and will be reviewed annually.

A five point grading system (very good, good, fair, poor and very poor) is used to assess the condition of assets. Following table summarises average condition, confidence in the condition data and renewal funding level over the next four years for each asset class.

Table: Summary of Asset Condition and Renewal Funding Level

Asset Class Average Asset

Condition Confidence in

Data Renewal

Funding Level

Road Very Good High

Kerb & Channel Good High

Footpath Fair High

Bridge Good High

Drainage Fair Low

Building Good High

Shared Trail Fair High

Carpark Good High

Legend Appropriate Monitor Requires Funding

Council’s footpath and shared trail are in fair condition with a portion at poor and very poor condition. Drainage assets are also in fair condition, however reliability of this data is low as Council has very limited condition data of drainage assets. All other assets are in good and very good condition.

Council completed condition audit of all asset classes listed above, except drainage. Therefore, Council has high confidence in the condition data of each asset class, except drainage. Council has programmed an annual condition audit of drainage. Moreover, a condition audit is in progress for various parks and open space assets (playground, sports fields, cricket nets and pitches, park furniture, artwork, water fountains, BBQ etc), which would be incorporated in the next report.

Council’s current renewal funding over the next four years in the capital works program is appropriate for road, bridge, drainage, building and carpark. However, footpath and shared trail have renewal gaps over the next four years. In order to address the gaps, it is proposed to increase the funding by $3 million and $2.3 million respectively over the next four years. It would increase the footpath funding from $6.34 million to $9.34 million and the shared trail funding from $3.1 million to $5.4 million. Kerb and channel has a renewal gap of approximately $450,000 over the next four years, however this asset does not create any major risks to the users. Council is preparing 10 year Asset Management Plans for all asset classes. More detail information about condition, level of service, annual operation and maintenance expenditure, and required capital works program including renewal, upgrade, new and expansion for each year would be addressed in these plans.



2. INTRODUCTION

The State of Assets Report presents a high level condition summary of Council’s infrastructure assets at 30 June 2018. It also discusses the funding level over the next four years (2019/20 to 2022/23) to maintain the level of service. This report



summarises all infrastructure assets managed by Council with the exception of fleet, plant, equipment, trees and land.

This report is an action arising from Council’s Asset Management Strategy 2018. The asset classes covered by this report are listed in Table 1.

Table 1: Summary of Infrastructure Asset Classes

Asset Class Description Replacement

Value % of all Assets

Roads Road pavement, road surface and kerb & channel $258.4M 28%

Footpath Street footpath on local road, arterial roads and state highways

$143M 15%

Bridges Pedestrian foot bridge, road bridge and culvert $16.7M 2%

Drainage Drainage pipes and pits including gross pollutant traps $205.8M 22%

Parks and Open Space

Shared trail, open space carpark, sports grounds, synthetic sports fields, playgrounds, cricket nets and pitch, tennis courts, netball courts, basketball courts, park furniture, artwork, water fountain, BBQ.

$ 48.7M 5%

Buildings Municipal offices, aquatic centres, pavilions, libraries, community facilities, child care centres, maternal & child health and toilets (excluding investment property)

$258.1M 28%

Total Value $930.7M

3. FINANCIAL INDICATORS

Good asset management practice relies on Council being financially sustainable. The Victorian Auditor-General uses Capital Replacement Ratio (CRR) as an indicator relating to asset management. This is calculated by comparing annual capital expenditure (Renewal, New, Upgrade and Expansion) to depreciation. The indicator shows whether Council’s capital works expenditure has kept pace with the rate of consumption (i.e. depreciation) of its assets. Banyule City Council’s CRR is 1.53.

The Auditor-General views a Capital Replacement Ratio as follows: 1. More than 1.5 – low risk of insufficient spending on asset base. 2. Between 1.0 and 1.5 - may indicate insufficient spending on renewal of

existing assets. 3. Less than 1.0 - spending on capital works has not kept pace with

consumption of assets.

The Renewal Gap Ratio (RGR) only includes annual renewal expenditure and compares it to depreciation. A good asset management practice is to maintain an RGR of 1. Banyule’s RGR is 1. Table 2 shows the CRR and RGR over five years taken from Council’s 2019/20 Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP).

Table 2: Capital Replacement Ratio and Renewal Gap Ratio over 5 Years

Financial Year Capital Replacement Ratio (CRR) Renewal Gap Ratio (RGR)

Actual - 2017/18 1.53 1.00



Forecast - 2018/19 1.72 1.25

LTFP - 2019/20 1.65 1.44

LTFP - 2020/21 1.75 1.50

LTFP - 2021/22 1.79 1.54

Both ratios, CRR and RGR, indicate Council is financially sustainable due to allowing appropriate level of capital works funding.

Council reviews its renewal needs and budget forecast every year. The Moloney Asset Management Model (MAMM) is used for this exercise. The MAMM is a simplistic model that predicts renewal funding requirements based on estimated renewal cost, condition profile and expected deterioration rate.

4. CONDITION OF INFRASTRUCTURE ASSETS

This report uses a five point grading system, as summarised in Table 3, to assess the condition of Council’s assets. This is consistent with the grading system recommended by the Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia (IPWEA).

Table 3: Condition Rating Definition

Condition Grading Scale

Name Description

1 Very Good Assets in as new condition

2 Good Only planned maintenance required

3 Fair Minor maintenance required plus planned maintenance

4 Poor Major maintenance required

5 Very Poor Significant renewal/rehabilitation required

Most of the condition data Council has about its assets is reliable and up to date. It shows that majority (93 per cent) of Council’s assets are in very good, good or fair condition. The remaining assets (7 per cent) are in poor or very poor condition, which is used as the main driver of the renewal program. Figure 1 depicts the overall condition of all asset classes together.



Figure 1: Condition of All Assets

The condition of each asset class is discussed in more detail below.

3.1 Roads

Council manages local roads (including pavement and wearing surface), kerb and channel and roadside assets (e.g. parking bay, roundabout, median, splitter island, speed hump, crash barrier, slow point and traffic control device) whereas VicRoads manages arterial roads and State Highways. Details of major road assets, excluding unsealed road and roadside assets, are summarised in Table 4.

Table 4: Summary of Roads Assets

Component length (km) Replacement Value

Road (Including Pavement and Surface)

545 $174.5 M

Kerb and Channel 1,045 $83.9M

Total $258.4M

Council undertakes a condition audit of its sealed road network every four years. The latest condition audit was completed in June 2018. The overall condition of road is very good. Figure 2 depicts the condition of the sealed road assets. Only four per cent of the assets are in poor or very poor condition.

Council’s current (2018/19) budget for road renewal is $1.8 million. It is $7.2 million over the following four years. The funding level is appropriate over the next 4 years to maintain the current condition.

$194,674,194 $206,012,663

$467,288,717

$54,629,669

$8,109,093

VERY GOOD GOOD FAIR POOR VERY POOR

Re

pla

cem

en

t V

alu

e

Condition Rating

Condition Profile of All Assets



Figure 2: Road Asset Condition Profile

Included in the road condition audit is all of Banyule’s kerb and channel which is profiled in Figure 3. The overall condition is good, with less than two per cent of this asset is in poor or very poor condition. A large portion of the kerb and channel issues is caused by tree roots, however it does not create any major risks to the users.

Council’s preferred practice is to replace kerb and channel when the road is resurfaced. Current (2018/19) kerb and channel renewal budget is $112,000 and it is $506,000 over the following four years. Kerb and channel has a renewal gap of approximately $450,000 over the next four years to maintain its current condition and also to comply the Road Management Plan.

Figure 3: Kerb and Channel Condition ProfileCondition information about the unsealed road and roadside assets (e.g. parking bay, roundabout, median, splitter island, speed hump, crash barrier, slow point and traffic

$79,016,974

$55,814,834

$32,689,803

$5,146,962 $1,636,071


Rep

lace

men

t V

alu

e, $

Condition Rating

Road Condition

$4,253,825

$28,580,384

$49,517,178

$1,096,689 $432,029


Rep

lace

men

t V

alu

e, $

Condition Rating

Kerb and Channel Condition



control device) is not well documented. Moreover, the value of these assets is comparatively low. Therefore, these assets are not included in this report.

3.2 Footpaths

Council is responsible for the management of 936 kilometres of on-road footpaths. The replacement value of the footpath network is $143 million. Almost 98 per cent of footpaths are made of concrete. The remaining two per cent includes asphalt, paver and gravel footpaths.

Council has completed its footpath condition audit in June 2018. The majority (75.3 per cent) of the footpath network is in fair condition, as depicted in Figure 4. One-sixth (16.8 per cent) of the footpath is in poor or very poor condition, which is one of the drivers of renewal need. The figure does not consider any missing or gravel footpaths to be constructed or upgraded, these are addressed in Walking Strategy.

Figure 4: Footpath Condition Profile

The condition audit also identifies individual defects (e.g. displacement, cracking) based on the Road Management Plan. These defects have an impact on condition, however they are addressed separately to comply the Road Management Plan. Defects often require rectification by replacing one or multiple footpath bays. This is also a driver of the footpath renewal need.

Council’s current (2018/19) budget for footpath renewal is $1.38 million. Footpath currently has a renewal gap over the next four years to maintain its current condition and to comply with Council’s Road Management Plan. In order to address the gap, it is proposed to increase the funding over the next four years by $3 million. This would increase the current footpath renewal budget of $6.34 million to $9.34 million.

3.3 Bridges

$4,168,259 $7,068,297

$107,650,457

$20,181,007

$3,909,379


Rep

lace

men

t V

alu

e, $

Condition Rating

Footpath Condition



Council is responsible for the management of 63 bridges. The Bridge asset comprises of the following asset types listed in Table 5.

Table 5: Summary of Bridges

User Type Structure No. of Bridge Replacement Value

Pedestrian/Shared Path Structures

Bridge 46 $8.9M

Culvert 6 $0.5M

Vehicle Bridge 3 $5.3M

Culvert 8 $2M

Total $16.7M

Council undertakes a level 1 visual inspection annually. A level 2 inspection, which is at component level, is undertaken every two years. A level 3, which is a comprehensive condition assessment, is undertaken if it is suggested by the Level 2 inspection. The latest level 2 inspection occurred in 2016. Figure 5 shows the condition profile of bridges. It indicates over 92 per cent of the bridge assets are in very good, good or fair condition. Less than a per cent is in very poor condition. As a common practice, bridge structures are not fully replaced, but components may be replaced or strengthened where required.

Figure 5: Bridge Condition Profile

Bridge renewal budget is $450,000 in 2018/19. Over the next four years, it is $1.6 million, which is appropriate to address the renewal requirements.

3.4 Drainage



Council is responsible for a drainage network, listed in Table 6, which comprises over 636 kilometres of pipes and 29,109 pits. The replacement value of the pipes and pits is $258.8 million. Open drain assets are not included in this list.

Table 6: Summary of Drainage Assets

Asset Class Quantity Replacement Value ($M)

Pipes and Culverts 636 km $ 160.9

Pits and Structures 29,109 no. $ 44.9

Total $ 205.8

The pipe network has largely (61 per cent) been developed between 1958 and 1977. The average age of the pipe network is approximately 51 years, which is at the middle of its useful life, 100 years.

Pipes are underground assets and are susceptible to premature failures due to joint displacement and tree roots. Condition inspection of pipes is comparatively expensive. As a result, Council has very limited drainage condition data. Council has recently started conducting CCTV camera inspection. Council is planning to inspect two per cent of its network annually, to obtain a good sample size after 5 years in order to draw an indicative condition profile.

Figure 6 shows the overall condition of drainage assets based on its age. It shows a small part of the drainage assets is in very poor condition. Approximately 10 per cent of the assets are in poor condition, which may lead to an increase in renewal requirements into future. Some of the pipes may also need to be upgraded to cope with the growth, which is not addressed in this figure.

Figure 6: Drainage Assets Condition Profile

Council’s budget for drainage renewal is $576,000 in 2018/19. It is $3.3 million over the next four years. Confidence level about the condition of this asset is low. Therefore, it is reasonable to continue with the current funding and address renewal and upgrade requirements already identified.

$9,487,613

$48,931,378

$126,318,088

$20,214,027

$894,491


Rep

lace

men

t V

alu

e, $

Condition Rating

Condition of Drainage Assets



3.5 Parks and Open Space

The Parks and Open Space assets comprise of shared trail, open space carparks, sports grounds, synthetic sports fields, playgrounds, cricket nets and pitches, tennis courts, netball courts, basketball courts, park furniture, artwork, water fountains, BBQ etc. Total value of the Parks and Open Space assets is $48.7 million. The value does not include pedestrian bridges, which is considered as part of the bridge assets.

Council has conducted a condition audit of carparks and shared trail within parks and open space in June 2018. For other assets, Council conducts a risk based inspection every year. Council is planning to carry out a condition inspection of all Parks and Open Space assets, with playgrounds being the priority. The results of the inspection would be presented in the next report in 2019.

Shared Trail:

Council has 33 km of shared trail and their current replacement value is $11 million. Majority (60 per cent) of the shared trail is made of concrete. Remaining 40 per cent is asphalt and granitic sand. Only 28 per cent of the network is wider than 3 metres. The current standard is to upgrade the shared trails to a 3 metres wide concrete path when they are renewed. This replacement with upgrade would cost $29.4 million for the whole network. Figure 7 shows the condition profile of the shared trail based on the renewal and upgrade cost.

Figure 7: Shared Trail Condition Profile

Council’s current funding to renew and upgrade of shared trail is $660,000 in 2018/19. Shared trails have a funding gap over the next four years to meet current industry standard. In order to address the gap, it is proposed to increase the funding over the next four years by $2.3 million. This would increase the shared trail budget of $3.1 million to $5.4 million over the next four years.

Carpark:

$2,331,477

$6,468,533

$16,811,173

$2,436,656 $1,384,862


Rep

lace

men

t V

alu

e, $

Condition Rating

Shared Trail Condition



Council has 136 carparks, 122 sealed and 14 unsealed carparks. A full condition audit has been carried out in June 2018 and Figure 8 depicts the summary of the results. Majority (78 per cent) of the carparks is in very good or good condition. Four per cent of the carpark is in very poor condition, which requires renewal. Total replacement value of sealed carpark is $6.3 million, which includes resurfacing and line marking of the carpark. Although, reconstruction or drainage upgrade is often considered for carpark, they are not included in the replacement value. Reconstruction and drainage upgrades are estimated project by project.

Council’s current renewal funding is $450,000 for carpark. It is $302,000 over the next four years, which is appropriate to address the renewal requirements.

Figure 8: Carpark Condition Profile

3.6 Buildings

Council is responsible for managing 335 buildings. The Buildings include municipal offices, aquatic centres, pavilions, libraries, community facilities, child care centres, maternal & child health and toilets. Replacement value of this asset class is $258.1 million.

Council undertakes a condition audit of all buildings every four years. The latest audit was completed in 2015/16. Overall condition of Council’s buildings is good. Only a small portion (1.5 per cent) of the building assets is in poor or very poor condition. This mainly includes sheds and pavilions. Figure 9 depicts the condition profile of the building asset.

It is a common practice to renew building components (e.g. carpets, kitchen, painting, mechanical devices etc.) rather than replacing a full building. Many of the components are renewed as part of building maintenance. Council’s current renewal budget for building is $9.8 million and it is $24.5 million over the next four years. Council has building assets of $4 million in poor and very poor condition. However, Council’s current renewal funding over the next four years in the capital works program is appropriate to meet current and future demand.

$2,482,194 $2,362,393

$1,183,038

$26,333

$254,042


Rep

lace

men

t V

alu

e, $

Condition Rating

Carpark Condition



Figure 9: Building Condition Profile

Council is planning to conduct a more comprehensive condition audit for its major building facilities and prepare a 10 year major building Asset Management Plan. The buildings are as follows:

• Council’s Admin Building (1 Flintoff Street, Greensborough) • Watermarc, Aquatic Centre (1 Flintoff Street, Greensborough) • Ivanhoe Aquatic & Fitness Centre (Bond Street, Ivanhoe) • The Centre Ivanhoe (Upper Heidelberg Road, Ivanhoe) • Nets Stadium (Somers Avenue, Macleod) • Olympic Leisure Centre (Alamein Road, West Heidelberg) • Macleod Sports Centre (Wungun Street, Macleod) • Ivanhoe Library (Upper Heidelberg Road, Ivanhoe)

A more detail state of buildings will be incorporated in the next report.

5. RISK MANAGEMENT

Council’s Risk Management Framework has been established to systematically improve and embed risk management practices throughout the organisation. Council’s Risk Management Unit maintains Council’s Risk Register and oversees the management of risk within the organisation.

Council’s risk management practices related to infrastructure assets are included in Asset Management Plans. In addition, Council manages road related risk through its Road Management Plan (RMP) in accordance with the Road Management Act 2004. Council has recently reviewed and updated the RMP in consultation with the community to ensure that Council continues to appropriately manage its road and road relating Infrastructure. The plan was adopted in June 2017.

$78,643,801

$50,724,312

$124,747,048

$3,946,750 $66,089


Rep

lace

men

t V

alu

e, $

Condition Rating

Building Condition



6. CONCLUSION

This report presents the condition of Council’s infrastructure assets and appropriateness of current renewal funding. It will be reviewed annually and reported to Council every four years.

Key findings of the report are as follows:

• Road is in very good condition and funding level is appropriate to maintain the current service level.

• Building, bridge and carpark assets are in good condition and their funding level is appropriate.

• Footpath and shared trail are in fair condition with a portion in poor and very poor condition. Both of them have renewal gaps to maintain the current service level. In order to address the gaps, it is proposed to increase the renewal funding by $3 million and $2.3 million respectively over the next four years.

• Kerb and channel is in good condition. However, they have a renewal gap of $450,000 over the next four years.

• Drainage assets are in fair condition. Council has very limited drainage condition data, hence the confidence in data is low. Therefore, it is reasonable to continue the current funding level for renewal.

Council is preparing 10 year Asset Management Plans for all asset classes. More detail information about condition, level of service, annual operation and maintenance expenditure, and required capital works program including renewal, upgrade, new and expansion for each year would be addressed in these plans.

ordinary meeting of council · 2019. 5. 8. · profit’ clubs play within our community is...

Documents