ordinary council meeting - city of kingston · ordinary council meeting notice is given that an...
TRANSCRIPT
Ordinary Council Meeting
Notice is given that an Ordinary Meeting of the Kingston City Council will be held at 7.00pm at 1230 Nepean Hwy, Cheltenham, on Monday 17 December 2012. 1 Apologies
2 Confirmation of Minutes of Previous Meetings
3 Declaration by Councillors or Officers of any Conflict of Interest
4 Petitions
5 Presentations
6 Reports from Village Committees
7 Reports from Delegates Appointed by Council to Various Organisations
8 Question Time
9 Environmental Sustainability Reports
10 Community Sustainability Reports
11 Organisational Development and Governance Reports
12 Corporate Services Reports
13 Notices of Motion
14 Urgent Business
15 Items in Camera
City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting
Agenda 17 December 2012 Notice is given that an Ordinary Meeting of Kingston City Council will be held at 7.00pm at the Cheltenham Office, 1230 Nepean Highway, Cheltenham, on Monday 17 December 2012. 1. Apologies 2. Confirmation of Minutes of Previous Meetings Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting 26 November 2012 Minutes of Special Council Meeting 3 December 2012 3. Foreshadowed Declaration by Councillors, Officers or Contractors of any
Conflict of Interest [Note that any Conflicts of Interest need to be formally declared at the start of the
meeting and immediately prior to the item being considered – type and nature of interest is required to be disclosed – if disclosed in writing to the CEO prior to the meeting only the type of interest needs to be disclosed prior to the item being considered.]
4. Petitions 5. Presentation of Awards
Former Councillors: • Arthur Athanasopoulos • Lewis Dundas • Dan Moloney • Trevor Shewan
6. Reports from Village Committees 7. Reports from Delegates Appointed by Council to Various Organisations 8. Question Time 9. Environmental Sustainability Reports O 206 KP709/11 – 419 Centre Dandenong Road, Heatherton O 207 KP134/10 – Lot 4 Governor Road, Mordialloc O 208 KP443/12 – 11 Central Avenue, Moorabbin O 209 KP324/12 – 31-33 Garfield Avenue, Cheltenham O 210 Foreshore Reserve Fund O 211 Mordialloc Creek Dredging, Decision on Funding 10. Community Sustainability Reports O 212 Outcome of Early Learning Facility Upgrade Grant Applications O 213 CCTV Systems for Moorabbin and Aspendale 11. Organisational Development & Governance Reports O 214 Assembly of Councillors O 215 Expenditure of Ward Funds Schedule O 216 Mayoral and Councillor Allowances
1
City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting
Agenda 17 December 2012 12. Corporate Services Reports 13. Notices of Motion O 217 Notice of Motion No. 36/2012 - Cr Bearsley 14. Urgent Business 15. Items in Camera – Confidential Items O 218 Australia Day Awards O 219 Gaming Machines O 220 Residential Aged Care Facility O 221 Acquisition of Drainage Easement O 222 Acquisition of Land for Footpath Reconstruction
2
Explanation of Meeting Procedure Meeting Procedure Regulated by Local Law The procedure for this Ordinary Council Meeting is regulated by Local Law 7. Chairperson The Mayor as Chairperson is the ultimate authority for the conduct of the meeting. Agenda The business to be dealt with at the meeting is set out in the agenda ( in which this document is included). No other business can be dealt with, unless admitted as “ Urgent Business” by resolution of Council. Motions A motion must be moved and seconded to be valid. The mover of the motion will then be permitted to speak to it. Other Councillors will then be permitted to speak either for or against the motion. The mover will be permitted a right-of-reply, which will conclude the debate. Voting The motion will then be voted on by show of hands. If the motion is carried, it becomes a resolution ( decision) of the Council. Any Councillor may call for a Division, in order that the vote of each Councillor is formally recorded. Amendments A Councillor may move an amendment to a motion prior to the resolution being determined. Any amendment moved shall be dealt with in the same way as a motion, except that there is no right of reply. If carried, the amendment becomes the motion ( the previous motion is abandoned )
Addressing the Meeting No gallery member may speak to the meeting, except for: Village Committee Chairpersons presenting Committee recommendations to Council; The applicant ( or his/her representative) and one objector in relation to an application for a town planning permit; Special circumstances in which leave to speak is granted by the Chairperson. Unless special circumstances apply, the Mayor will limit the presentation of a speaker to three minutes duration. Questions Gallery members may put questions in writing to Council which will be dealt with during Question Time. The Question Box is located in the foyer. Residents asking a question must be present in the gallery during Question Time, or the question will not be responded to. Questioners are asked to keep their questions as succinct as possible. Questions which cannot be accommodated on the single sided question form provided are likely to require research, and are more appropriately directed to Council in the form of a letter. In such cases, a response will be provided in writing subsequent to the meeting. Confidential Business The meeting may be closed at any time to deal with confidential items in camera. In these instances the gallery will be cleared, and the meeting re-opened once the confidential business is completed. Courtesy to the Mayor All Councillors are required to direct their attention towards the Mayor when speaking, and not the public gallery. This is in accordance with protocols relating to respect for the Chairperson of a meeting, and is a requirement of Council’s Meeting Procedures Local Law.
Emergency Evacuation of Chamber Members of the public are requested to note the green and white EXIT signs. In the event of an emergency requiring evacuation of the Chamber, the public should evacuate by way of the EXIT located to the right hand side of the public gallery. This leads to the foyer through which yu passed in order to enter the Chamber. Proceed from the foyer through the revolving door/side door and out of the building. This is the primary evacuation route. If the nature of the emergency is such that the primary evacuation route is impracticable, the public should evacuate by way of the EXIT located just beyond and to the right of the media table, as viewed from the public gallery. Follow further EXIT signs thereafter, which lead to an exit point on the south side of the building. This is the secondary evacuation route. Council staff will issue directions on how to proceed to evacuate in the event of an emergency
Are You Hard of Hearing Phonic Ear Hearing Assistance is available to any member of the public gallery with a hearing disability. Just ask Civic Facilities Officer Lindsay Holland for a unit prior to the meeting.
Ordinary Council Meeting
17 December 2012 Agenda Item No: 6 REPORTS FROM VILLAGE COMMITTEES
Trim: 12/131851
Contact Officer: Phil DeLosa, Program Leader Governance
Purpose of Report This report presents recommendations and highlights from the Village Committees to Council for consideration.
Disclosure of Officer / Contractor Direct or Indirect Interest No direct or indirect interest.
Recommendation That Council:
Consider each Village Committee recommendation as a separate motion.
1. Executive Summary Recommendations and highlights have been received from some of the Village Committees for Council to consider at the Ordinary Meeting of Council.
2. Background Council’s Village Committees may comprise residents, property owners and representatives of other organisations. The Committees meet on a monthly or bi-monthly basis. At the Village Committee meetings highlights are noted and recommendations may be proposed for Council to consider.
3. Village Committee Reports (1) Aspendale/Edithvale/Aspendale Gardens/Waterways Village Committee Chairperson – Kevin Griffiths Report of Meeting held on 6 December 2012 Village Committee Motion Now that there are clear lines of responsibility for the issues relating to the Mordialloc Creek Barrier, we encourage Council to develop a planning strategy to provide a framework to guide property owners in future developments.
3
Officer Comments There are existing requirements on the undeveloped land in the industrial area that the properties be landscaped (including screening planting) when those properties are developed. This is contained in a Section 173 agreement for the industrial properties. This will be managed by conditions on future planning permits before the land is developed. Officer Recommendation That the committee be thanked for its advice and be advised that this matter will be managed by conditions on future planning permits before the land is developed. Highlight: The consultation with the Village Committee undertaken by members of Council’s Community Engagement Team to aid the development of the Municipal Public Health & Wellbeing Plan and the Community Safety Strategy ____________________________________________________________________ (2) Chelsea/Chelsea Heights/Bonbeach Village Committee Chairperson – John Bainbridge No meeting held this month. ___________________________________________________________________________ (3) Cheltenham Village Committee Chairperson – Simon Libbis Report of meeting held on 4 December 2012 Highlight: The highlight was the consultation by Nicole Malina and Susan Heywood on the Public Health and Safety Consultation. ____________________________________________________________________ (4) Clarinda/Oakleigh South/Clayton South Village Committees Chairperson – Gael Mizzi Village Committee Motion David Catchpool moved a motion of congratulations to all Councillors elected and Councillor Brownlees for his re-election as Mayor. Officer Recommendation That the Village Committee be thanked for its sentiments. Highlight: The chance for everyone to come together at the end of the year and thanks to Rob and Erin for their support. _________________________________________________________________________ (5) Dingley/Heatherton Village Committee Chairperson – Anne Caprackas. No meeting held this month. ___________________________________________________________________________ (6) Mentone/Parkdale Village Committee Chairperson – Barbara Taylor Report of meeting held on 4 December 2012.
4
Highlight: Nil. ___________________________________________________________________________ (7) Moorabbin / Highett Village Committee Chairperson – Les Heimann Report of meeting held on 5 December 2012. Village Committee Motion That a decision be made regarding a traffic treatment solution at Bulli & Genoa Streets, Moorabbin (even if budget is not available to implement). One of the options should include making the exit from Bulli St / Isabella St one way. Officer Comments The comments of the Village Committee are noted and will be considered when the local area traffic management is reviewed. The traffic calming requirements for a number of areas in Moorabbin are being considered for review. Officer Recommendation That the Village Committee be thanked for its advice and be advised that traffic treatments will be considered when the local area traffic management is reviewed as determined by Council. Highlight: Remembrance of contribution Thelma Mansfield made to the Village Committee and broader Moorabbin community. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ (8) Mordialloc Village Committee Chairperson – David van Pelt Report of meeting held on 4 December 2012. Highlight: Presentation on rain gardens by Jonathan Guttmann. ______________________________________________________________________ (9) Patterson Lakes/Carrum Village Committee
Chairperson – Don Reed Report of meeting held on 5 December 2012 Highlight: Nil. ________________________________________________________________Author/s: Stephanie O’Gorman, Governance Officer Reviewed and Approved By: Elaine Sowerby, General Manager Organisational
Development and Governance
5
No. 419 (Lot 1 of TP 684438A) Centre Dandenong Road Heatherton – Planning Permit Application No. KP-709/2011
Executive Summary for Ordinary Council Meeting APPLICATION No: KP-709/2011 LAND: No. 419 Centre Dandenong Road Heatherton (Lot 1 of
TP 684438A) PLANNING OFFICER: Tanya Sokolowski PROPOSAL: Use and Develop the Land for a Place of Worship PERMIT TRIGGER: Use and development for a Place of Worship and car
parking reduction EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS: Vacant APPLICANT: Coomes Planning ZONE / OVERLAYS: Green Wedge Zone (Schedule 2), Design and
Development Overlay (Schedule 4), Land Subject to Inundation Overlay & Airport Environs Overlay (Schedule 1)
POLICY AREA South East Non-Urban Policy Area; Moorabbin Airport Environs Policy
OBJECTIONS One (1) 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 This application has been deferred from the November Planning Committee meeting
held on 3 December 2012, with the application directed to be included on the agenda for the December Planning Committee meeting. This application has been deferred from the October Planning Committee meeting, and prior to that it was deferred from the September Planning Committee meeting. At the October Planning Committee it was determined that given the scale and nature of the proposal within the Green Wedge that it would not be appropriate to determine the application during Council’s election caretaker period.
1.2 The September Planning Committee report had been prepared with a
recommendation to refuse the application on the basis that the Moorabbin Airport Corporation objected to the proposal. The Moorabbin Airport Corporation in this instance is a referral authority, and Council was required to refuse the application pursuant to Section 55 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 on the basis of their objection. Following receipt of an objection withdrawal from Moorabbin Airport Corporation on Wednesday 19 September 2012 and the subsequent change in officer recommendation to approve the application, it was determined at the September Planning Committee meeting that more time was required to consider the application.
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks to use and develop the land for the purpose of a church. It is
proposed to construct a church, church hall and sixty-two (62) car spaces in two
6
stages. 2.2 Stage 1 of the development is proposed to entail the construction of the church hall
which will have seating capacity for 100 people, and all sixty-two car spaces. Stage 2 of the development will be the construction of the church, which is proposed to have a seating capacity of 200. It is proposed to use the hall for church services until Stage 2 is complete. The church hall will contain facilities such as bathrooms, office areas, kitchen and dining area – providing a multi-purpose space in addition to the open hall area which will be used for church services as required.
2.3 It is proposed to construct access to the site from Ross Street, with a new crossover
located approximately twelve (12) metres from the corner of Ross Street and Centre Dandenong Road.
3.0 SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDS 3.1 The following map illustrates the subject site in its surrounding context.
3.2 The site is located on the north-east corner of Centre Dandenong Road and Ross
Street. The site is rectangular in shape with a frontage to Centre Dandenong Road of 110.18 metres, a side depth to Ross Street of 54.72 metres and an overall site area of 6028 square metres. The site is currently vacant. A small number of trees are located towards the site’s north-western corner.
3.3 A bus stop is located to the front of the site. Ross Street is an unmade local road,
whilst Centre Dandenong Road is an arterial road. 3.4 The surrounding area is developed and used for a mixture of uses, including
agricultural uses to the east, to the north is land containing a local group’s clubhouse and soccer pitch, on the west side of Ross Street is the Capital Golf Course and to
7
the south on the opposite side of Centre Dandenong Road is the Chifley Business Park.
4.0 KEY PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 The key planning considerations relate to:
(a) Appropriateness of Land Use in the Green Wedge Zone The proposal is considered to fit within the context of the site. Opposite the site on the
south side of Centre Dandenong Road is the Chifley Business Park which comprises relatively large scale commercial development, with buildings that entail significant footprints and overall building heights. The proposal will provide an appropriate transition of built form into the Green Wedge Zone. The proposed use is also considered to be consistent with current permissible uses in the Zone, where local policy encourages low site coverage community uses such as churches. Council’s own local policies discuss the appropriateness of community facilities such as churches in the zone and seek to encourage them where they are readily accessible.
This direction is amended in Council’s Draft Green Wedge Plan (adopted August 27 2012), with the site designated within a ‘Low Intensity Area’. Although the proposal will entail relatively low site coverage of 14%, and is a community facility as envisaged in The Plan, a place of worship has been excluded from the list of uses appropriate in these areas. Whilst The Plan has not been formally incorporated into the Kingston Planning Scheme, the outcomes sought by the document have been taken into consideration in the assessment of the application. The proposal would essentially provide an outcome on the site which is consistent with the broad objectives of the ‘Low Intensity Area’ where the low site coverage and less intensive, community focussed use are deemed to be appropriate.
The proposed use for a place of worship is considered to fit well with the community and recreation uses which are located to the north and west of the site. The proposed use has the potential to benefit a local and broader regional community need, and is reflective of Kingston’s diverse communities, particularly towards the northern portion of the municipality.
(b) Car parking and traffic The provision of car parking on the site is considered adequate and meets the parking provision requirements of Clause 52.06 of the Kingston Planning Scheme. It is noted that there is scope to provide informal car parking on a portion of the site should there be overflow. The proposal has been reviewed by VicRoads and Council’s Traffic Engineers who have recommended conditions to require the relocation of the proposed access to the site to alleviate concerns regarding the queuing of traffic on Centre Dandenong Road.
5.0 OBJECTOR CONCERNS
8
5.1 Three (3) objections were received to the application. Two (2) objections were
subsequently withdrawn on 13 November 2012. A summary of the concern and response to each ground is provided below:
(a) Inappropriate Land Use in the Green Wedge Zone Comments from objectors referred to existing policy within the Kingston Planning
Scheme at Clause 35.04 – Green Wedge Zone, as well as reference to Council’s Green Wedge Plan.
See discussion under Section 4.1 above.
(c) Car parking and traffic Concern was expressed regarding the proposed provision of car parking and the impact on the surrounding area, along with the likely traffic generated by the proposal and its impact on Centre Dandenong Road. Whilst this is a relevant consideration, the assessment above identifies that the on-site car parking provision is adequate in meeting the requirements of the Kingston Planning Scheme, and subject to a condition should a permit issue, to relocate the main vehicular entry the access is also acceptable. (d) Overdevelopment of the site The built form of the proposed church and associated church hall was noted by objectors as an overdevelopment and inconsistent with existing built form in the area.
The proposal will entail a relatively low site coverage which is encouraged in this
area, and will provide adequate car parking and opportunities for landscaping buffers around the site’s boundaries. These elements are considered to be indicative that the proposal is not an overdevelopment of the site.
6.0 CONCLUSION 6.1 Based on a thorough assessment of the application against the relevant provisions of
the Kingston Planning Scheme and taking into consideration the concerns raised by objectors, the proposal, subject to the inclusion of conditions, is deemed appropriate and should therefore be supported.
9
RECOMMENDATION That Council determine to support the proposal and issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit to use and develop the land for a Place of Worship at No. No. 419 Centre Dandenong Road Heatherton (Lot 1 of TP 684438A), subject to the following conditions: 1. Before the development starts amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible
Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be substantially in accordance with the plans submitted to Council on 20 March 2012, but modified to show:
a. the provision of an improved landscape plan and associated planting schedule for the site showing the proposed location, species type, mature height and width, pot sizes and number of species be planted on the site, with such plans to be prepared by a suitably qualified landscape professional and incorporating:
ii) an associated planting schedule showing the proposed location, species type, mature height and width, pot sizes and number of species to be planted on the site. The schedule must be shown on the plan;
iii) the delineation of all garden beds, paving, grassed areas, retaining walls, fences and other landscape works including areas of cut and fill throughout the development;
iv) all existing trees on the site and within three (3) metres to the boundary of the site on adjoining properties, accurately illustrated to represent actual canopy width and labelled with botanical name, height and whether the tree is proposed to be retained or removed;
v) a range of plant types from ground covers to large shrubs and trees;
vi) adequate planting densities (e.g.: plants with a mature width of 1 metre, planted at 1 metre intervals);
vii) the provision of twenty five (25) suitable medium sized (at maturity) canopy trees within the front setback (landscape buffer along Centre Dandenong Road, and a minimum of ten (10) suitable medium sized (at maturity) trees within the site, with species chosen to be approved by the Responsible Authority;
viii) sustainable lawn areas and plant species taking current water restrictions into consideration;
ix) all trees provided at a minimum of two (2) metres in height at time of planting;
x) medium to large shrubs to be provided at a minimum pot size of 200mm; and
xi) the provision of notes on the landscape plan regarding site preparation, including the removal of all weeds, proposed mulch, soil types and thickness, subsoil preparation and any specific maintenance requirements.
b. a comprehensive stormwater management strategy of the site comprising a brief drainage report with drainage concept plan to address the minor and
10
major storm events and incorporating Rainwater Tank/s and Water Sensitive Urban Design Treatments to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;
c. a minimum 3 metre x 3 metre splay at the corner of Ross Street and Centre Dandenong Road;
d. the vehicular access to the site located a minimum of 40 metres from the intersection of Centre Dandenong Road and Ross Street;
e. the provision of a notation stating: “the intersection of Ross Street and Centre Dandenong Road and Ross Street for a length from the intersection to 2.5 metres beyond the approved northern-most crossover must be designed and constructed at the full cost of the owner/developer as per engineering plans approved by the Responsible Authority”;
f. the provision of a notation on plans stating: “A 2.5 metre wide shared user path along the Centre Dandenong Road frontage of the property boundary must be constructed in accordance with engineering plans approved by the Responsible Authority”;
g. the provision of dimensions of the disabled car spaces, in accordance with the requirements of the relevant Australian Standard;
h. dimensions of the bicycle spaces in accordance with the requirements of Clause 52.34 of the Kingston Planning Scheme, with these to be provided with weather protection;
i. the capacity of the water tanks shown with a minimum of 10,000 litres required and a notation that water will be re-used for toilet flushing and landscape irrigation;
j. details notated on plans regarding the implementation of ESD measures outlined in the Sustainability Assessment, prepared by Peter L Brown Architects Pty Ltd, dated May 2012;
k. the provision of external shading devices designed to be appropriate to their respective façade orientation;
l. the provision of high sill, mechanically operable sash windows to the Church building (for heat purging purposes);
m. the surface material of all driveways / accessways and car parking spaces nominated, with all-weather coloured concrete sealcoat, or similar specified for a minimum of 6 metres inside the property boundary and the remainder to be nominated with a permeable treatment; and
n. the provision of a full colour, finishes and building materials schedule, including samples (illustrated on an A4 or A3 sheet), for all external elevations and driveways of the development, incorporating non-reflective materials and colours.
Endorsed plans
2. The development and/or use as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
3. Melbourne Water Conditions
11
a) Pollution and sediment laden run-off shall not be discharged directly or indirectly into Melbourne Water’s drains or watercourses.
b) The church and all associated buildings must be constructed with finished floor levels a minimum of 600mm above the applicable flood level.
c) The car park must be constructed with finished surface levels no lower than 350mm below the applicable flood level.
d) Prior to the issue of a Certificate of Occupancy, a certified survey plan, showing finished floor levels (as constructed) reduced to the Australian Height Datum, must be submitted to Melbourne Water to demonstrate that the floor levels have been constructed in accordance with Melbourne Water’s requirements.
4. Moorabbin Airport Conditions
a. An aviation study (“Study”) being commissioned by the proponent which considers the airport master plan, aviation overlays and NASF guidelines, noting the scope of the study must be to the satisfaction of the MAC;
b. The recommendations of the Study being implemented by the proponent to the satisfaction of MAC together with any other conditions MAC may reasonably require;
c. A full set of plans for the proposed development being provided to MAC and those planning documents being to the satisfaction of MAC; and
d. The development complying with all relevant airport, Council, State and Commonwealth policy, regulatory and legislative requirements to the satisfaction of MAC.
Operation of the site
5. No more than 200 people may be on the site at any one time.
Infrastructure and road works
6. Before the development commences, the intersection and Ross Street as described in Condition 1 e) must be designed and constructed at the full cost of the owner/developer and maintained in accordance with the plans approved by the Responsible Authority. Discussion with Council’s Development Engineer is recommended prior to submission of a design. A priced schedule of works within the road reserve and the payment of Council’s engineering fees of 3.25% of the cost of the works are required to be submitted prior to approval.
7. Before the use commences, the dark brown 2.5 metre wide shared user path required pursuant to Condition 1 f) must be designed and constructed at the developer’s cost and maintained in accordance with the engineering plans approved by the Responsible Authority. Discussion with Council’s Development Engineer and VicRoads is required prior to the submission of a design. A priced schedule of works within the road reserve and the payment of Council’s engineering fees of 3.25% of the cost of works are required to be submitted prior to the approval of the engineering plans.
8. Prior to the occupation of buildings hereby permitted, or by such later date as is approved by the Responsible Authority in writing, the nature strip, kerb and channel, vehicle crossover and footpath must reinstated to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
12
9. Any existing vehicular crossing not in accordance with the endorsed plan must be removed and the kerb reinstated in a manner satisfactory to the Responsible Authority and any proposed vehicular crossing must be fully constructed to the Responsible Authority’s standard specification.
10. Public Transport Victoria Condition
a. The existing bus stop and associated infrastructure on Centre Dandenong Road must not be altered without the prior consent of the Director of Public Transport. Any alterations including temporary works or damage during construction must be rectified to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Transport and at the cost of the permit holder.
11. VicRoads Conditions
a. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by VicRoads prior to the commencement of the proposed development, functional layout showing construction of the footpath along the southern frontage of the property must be submitted to and approved by VicRoads.
b. Before the use of the permitted development and/or commencement of any works required by VicRoads under this permit a detailed engineering design must be prepared generally in accordance with the accepted functional layout plan and to the satisfaction of VicRoads.
c. The developer must pay the full cost of all roadworks, drainage, road safety devices, service relocations, civil works, public lighting and any other associated costs. All work is to be completed at no cost to VicRoads.
d. No work must be commenced in, on, under or over the road reserve without having first obtaining all necessary approval under the Road Management Act 2004, the Road Safety Act 1986, and any other relevant acts or regulations created under those Acts.
e. Where the roadworks, including footpath and nature strip lie within private property, a widening of the road reserve will be required, at no cost to VicRoads. The developer must engage a licensed surveyor to prepare a Plan of Subdivision showing the affected land labelled ‘ROAD’, which is to be vested in the Roads Corporation upon certification of the Plan of Subdivision, without any encumbrances. Subsequent to the registration of the plan, the subdivider must ensure that the original Certificates of Title that issue in the name of the Roads Corporation, are posted to: VicRoads – Property Services Department, 60 Denmark Street KEW, 3101.
Construction Management
12. Before the commencement of any buildings and works on the Land, a Construction Management Plan (CMP), to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed as evidence of its approval and will then form part of the permit and shall thereafter be complied with. The CMP must specify and deal with, but not limited to, the following:
a) a detailed schedule of works including a full project timing; b) a traffic management plan for the site, including when or whether any access
points would be required to be blocked; an outline of requests to occupy public footpaths or roads, or anticipated disruptions to local services; and preferred routes for trucks delivering to the site;
c) the location for the parking of all construction vehicles and construction worker vehicles during construction;
13
d) delivery of materials including times for loading/unloading; unloading points; expected frequency; and details of where materials will be stored and how concrete pours would be managed;
e) proposed traffic management signage indicating any inconvenience generated by construction;
f) fully detailed plan indicating where construction hoardings would be located; g) a waste management plan including the containment of waste on site: disposal of
waste, stormwater treatment and on-site facilities for vehicle washing; h) containment of dust, dirt and mud within the site and method and frequency of
clean up procedures in the event of build up of matter outside the site; i) business operations on the site during construction; j) site security; k) public safety measures; l) construction times, noise and vibration controls; m) restoration of any Council assets removed and/or damaged during construction; n) protection works necessary to road and other infrastructure (limited to an area
reasonably proximate to the site); o) remediation of any damage to road and other infrastructure (limited to an area
reasonably proximate to the site); p) an emergency contact that is available for 24 hours per day for residents and the
Responsible Authority in the event of relevant queries or problems experienced; q) traffic management measures to comply with provisions of AS 1742.3-2002
Manual of uniform traffic control devices – Part 3: Traffic control devices for works on roads; and
r) all contractors associated with the construction of the development must be made aware of the requirements of the Construction Management Plan.
13. A pre construction site and immediate surrounds inspection and condition assessment
of all road ways and footpaths abutting the development is to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Responsible Authority. This must occur in a media (photos/video) which is able to accurately illustrate the full condition of all potentially impacted assets prior to the construction commencing. In the event of damage during construction, such damage will be required to be repaired by the developer, at the developer’s cost and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
14. During the construction, the following must occur:
a) any stormwater discharged into the stormwater drainage system is to comply with EPA guidelines;
b) stormwater drainage system protection measures must be installed as required to ensure that no solid waste, sediment, sand, soil, clay or stones from the premises enters the stormwater drainage system;
c) vehicle borne material must not accumulate on the roads abutting the site; d) the cleaning of machinery and equipment must take place on site and not on
adjacent footpaths, roads or parks; e) all litter (including items such as cement bags, food packaging and plastic
strapping) must be disposed of responsibly; and f) all site operations must comply with the EPA Publication TG302/92 (including all
revisions or replacement guidelines).
Drainage and Water Sensitive Urban Design
15. The development of the site must be provided with stormwater works which incorporates the use of water sensitive urban design principles to improve stormwater runoff quality and which also retains on site any increase in runoff as a result of the approved development. The system must be maintained to the satisfaction of the
14
Responsible Authority. Council's Development Engineer can advise on satisfactory options to achieve these desired outcomes which may include the use of an infiltration or bio retention system, rainwater tanks connected for reuse and a detention system.
16. Before the development commences, a Stormwater Management Plan showing the stormwater works to the nominated point of discharge must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Stormwater Management Plan must be prepared by a qualified person and show all details of the proposed stormwater works including all existing and proposed features that may have impact (e.g. trees to be retained, crossings, services, fences, abutting buildings, existing boundary surface levels, etc.).
17. Stormwater works must be provided on the site so as to prevent overflows onto adjacent properties.
18. Stormwater outflow from the development to the Council drainage system should not exceed the predevelopment outflow of the site.
Parking construction
19. Prior to the occupation of the building approved for Stage 1 of the development, areas set aside for parking vehicles, access lanes and paths as shown on the endorsed plans must be:
a. Constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. b. Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the
plans. c. Surfaced in accordance with the endorsed plans under this permit or in an all
weather coloured concrete seal-coat, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
d. Drained and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Parking areas and access lanes must be kept available for these purposes at all
times and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
20. In areas set aside for car parking, measures must be taken to prevent damage to fences or landscaped areas, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Lighting 21. Exterior lighting must be installed in such positions as to effectively illuminate the
entire car parking areas. Such lighting must be designed, baffled and located to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to prevent any adverse effect on neighbouring land.
Completion of works
22. Prior to the occupation of the buildings hereby permitted, the landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The landscaping must then be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
23. Prior to the occupation of the buildings hereby permitted, all buildings and works and the conditions of this permit must be complied with, unless with the further prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
15
24. All works on or facing the boundaries of adjoining properties must be finished and surface cleaned to a standard that is well presented to neighbouring properties in a manner to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
25. Once the development has started it must be continued and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Amenity conditions
26. The amenity of the area must not be detrimentally effected by the use or development on the land, including through the:
a. Transport of materials, goods or commodities to or from the land, b. Appearance of any building, works or materials, c. Emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam,
soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or oil, d. Presence of vermin, or e. Adverse behaviour of visitors to or from the premises.
to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
27. No external sound amplification equipment or loud speakers are to be used for the purpose of announcement, broadcast, playing of music or similar purpose.
28. The building must be constructed so as to comply with any noise attenuation measures required by Section 3 of Australian Standard AS 2021-2000, Acoustics – Aircraft Noise Intrusion – Building Siting and Construction.
Time limits
29. In accordance with section 68 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, this permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
• The development is not started within two (2) years from the date of permit issue. • The development is not completed within four (4) years from the date of permit
issue. • The use does not start within one (1) year of the completion of the development,
or • The use is discontinued for a period of two (2) years. In accordance with section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the
responsible authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires, or within three months afterwards.
Note: Prior to the commencement of the development you are required to obtain the necessary Building Permit.
Note: The applicant/owner must provide a copy of this planning permit to any appointed Building Surveyor. It is the responsibility of the applicant/owner and Building Surveyor to ensure that all building development works approved by any building permit is consistent with the planning permit.
16
Note: If further information is required in relation to Melbourne Water’s permit conditions shown above, please contact Melbourne Water on telephone 9235 2517, quoting Melbourne Water’s reference 189776.
Note: The applicable floor level for the property is 16.4 metres to Australian Height Datum (AHD).
OR In the event that Council wishes to oppose the application, it can do so using the following ground: 1 The proposal is not consistent with the objectives of Clause 35.04 – Green Wedge Zone
of the Kingston Planning Scheme.
17
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT
1.0 RELEVANT LAND HISTORY 1.1 Council records indicate that there is no relevant planning history relating to this site. 2.0 SITE PARTICULARS 2.1 The site is located on the north-east corner of Centre Dandenong Road and Ross
Street. The site is rectangular in shape with a frontage to Centre Dandenong Road of 110.18 metres, a side depth to Ross Street of 54.72 metres and an overall site area of 6028 square metres. The site is currently vacant. A small number of trees are located towards the site’s north-western corner.
2.2 A bus stop is located to the front of the site. Ross Street is an unmade local road and
Centre Dandenong Road is an arterial road. 3.0 SURROUNDING ENVIRONS 3.1 The surrounding area is developed for a mixture of uses, including agricultural,
recreational and commercial uses. Moorabbin Airport is approximately 400 metres to the south-west of the subject site. The nearest residentially zoned land is 725 metres to the east of the site.
4.2 Land directly abutting the subject site and opposite is described as follows:
North: Land to the north is owned by a local group and is developed for a clubhouse and soccer pitch. A single storey large building is oriented to Ross Street, with expanses of grassed areas around the building.
APPLICANT Coomes Planning ADDRESS OF LAND No. 419 Centre Dandenong Road Heatherton PLAN OF SUBDIVISION REFERENCE
Lot 1 on TP 684438A
PROPOSAL Use and Develop the Land for a Place of Worship PLANNING OFFICER Tanya Sokolowski REFERENCE NO. KP-709/2011 ZONE Green Wedge Zone (Schedule 2)
OVERLAYS Design & Development Overlay (Schedule 4), Land
Subject to Inundation Overlay (LSIO), Airport Environs Overlay (AEO)
OBJECTIONS One (1) CONSIDERED PLAN REFERENCES/DATE RECEIVED
20 March 2012
ABORIGINAL CULTURAL HERITAGE SENSITIVTY
No
18
East: Land to the east at No. 431 Centre Dandenong Road is used for agricultural purposes and contains two single storey dwellings, each oriented to (and accessed from) Centre Dandenong Road. A number of outbuildings are sited to the rear of the dwellings. The dwelling nearest to the subject site is located approximately 25 metres from the shared boundary. South: Land on the south side of Centre Dandenong Road is occupied by the Chifley Business Park, with large expansive buildings with associated car parking areas occupying the site. Buildings vary in height between two and three storeys, with flat roof forms. Facades presenting to Centre Dandenong Road are relatively unadorned, containing some windows with an outlook to the road. West: On the west side of Ross Street is the Capital Golf Course, with heavily planted perimeters of the site preventing views from Centre Dandenong Road to the golf course’s buildings. Buildings are sited towards the southern portion of the site, with a setback from Centre Dandenong Road of approximately 30 metres.
4.0 PROPOSAL 4.1 It is proposed to construct a church, church hall and associated car parking for the St
George Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church. The development is proposed to be constructed in two stages.
4.2 Stage 1 of the development is proposed to entail the construction of a church hall with
seating capacity for 100 people, and sixty-two car spaces (including two disabled spaces). Stage 2 of the development will be the construction of the church, which is proposed to have a seating capacity of 200. It is proposed to use the hall for church services until Stage 2 is complete. The church hall will contain facilities such as bathrooms, office areas, kitchen and dining area – providing a multi-purpose space in addition to the hall area which will be used for church services as required.
4.3 Access to the site is proposed to be from Ross Street, via a new crossover which
would be located approximately twelve (12) metres from the corner of Ross Street and Centre Dandenong Road.
4.4 The church hall would be located towards the site’s northern boundary, with a
setback from the boundary of 3 metres, with a nominated area for a landscape buffer. The hall would contain an office, library, kitchen, small dining area, bathrooms, open hall area and stage. The hall would have a total building height of 6 metres and footprint area of 368 square metres.
4.5 The church would be centrally sited, with a setback from Centre Dandenong Road of
18.1 metres. The building will entail a vestibule, the main assembly area with two enclosed child minding areas, a Madbaha to the front of the church where the alter is located, sitting room, and a choir area provided on a mezzanine floor above the vestibule. A belltower would be located towards the south-western corner of the church, with a total height of 16 metres. The church building would have a height of
19
14.5 metres and total footprint area of 492 square metres. Two water tanks are shown to the rear of the church.
4.6 The built form of the church hall will entail a contemporary architectural style, with a
combination of flat and skillion roof forms, zinc wall panels and light coloured concrete wall panels. North facing clerestory windows would also be incorporated.
4.7 The church will incorporate both traditional Indian church architecture and a
contemporary architectural style. A paved forecourt area would extend between the frontage of the church and the entry to the church hall. The church will be constructed of concrete wall panels with various light coloured finishes, frosted glass and zinc panels.
4.8 Car parking is proposed to extend along part of the front of the site and the site’s
sideage to Ross Street. A pedestrian path connects the site to the nature strip on Centre Dandenong Road, to where a bus stop is located. A portion of the site towards the eastern boundary and north-eastern corner of the site would remain undeveloped, (identified for future expansion, subject to further approval from Council).
4.9 Activities on the site will occur throughout the week; however the primary (or most
intensive) activity on the site will be a Sunday church service and Sunday school classes, occurring between 9am and 11am, with a maximum attendance of 200 parishioners anticipated. The church will also be used for the usual Christian festivals including Easter and Christmas services. It is not expected that parishioner numbers would exceed 200 during festivals. Other activities that are proposed to occur on the site include choir practice, prayer meetings, other church related meetings, bible study groups and youth playgroups. The church would also be used for special occasions such as weddings and funerals.
4.10 The proposal has an overall site coverage of 14.4%. 5.0 PLANNING PERMIT PROVISIONS
Zone 5.1 Green Wedge Zone (Schedule 2): Pursuant to Clause 35.04-1 of the Kingston
Planning Scheme, a planning permit is required to use land for the purpose of a place of worship.
5.2 Pursuant to Clause 35.04-5 a planning permit is also required to construct a building and to construct or carry out works associated with a Section 2 use and also to construct a building and to construct or carry out works located within 100 metres of a Road Zone Category 1.
Overlay
5.3 Design & Development Overlay (Schedule 4): Pursuant to Clause 43.02-2 of the Kingston Planning Scheme, a planning permit is required to construct a building or construct and carry out works, however Schedule 4 exempts works which fall under the building height specified (16 metres above sea level). Both of the buildings and the proposed bell tower would have a height exceeding 16 metres above sea level and therefore require a permit under this Overlay, and referral to Moorabbin Airport Corporation.
20
5.4 Land Subject to Inundation Overlay: Pursuant to Clause 44.04-1 of the Kingston
Planning Scheme, a planning permit is required to construct a building or construct and carry out works.
5.5 Airport Environs Overlay: Pursuant to Schedule 1 of Clause 45.02 a permit is required
to use the land for a Place of Assembly. An application must be referred to the airport owner under Section 55 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.
Particular Provisions
5.1 Car Parking: Pursuant to Clause 52.06 of the Kingston Planning Scheme, a planning permit is required to reduce or waive the car parking requirements associated with a place of worship. The table contained within Clause 52.06-5 specifies a rate of 0.3 car spaces per patron for a Place of Assembly.
5.2 The application proposes a maximum number of 200 parishioners would be on the
site at any one time, which would require the provision of 60 car parking spaces. It is proposed to provide 62 car parking spaces, satisfying the specified parking rate.
5.3 Integrated Public Transport Planning: Pursuant to Clause 52.36 of the Kingston
Planning Scheme a referral is required to be made to the Director of Public Transport where a proposed Place of Assembly comprises 600 square metres or more of floor area.
General Provisions
5.4 The Decision Guidelines of Clause 65 of the Kingston Planning Scheme are relevant to this application and require consideration to be given to a variety of matters including planning scheme policies, the purpose of the zone, orderly planning and the impact on amenity.
6.0 RELEVANT POLICIES 6.1 State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF)
Clause 11 Settlement Clause 13 Environmental Risks Clause 15 Built Environment and Heritage Clause 18 Transport Clause 19 Infrastructure
6.2 Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) Clause 21.03 Land Use Challenges for the New Millennium Clause 21.04 Vision Clause 21.10 Non-Urban Areas Clause 21.12 Transport, Movement and Access Clause 22.04 South-East Non-Urban Area Policy Clause 22.05 Moorabbin Airports Environs Policy
6.3 Zoning
21
Clause 35.04 Green Wedge Zone (Schedule 2) 6.4 Overlay Controls Clause 43.02 Design & Development Overlay (Schedule 4) Clause 44.04 Land Subject to Inundation Overlay Clause 45.02 Airport Environs Overlay (Schedule 1) 6.5 Particular Provisions
Clause 52.06 Car Parking Clause 52.34 Bicycle Facilities Clause 52.36 Integrated Public Transport Planning Clause 57 Metropolitan Green Wedge Land
7.0 ADVERTISING 7.1 The proposal was advertised by sending notices to adjoining and opposite property
owners and occupiers and by maintaining a notice on site for fourteen (14) days. Three (3) objections to the proposal were received, with two (2) objections subsequently withdrawn on 13 November 2012. The grounds of objection raised are summarised as follows:
• Inappropriate use in the Green Wedge • Car parking/traffic • Overdevelopment of the site
7.2 These concerns are addressed in the assessment section of this report. 8.0 PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE 8.1 A preliminary conference was not held. Objectors were contacted in order to establish
if they wished to attend a meeting, it was established that due to the nature of concerns regarding the proposal that a meeting was unlikely to resolve the issues that had been raised by objectors. No objectors indicated that they wished to proceed with a preliminary conference.
9.0 AMENDMENT TO PLANS 9.1 Following a request for further information, and concerns raised by Council officers
the applicant submitted amended plans. The major changes to plans included:
Deletion of the two proposed parsonages/dwellings. The development will not entail any residential component.
The provision of a pedestrian path connecting the site to the front nature strip and a bus stop.
9.2 It is these plans that form the basis of this recommendation and are described at
section 4 of this report. 10.0 REFERRALS
22
10.1 The application was referred to the following internal departments:
• Council’s Development Engineer – raised no objection to the application, subject to conditions requiring the preparation of a stormwater management strategy and the incorporation of stormwater works which utilise water sensitive urban design principles.
• Council’s Urban and Sustainable Design Advisor – provided comments on the
submitted ESD report, noting that the proposal is able to achieve a satisfactory outcome with regard to incorporating environmentally sustainable design.
• Council’s Vegetation Management Officer - raised no objection to the application,
subject to conditions requiring the provision of a landscape plan with the planting of twenty-five (25) canopy trees to the front boundary and a minimum of ten (10) canopy trees throughout the site. Council’s Vegetation Management Officer also advised that the existing vegetation on the site that is proposed to be removed is neither significant nor native remnant vegetation.
• Council’s Traffic Engineer – raised an objection with regard to vehicle and
pedestrian access and the traffic generation impact of the proposal. Traffic Engineers indicated that the proposed crossover would need to be relocated towards the northern boundary and a shared user path constructed along the site’s front boundary as a minimum.
• Council’s City Strategy Department – did not object to the proposed use of the
site, noting that in principle a place of worship is an acceptable use within the Green Wedge Zone, however noted that should the Kingston Green Wedge Plan become a ‘seriously entertained document’ in the future, that this site has not been identified as being appropriate for use as a place of worship.
• Council’s Roads and Drains Department – did not object to the proposal subject
to conditions including the construction of a 2.5 metre wide shared user path along the site’s frontage to Centre Dandenong Road, and the car park sealed for a minimum of 6 metres inside the property.
10.2 The application was referred to the following external authorities:
• Moorabbin Airport Corporation – was referred pursuant to Section 55 of the Planning & Environment Act 1987, who raised objections with regard to proximity to flight paths, noise issues, protection of future airport use, potential hazards to aviation from building design (glare, lighting etc) and potential wild life hazards to aviation from landscaping design. The objection was subsequently withdrawn, with support provided subject to conditions, in particular, conditions requiring the applicant to prepare an aviation study and any amendments to the proposal that would be required as a result of recommendations of the study.
• VicRoads – was notified pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning & Environment
Act 1987 and raised no objection to the application. VicRoads recommended a number of conditions regarding the relocation of the proposed crossover to be located at least 40 metres from the intersection of Ross Street and Centre
23
Dandenong Road, requirements for a footpath to the front of the site and any works required by the development within the road reserve to be at the owners full cost and with works to be approved by VicRoads. VicRoads suggested that 20 metres from the intersection for the sealing of Ross Street, or as otherwise specified by Council.
• Melbourne Water - raised no objection to the application, subject to conditions
included on any permit issued relating to minimum finished floor levels required to be at least 600mm above the applicable flood level.
• Director of Public Transport – did not object to the proposal subject to the
inclusion of a condition specifying that no works could be undertaken that would impact on the location of the bus stop, without prior approval from the Department of Public Transport.
11.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
State Planning Policy Framework 11.1 The State Planning Policy Framework sets out the relevant state-wide policies for
development at Clause 11 (Settlement), Clause 13 (Environmental Risks), Clause 15 (Built Environment and Heritage), Clause 18 (Transport) and Clause 19 (Infrastructure). The SPPF requires Council to integrate the range of policies relevant to the issues to be determined and to balance conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development.
11.2 The settlement policies at Clause 11 seek to ensure a sufficient supply of land is available for all forms of land use in Victoria. This Clause states: Planning for urban growth, should consider:
o Opportunities for the consolidation, redevelopment and intensification of existing urban areas;
o Neighbourhood character and landscape considerations; o The limits of land capability and natural hazards and environmental
quality; o Service limitations and the costs of providing infrastructure.
Of particular relevance to this application are the policies set out under Clause 11.04-6 of the Scheme which aim to protect land zoned for Green Wedge purposes from inappropriate development. The policy supports development that provides for environmental, economic and social benefits. The policy also seeks to protect major transport facilities such as airports. It is considered that the proposed place of worship would provide a social benefit to the local and broader community, given the breadth of Kingston’s relatively multicultural and multi-faith communities, particularly to the north of the municipality. The site’s location is deemed to be suitable for a church with the context of the site a suitable transition from the Moorabbin Airport and Chifley Business Park and the Green Wedge.
24
11.3 Clause 13 (Environmental Risks), specifically Clause 13.02 - Floodplains aims to identify land affected by flooding and manage or mitigate flooding. The applicant has submitted a report by specialists in water engineering, who have consulted with Melbourne Water to ensure that the development will be provided with adequate finished floor levels to limit flooding impacts on the property and buildings. It is noted that the subject site is located on the edge of the floodplain. Melbourne Water has not objected to the proposal.
11.4 Clause 15 (Built Environment and Heritage) aims to ensure all new land use and
development appropriately responds to its landscape, valued built form and cultural context, and protect places and sites with significant heritage, architectural, aesthetic, scientific and cultural value.
11.5 Clause 15.03-2 (Aboriginal Cultural Heritage) seeks to ensure the protection and
conservation of places of Aboriginal cultural heritage significance. The subject site is not identified in an area of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Sensitivity.
11.6 Policies pertaining to urban design, built form and heritage outcomes are found at
Clause 15 of the State Planning Policy Framework. Of particular significance, Clause 15.01 encourages development to achieve high quality architectural and urban design outcomes that contribute positively to the surrounding area, minimises detrimental amenity impacts and achieves safety for future residents, and the community, through good design. The provisions of Clause 15.02 promote energy and resource efficiency through improved building design, urban consolidation and promotion of sustainable transport. The site’s location on a busy arterial road, opposite an established commercial precinct, and on the periphery of the Green Wedge, is considered a suitable strategic context for the proposed place of worship and, overall is considered consistent with the objectives of Clause 15.01-2 – Urban Design Principles. The proposed built form incorporates an architectural language typical of religious buildings. The overall footprint of the two buildings would entail site coverage of 14%, a relatively low coverage which is considered appropriate with regard to its location within the Green Wedge. The built form which is found directly opposite the site at the Chifley Business Park is significantly greater, comprising buildings with larger footprints and greater overall building height. The proposed two buildings will be sited centrally and towards the northern boundary, providing a setback from Centre Dandenong Road which will reduce the appearance of the buildings from the road, whilst also providing opportunities for landscaping along the front and side boundaries. The design will make efficient use of daylight throughout the buildings, with adequate windows to provide natural light to spaces. The forecourt tiled area provides a safe space where people are able to meet and congregate outside, separated from the parking area. The design has incorporated a pedestrian path linking the site to the nature strip along the site’s Centre Dandenong Road frontage, and the bus stop which is located there. Additional opportunities exist to enhance the pedestrian/public realm through the construction of a 2.5 metre wide shared user path along the nature strip to the
25
site’s frontage on Centre Dandenong Road. The site currently has no footpath. Clause 15.01-2 seeks to ensure that the public realm is protected and enhanced through appropriate development, including the improvement of pedestrian spaces. Council’s Cycling and Walking Strategy 2009-2013 identifies Centre Dandenong Road, as requiring improved footpaths and bicycle paths. The strategy includes in its targeted priorities ‘the creation of east/west and north/south commuter routes along major roads’ with the Centre Dandenong Road forming part of the east/west linkage. Centre Dandenong Road is also identified as being part of the Principle Bicycle Network (managed by VicRoads), a network of cycle routes that provide access to key destinations in Melbourne. To the south side of Centre Dandenong Road is a shared user path which has been funded by the developers of those sites – Moorabbin Airport and Direct Factory Outlets. The north side of Centre Dandenong Road is yet to be developed for a shared user path, and requires land to be set aside to ensure that there is sufficient space for a path to be constructed. The proposed use of the site for a place of worship is not an ‘as of right’ use in the Green Wedge Zone. Council’s consideration of this type of use in this zone is contingent upon the proposal satisfying Council’s objectives with regard to land use planning in this area. Part of that consideration is ensuring that where a use is being proposed in an area which has scarce infrastructure – in part due to the rural/green wedge character of the land, then it is justifiable that the developer/applicant provides for some of that infrastructure around their site. Conditions are recommended to construct a shared user path of 2.5 metres width around the site’s main road frontage, and construction of part of Ross Street along the site’s sideage, should a permit issue. The subject site is relatively devoid of vegetation, with a small number of trees located towards the north-western corner of the site. In regard to landscaping of the site, a landscape plan is recommended to be provided by way of permit conditions, should a permit issue. The applicant submitted an arboricultural assessment with regard to the existing trees on the site. It is noted that no native remnant vegetation is on the site. The proposal will require the removal of the vegetation in order to construct buildings and the car park, however landscaping buffers are proposed to the perimeter of the site, allowing for substantial plantings. Council’s Vegetation Management Officer has recommended conditions for the planting of canopy trees in the front setback and scattered throughout the site.
11.7 Clause 18 (Transport) of the Kingston Planning Scheme states that planning should
support an integrated and sustainable transport system. The proposal would have direct access to a main road and the subject site is located within reasonable proximity to Warrigal Road/Highway, the Monash Freeway and the EastLink Freeway off Heatherton Road. The application was referred to the Director of Public Transport who did not object to the proposal, but did specify that the existing bus stop and associated infrastructure to the front of the site must not be altered, without the prior consent of the Director of Public Transport, and any works to alter or repair would be at the entire cost of the permit holder.
11.8 Clause 19 (Infrastructure) of the Scheme is of relevance, particularly Clause 19.02-3 – Cultural facilities and Clause 19.02-4 – Distribution of social and cultural infrastructure. The objectives of these Clauses are ‘to develop a strong cultural
26
environment and increase access to arts, recreation and other cultural facilities’ and ‘to provide fairer distribution of and access to social and cultural infrastructure’. Whilst the proposal is for a place of worship, this use is intrinsically linked to both social and cultural interactions and is considered to be an opportunity to make a contribution to the existing infrastructure that supports Kingston’s diverse communities, and in particular would assist in meeting a need for this type of facility at a broader regional level. Local Planning Policy Framework
11.9 Clause 21.03 (Land Use Challenges for the New Millennium) identifies the challenges
associated with sustainable management of non-urban areas. This particular issue is elaborated upon in Clause 21.10, which is of relevance to this application.
11.10 Clause 21.10 (Non-Urban Areas) of the Scheme seeks to manage non-urban areas
in a sustainable manner, and to protect such areas from encroaching residential development.
The proposal is considered to support the relevant strategies to Clause 21.10 of the Scheme by:
• Maintaining the environmental, scenic and landscape values of the area; • Protect the use of high quality agriculture land for agricultural purposes; and • Not encouraging any further subdivision on the land.
It is recognised that some permissible uses in non-urban areas are not strictly agricultural or rural in nature, but can include a range of urban related uses such as places of worship. The site’s location on a main road, with good linkages to other arterial roads is considered beneficial for the site and facilitates the efficient movement of people to and from the site. The site is located at a south-western edge of the Green Wedge Zone, with land to the west of the site located in a Special Use Zone and land opposite developed for commercial purposes. Whilst the proposed use is an urban related use, it is considered an appropriate transition into the Green Wedge. The site currently contains very little vegetation, with the proposal incorporating landscaping buffers around the site’s boundaries to provide canopy trees and other plantings, improving the overall vegetated appearance of the site.
11.11 Clause 21.12 (Transport, Movement and Access) addresses key issues surrounding
the sustainable management of Kingston’s transport network. This Clause identifies potential capacity issues for east/west traffic leading to conflicts between arterial traffic and abutting land uses. It is noted that in this instance VicRoads has provided comments regarding the proposal and has assessed the potential impacts on the operation of Centre Dandenong Road. VicRoads does not object to the issuing of a permit, but consistent with Council’s own Traffic Engineers, requires the proposed access to the site to be moved further north, at least 40 metres from the intersection. This will alleviate any concerns that the banking of traffic might impact upon traffic flow on Centre Dandenong Road.
11.12 Clause 22.04 (South East Non-Urban Area Policy) of the Kingston Planning Scheme
provides for a wide range of rural, environmental and urban related uses, and affects
27
areas in the City of Kingston, Casey, Frankston and Greater Dandenong. These areas are under pressure for more intensive urban development. The Policy provides a regional approach to the future management of non-urban land to allow sustainable land use outcomes to be achieved.
The proposal is considered to support the relevant strategies at Clause 22.04 of the Scheme by: • Encouraging sustainable land use practice; • Not compromising metropolitan urban growth strategies; and • Protecting and developing the scenic and landscape values of the area.
Clause 22.04-3 suggests that the policy for this area protects high quality rural landscape, by which the following uses are supported within the non-urban area: “low density institutional uses eg. schools, clubs, churches.” The proposed place of worship is considered to be consistent with these policies.
11.13 Clause 22.05 (Moorabbin Airport Policy) is not applicable in the consideration of this application given that the Airport Environs Overlay affects the subject site. It is considered that the proposed development and use generally complies and satisfies the State and Local Planning Policy Framework guidelines that relate to the use and development of non-urban land, where applicable.
Other Council Documents
11.14 The Kingston Green Wedge Plan has been prepared by Planisphere consultants and identifies preferred uses in the Green Wedge. The Plan has undergone extensive community consultation, and was adopted by Council at its Ordinary meeting on 27 August. The subject site is located on a declared road on the periphery of the Green Wedge. The Plan discusses preferred uses within the Green Wedge and identifies community and church facilities that offer services or are available for use by the local and regional community as being suitable. As previously discussed, the proposed place of worship is considered to be an important facility for Kingston’s diverse community, with the likely potential that it will serve a broader area beyond the boundaries of the Kingston municipality, and therefore serve a local and regional purpose. Community service uses are encouraged to be well-located and accessible to the local and regional community. The site’s location on a main road, with ready access to other main roads with good north/south and east/west linkages are considered an important attribute to the site’s accessibility.
11.15 Objectors raised concerns that the proposal is pre-emptive whilst the Green Wedge
Plan had not been finalised at the time the application was lodged. The Kingston Green Wedge Plan is generally consistent however in its consideration of particular community uses such as churches, with current local policies. Community facilities which benefit both local and regional communities are deemed acceptable within the Green Wedge.
11.16 The Plan segments the Green Wedge into different areas nominated for preferred
development. The subject site is designated a ‘Green Wedge Low Intensity’ area, where the following uses are envisaged:
28
• agriculture, • open space, • recreational and sporting facilities, and • low site coverage community, commercial and education uses.
11.17 The application was referred to Council’s City Strategy Department, who provided the
following comments in relation to the proposals alignment with the Kingston Green Wedge Plan:
The subject land falls within an area identified on the Future Land Use Map No. 5 (pg 79) of the Kingston Green Wedge Plan as a Green wedge low intensity area. To implement the Kingston Green Wedge Plan into the Planning Scheme it is suggested on Page 79 that Council include detailed local policy to guide decisions made about appropriate land uses in the Green Wedge Intensive and Low Intensive Areas. The Kingston Green Wedge Plan recommends that a Place of Worship should occur in the Green Wedge Intensive Areas (which the subject land is not) but should not occur in Green Wedge Low Intensity Areas.
Therefore based on the decision of the Council to adopt the Kingston Green Wedge Plan it would be apparent that if implemented into the Kingston Planning Scheme as intended, Policy would discourage the use of the subject land for a Place of Worship and Officers would be therefore be recommending to Council that the application be refused.
11.18 While The Plan has not been formally incorporated into the Kingston Planning
Scheme, this policy is given a lesser weighting compared to the applicable policies that currently exist within the Planning Scheme. The Kingston Green Wedge Plan, as an adopted Council policy, has however been taken into account when assessing the application.
11.19 Specific to this site, the proposal entails relatively low site coverage of 14%, which is consistent with the objectives for the ‘Low Intensity Area’. Building design guidelines nominated for the Low Intensity Area appear to specify objectives which seek to encourage development which is of a low scale, low site coverage, minimises visual intrusion into the landscape/streetscape and encourages well vegetated sites. The outcome that would result from the proposed use and development is deemed to be consistent with the broad objectives specified by The Plan where low site coverage and less intensive, community focussed uses are deemed to be appropriate.
11.20 The proposed church hall will be single storey, whilst the church would incorporate a
mezzanine level to accommodate the choir above the vestibule. The proposed built form is considered typical of religious architecture, with iconic features such as a bell tower and cross on the front façade of the building, which are prominent. Whilst these elements would be visible from Centre Dandenong Road, it is considered that the landscape buffers around the site will allow sufficient plantings to reduce their visibility.
11.21 It would appear that the proposal will use some reflective finished materials which are
recommended to be amended by way of a permit condition to specify that non-reflective materials are to be used, should a permit issue.
29
11.22 Under this Plan, opportunities have been specified to improve the amenity for
pedestrians and cyclists by providing a 2.5 metre – 3 metre wide shared user path along the site’s Centre Dandenong Road frontage. As discussed previously, a permit condition is recommended (should a permit be issued) to require the construction of a shared path along the site’s frontage at the owners cost. Other recommended permit conditions will also require the implementation of water sensitive urban design principles to reduce and improve stormwater run-off from the site.
Zoning Provisions
11.23 Clause 35.04 (Green Wedge Zone – Schedule 2) It is considered that the proposed use and development satisfies the purposes of the zone, which are:
• To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning
Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.
• To recognise, protect and conserve green wedge land for its agricultural, environmental, historic, landscape, recreational and tourism opportunities, and mineral and stone resources.
• To encourage use and development that is consistent with sustainable land management practices.
• To protect, conserve and enhance the cultural heritage significance and the character of open rural and scenic non-urban landscapes.
• To protect and enhance the biodiversity of the area.
The proposal is a Section 2 use within the Zone, with Clause 74 of the Kingston Planning Scheme providing the definition for a Place of Worship: “Land used for religious activities, such as a church, chapel, mosque, synagogue, and temple”. It is considered that the proposed church hall also falls within the use of the land as a Place of Worship where the activities undertaken within that building are generally ‘religious activities’ and can also entail activities that are considered to be ancillary to the Place of Worship. It is proposed that the church hall would be constructed within Stage 1 of the development and would be used for services until the church is constructed in Stage 2 of the development. Facilities located in the hall such as bathrooms/toilets, office, a kitchen and dining area would serve the needs of parishioners attending services in the hall. Under the decision guidelines of the Green Wedge Zone, a number of matters under the ‘general issues’; ‘rural issues’; ‘environmental issues’ and ‘design and siting issues’ are nominated as requiring consideration where appropriate in the assessment of applications. Of particular relevance to this application are decision guidelines regarding the compatibility of the proposal with surrounding uses, protecting and enhancing the biodiversity of the area and minimising any adverse impacts of the siting and design of the proposed buildings.
30
General Issues
The proposal is consistent with surrounding uses that are located on the north side of Centre Dandenong Road which are located within the Green Wedge Zone. These uses whilst recreational are considered to fall within a broader community facilities type use and provide benefit to the local and wider community. The abutting property to the east is used for a market garden, and whilst that agricultural use differs from what is proposed, the use is not jeopardised by the proposal. The subject site is located on the outer edge of the Green Wedge Zone, with land located to the south and west of the site, outside of the Zone. Whilst the proposal is an urban related use, it is considered an appropriate transition from the commercial development at Chifley Business Park to the Green Wedge Zone. The site’s location on a main arterial road also provides a somewhat different context for consideration compared to land ensconced within the Green Wedge. Overall the site’s context does not entail an overly open and rural character. The site’s location on an arterial road also provides a high level of accessibility for vehicular traffic, acknowledging that many parishioners will be travelling from outside Kingston municipality and will be reliant on connections to the Monash Freeway and other arterial roads in travelling to the site. This level of accessibility is considered important, and provides an opportunity to locate the church on a road which is unlikely to have significant adverse impacts on surrounding uses, compared to locating in an established, built up area.
Environmental Issues
The applicant submitted an arboricultural report regarding the existing trees on the site. The assessment revealed that no significant vegetation is on the site, and with clarification from Council’s Vegetation Management Officer, no remnant native vegetation. The report assessed the three existing trees on the site and found that all three were of low retention value. Council’s Vegetation Management Officer has recommended permit conditions requiring the planting of twenty-five (25) canopy trees to the front landscape buffer and a minimum of another ten (10) canopy trees throughout the site. Given the lack of vegetation on the site, the proposal provides an opportunity to improve plantings significantly and in turn enhance the biodiversity of the area.
Design and Siting Issues
The proposed buildings are primarily single storey (the church has a mezzanine level), however the church does have an overall building height which is greater than an average two storey building, this is considered to be generally typical of religious architecture which includes high ceilings and roof forms. Aspects of the building are intended to be visible such as the cross on the front façade, and the bell tower. The siting of the building however, with a setback of 18.1 metres to the church from the front boundary will allow substantial distance from Centre Dandenong Road to lessen the visual impact of the building. The church hall will be sited behind the church, towards the northern boundary and far less visible. As discussed earlier, the proposal also incorporates landscape buffers around the site’s boundaries, with a condition recommended to provide a minimum of 25 canopy tress within the front setback, should a permit be issued.
31
The context of the site is a key consideration with regard to the proposed built form, recognising that the development located opposite the site within the Chifley Business Park comprises large format buildings, with significant footprints and overall building heights. The streetscape is therefore dominated by the existing built form on the south side of Centre Dandenong Road. The proposed built form will not entail significant site coverage in comparison to the opposite site, and will provide an architectural built form which will sit comfortably on the site, with good landscaping around and throughout. The design incorporates colours and materials which are reflective, and a permit condition is recommended, should a permit be issued, to minimise the use of reflective material which would be more fitting with the location, and also requirements for the Airport Environs Overlay. This is considered to be a condition which would not have a significant impact on the overall integrity of the design, but will require further thought by the designer in material and colour selection.
For the above reasons, the overall proposed development and use of the subject site is considered acceptable with regard to the objectives of the Green Wedge Zone, and with regard to Council’s existing local policies relating to non-urban areas. The proposed development will enable the site to cater for a landscaped and vegetated site, whilst the built form and its siting will not be an overly dominant feature within the streetscape. The context of the site also lends itself to the proposal with regard to its location on a major road and the arterial road linkages to the site.
Overlay Provisions
11.24 The subject site is affected by the following Overlay Controls: • Design & Development Overlay (Schedule 4) • Land Subject to Inundation Overlay • Airport Environs Overlay (Schedule 1)
11.25 Schedule 4 to the Design & Development Overlay relates to the height of the
proposed buildings and works within the vicinity of the Moorabbin Airport (namely its flight paths), which require a permit to construct works which exceed 16 metres. The Airport Environs Overlay (AEO) is also applicable to the subject land, where one of the key objectives is “to ensure that land use and development are compatible with the operation of airports in accordance with the appropriate airport strategy or master plan and with safe air navigation for aircraft approaching and departing the airfield”.
11.26 As previously discussed Moorabbin Airport Corporation (MAC) had raised concerns
regarding the following issues around proximity of the site to flight paths, however specified permit conditions to alleviate concerns. Specifically, the applicant would be required to prepare an aviation study – and any amendments to the application which may be required by recommendations of the study.
11.27 The subject land is also affected by a Land Subject to Inundation Overlay (LSIO),
where Melbourne Water is the relevant floodplain authority. As previously discussed, this application has been externally referred to Melbourne Water and consent has been offered with respect to the proposed buildings and works, subject to specified minimum finished floor levels.
32
Particular Provisions 11.28 Clause 52.06 (Car Parking)
Planning Scheme Amendment VC90 introduced changes to Clause 52.06 on 5 June 2012. The updated Clause amended the requirements for a Place of Assembly, which is the rate to be applied in assessing a Place of Worship. Previously, a Place of Assembly required the provision of 0.3 spaces per seat or per square metre of net floor area, whichever is the greater. The amendment to Clause 52.06 now requires 0.3 spaces per patron. Under the previous version of this Clause the proposal required a reduction of the car parking requirement on the basis of the net floor area of the church and church hall, and hence why the application was advertised including this trigger. Pursuant to the revised Clause 52.06 however, the proposed Place of Worship requires the provision of 0.3 car spaces to each patron/visitor catered for. The applicant has specified that no more than 200 persons will be on the site at any one time – this would equate to a requirement for 60 car spaces. The proposal includes 62 car spaces, and therefore exceeds the requirement by 2 spaces. Further, there is a significant portion of the site which is not proposed to be developed and could be used for parking overflow if it were required. Objectors raised concerns regarding the provision of parking for the proposal; however, as noted the requirement is met with capacity for an overflow parking area for additional spaces if required. It is noted that whilst Clause 52.06 only requires 60 car spaces in total, the traffic report submitted by the applicant based expected parking demand at a rate of 0.31 spaces per parishioner. This rate was devised via empirical surveys of the existing St George Jacobite Syrian Orthodox Church in Oakleigh. The parking survey at that Church established a parking demand of 0.31 spaces per parishioner. If that rate were applied to the subject site, this would equate to a requirement for 62 car spaces, which is met by the proposal. The design of the car parking spaces and accessways meet the requirements of Clause 52.06-8 with spaces provided with adequate dimensions and accessways a minimum of 6.4 metres width. Two (2) disabled parking spaces would be located adjacent to the church hall for easy access, and whilst dimensions for the spaces have not been provided it would appear that they meet requirements. If a permit were to issue, a condition should be included requiring their dimensions to be shown on plans to comply with the applicable Australian Standard. Lighting in the car parking area has not been nominated, however a condition is recommended for inclusion if a permit were to be issued to ensure that when the site is being used at night that the car parking area is adequately lit. Landscaping around the perimeter of the site will ensure that shade will be provided to car parking spaces at varying times of the day. The application was referred internally to Council’s Traffic Engineers and VicRoads was notified of the proposal. Council’s Traffic Engineers expressed concerns regarding the impact of traffic on the operation of Ross Street and Centre Dandenong
33
Road, whilst VicRoads did not raise this as a concern, but did recommend that the proposed crossover to the site was relocated further away from the intersection of Ross Street and Centre Dandenong Road. The applicant has submitted a traffic report prepared by Traffix Group, dated March 2012, and additional traffic information from Traffix Group, dated 2 May 2012. The traffic report outlines the particular uses that will occur throughout a normal week, and the number of people that would be on the site for those activities. Monday to Saturday activities include prayer groups, meeting and bible study groups, with these activities generally involving up to 30 parishioners. Sunday service, religious festivals and special events such as weddings and funerals are expected to have up to (but no more than) 200 parishioners. The Sunday service is held between the hours of 9.00am and 11.00am. The submitted traffic report details traffic surveys undertaken 4.00pm – 6.00pm on Friday 24 February 2012 and 9.30am – 11.30am Sunday 26 February 2012. The survey found that the intersection of Ross Street and Centre Dandenong Road carried 42 vehicle movements on the Friday survey period and 20 vehicle movements on the Sunday survey period. Based on the uppermost number of people likely to be attending a church service, (200 people) and using the parking demand rate assessed by the Traffix Group, this could entail 62 vehicle movements on a Sunday. The submitted traffic information has provided a variety of data calculating the distribution of traffic arriving and departing the subject site in conjunction with existing traffic. The data assumes that all traffic will arrive and leave via Centre Dandenong Road rather than using Ross Street to travel north to Old Dandenong Road. The data also relates to a 30 minute departure time frame – which the applicant contends does not always reflect the departure habits from places of worship. The applicant contends that departures are sometimes staggered depending on other activities that might be occurring on the site after a Sunday service. Council’s Traffic Engineers have concerns that the saturation of vehicles leaving the site via Ross Street and the resultant delay in traffic moving through the intersection is too excessive. This relates to traffic departing after Sunday service and during the weekday evenings. As noted above the applicant’s traffic report contends that in reality there are a number of variances to the way that people arrive and depart, and the actual traffic conditions (with regard to available gaps in traffic) would lessen the impact that is represented in the relatively conservative data that has been presented to Council. On balance, it is accepted that in reality people leaving the site will make decisions about when they depart that are informed by any expected delay in traffic that will be experienced. It is also acknowledged that a number of people will also choose to exit Ross Street northward to Old Dandenong Road, and it is also considered that a number of people will choose to turn left rather than right onto Centre Dandenong Road if they expect delays for gaps in the traffic to allow them to do so. It is acknowledged that the conservative analysis provided in the traffic report is not dynamic, that it does not take into account the number of activities that can occur before and/or after Church services that result in a more staggered effect of arrivals and departures. Overall, it is acknowledged that the development will result in an increase in traffic. The most significant increase will generally be at times (such as Sunday morning) that are outside peak travel times. A number of conditions have been suggested by
34
Council’s Traffic Engineers and VicRoads which would require that the proposed crossover on Ross Street is located towards the site’s northern boundary, the furthest it can be located from the intersection with Centre Dandenong Road to reduce the likelihood of traffic queuing on Centre Dandenong Road to turn into Ross Street. A condition is also recommended that the developer/owner pay to construct Ross Street for the length of the road up to and beyond the new crossover. These conditions are accepted as reasonable and are recommended to be included on any permit issued. In particular it is noted that whilst the construction of Ross Street is likely to cost a significant amount of money, the site’s location within a Green Wedge means that constraints exist around existing infrastructure, and that where an application seeks permission to use and develop a site, Council must consider the adequacy of infrastructure to service that use/development.
VicRoads have had an opportunity to review the applicant’s traffic report and additional traffic information prepared by the Traffix Group. They have not objected to the proposal or expressed concerns regarding traffic generation impacts on Centre Dandenong Road.
11.29 Clause 52.34 (Bicycle Facilities)
The relevant purpose of this Clause is “to provide secure, accessible and convenient bicycle parking spaces and associated shower and change facilities”. Pursuant to Clause 52.34, the proposal is required to provide for staff at the site 1 bicycle space to each 1500 square metres of net floor and for visitors to the site (members of the congregation) 2 bicycle spaces to each 1500 square metres of net floor area. The two buildings on the site would total 872.2 square metres of floor area, falling short of any requirement to provide bicycle parking facilities however it is proposed to provide four (4) spaces towards the northern boundary which is considered satisfactory. A condition is recommended, should a permit issue, to dimension the spaces and show that they would be secure and undercover.
11.30 Clause 52.36 (Integrated Public Transport Planning)
The objectives of this Clause are: • To ensure development supports public transport usage. • To ensure that easily accessible public transport networks, which are
appropriate to the scale of the development, and high quality public transport infrastructure are provided as part of new development.
• To ensure that development incorporates safe, attractive and convenient pedestrian access to public transport stops.
• To ensure that development does not adversely affect the efficient, equitable and accessible operation of public transport.
As previously discussed in section 10.2 of this report, the application was required to be referred to the Director of Public Transport who did not object or raise concerns regarding potential impacts on the provision of public transport around the subject site. If a permit were to be issued, the Director of Public Transport requires a permit condition to be included to ensure that the bus stop to the front of the site is not altered without prior consent. To assist in accessibility of the bus stop from the subject site, a shared user path is recommended to be constructed along the front of
35
the site and plans were amended by the applicant to show a pedestrian path from the proposed car park area to the front boundary.
11.31 Clause 57 (Metropolitan Green Wedge Land)
The key objectives of this section of the Scheme include:
• Protect metropolitan green wedge land form uses and development that would diminish its agricultural, environmental, cultural heritage, conservation, landscape, natural resource or recreation values; and
• Ensure that the scale of use is compatible with the non-urban character of metropolitan green wedge land.
The proposed use is not one identified as prohibited under this Clause of the Scheme and therefore is considered a use that may be appropriate on the site. The proposal is considered to be an acceptable land use outcome for the subject site given its location on the edge of the Urban Growth Boundary, and the potential overall community benefit at a local and regional level. Further, the proposed development and use offers a suitable transition within the context of the surrounding land uses and its interface with a main road.
12.0 RESPONSE TO GROUNDS OF OBJECTIONS 12.1 The objector concerns have all been discussed in the assessment section above. 13.0 CONCLUSION: 13.1 The proposed use and development are considered appropriate for the site, subject
to conditions, as evidenced by:
• The compatibility of the design and siting with the surrounding area; • The mitigation of off-site amenity impacts; and • A suitable level of compliance with all relevant policies.
36
MORDIALLOC CREEK (Lot AA PS 407068W, Lot 1 TP857406C, Lot 1 TP585132D, Lot 1 TP879621Y, Lot 1 878577E, Lot 1 879606U & Part of Crown Allotment 2012 Parish of Lyndhurst) – Planning Permit Application No. KP-134/2009 Executive Summary for Ordinary Council Meeting APPLICATION No: KP-134/2009 LAND: Mordialloc Creek (Lot AA PS 407068W, Lot 1
TP857406C, Lot 1 TP585132D, Lot 1 TP879621Y, Lot 1 878577E, Lot 1 879606U & Part of Crown Allotment 2012 Parish of Lyndhurst)
PLANNING OFFICER: Tara Bryce PROPOSAL: Remove Native Vegetation PERMIT TRIGGER: Removal of Native Vegetation EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS: Vacant Land APPLICANT: Melbourne Water c/o Watsons Pty Ltd ZONE / OVERLAYS: Industrial 1 Zone
Urban Floodway Zone Land Subject to Inundation Overlay Public Acquisition Overlay
OBJECTIONS None 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL 1.1 This planning application seeks to remove native vegetation from the abovementioned
land to provide for the undertaking of earthworks in association with the construction of a wetland. The proposal includes the removal of two (2) habitat zones and eight (8) areas of scattered native understorey plants. The proposal does not necessitate the removal of the four (4) scattered River Red Gums located on the subject sites.
1.2 Proposed earthworks do not form part of the planning assessment as the works are exempt under the provisions of Clause 62 of the Kingston Planning Scheme. Accordingly the application relates only to the removal of native vegetation.
2.0 SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDS 2.1 The site is irregular in shape and comprises of a number of allotments that fall between
the Canterbury Road Industrial Land and the Aspendale Gardens Residential Estate. The total land area of the allotment is approximately 21.91ha and encompasses a total of seven (7) allotments, including one (1) crown allotment.
2.2 The land is currently vacant, with Mordialloc Creek running through the centre of the land in a south-east / north-west direction. A 6.10m wide pipeline easement (identified as E-1, E-2, E-3, E-4 and E-5) extends along the north property boundary of Lot AA on PS407068W.
2.3 The following map identifies the boundaries, context and physical circumstances of the subject site:
42
2.4 Due to the extensive size of the subject land, the surrounding land uses are diverse in
nature, comprising of residential, industrial and parkland uses. Aspendale Gardens Residential Estate is located to the south of the site, with Waterways Residential Estate located to the east (the water reserve / wetlands forms a buffer between the subject site and the estate). Canterbury Road industrial precinct is located to the north of the site. Land to the west is identified as Wells Road, with Yammerbook Park located further east of Wells Road.
3.0 KEY PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 3.1 The key planning considerations relate to: (a) Removal of Native Vegetation
The proposal was referred to the Department of Sustainability and Environment due to the requirements of the Kingston Planning Scheme. The application was reviewed against the provisions of the Native Vegetation Management Framework with the consideration of the quality and conservation value taken into account. The department has also considered the impact of the removal of vegetation on present fauna and flora within the area and has recommended that the required offsets be replanted on site, with native vegetation plantings arranged to accommodate threatened species.
(b) Views of Industrial Land from Aspendale Gardens Residential Estate
Whilst no formal objection was lodged, Council received requests for the proposal to incorporate screen planting along the northern boundary in order to minimise the visual impact of current and future development of the industrial land to the north. Plantings along this boundary are constrained by a 6.1m wide easement containing significant assets. It should be noted that recent subdivision approvals have required landscape buffers to be provided to the rear of the industrial developments to provide visual relief to the south.
43
Whilst conditions can be included on any permit issued regarding planting of vegetation on the land (in accordance with offset requirements), planting must be sympathetic to the created ecosystem environment (rather than linear) and should be representative of the vegetation removed.
4.0 CONCLUSION 4.1 Based on a thorough assessment of the application against the relevant provisions of the
Kingston Planning Scheme and taking into consideration the comments and recommendations of the relevant referral authorities, the proposal, subject to the inclusion of conditions, is deemed appropriate and should therefore be supported.
44
RECOMMENDATION That Council determine to support the proposal and issue a Planning Permit to Remove Native Vegetation at Lot AA on PS 407068W, Lot 1 on TP857406C, Lot 1 on TP585132D, Lot 1 on TP879621Y, Lot 1 on 878577E, Lot 1 on 879606U & Part of Crown Allotment 2012 Parish of Lyndhurst, subject to the following conditions: 1. Before the removal of any native vegetation commences, amended plans to the satisfaction of
the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be substantially in accordance with the landscape plans submitted to Council on the 11th November, 2010, but modified to show:
a) the provision of an improved landscape plan and associated planting schedule for the site showing the proposed location, species type, mature height and width, pot sizes and number of species be planted on the site incorporating:
i) plantings to include both plantings for the wetland and offsets (on-site) in accordance with the requirements of the Department of Sustainability and Environment at Condition 8 of this permit.
Endorsed Plans 2. The works hereby approved, as shown on the endorsed plans, must not be altered without
the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
Conditions required by the Department of Sustainability & Environment (DSE): 3. To prevent damage to remaining vegetation (retained scattered trees) there must be no
temporary or permanent storage of any materials, vehicles or equipment within areas of native vegetation identified to be retained in accordance with the endorsed plans. All storage sites must be restricted to existing cleared areas close to existing roads and tracks, and must not adversely impact upon native vegetation, including the root zones of existing trees. Such sites must not be located on or near erodible surfaces, surface water runoff areas or areas infested with weeds.
4. Prior to the commencement of any buildings and works occurring within a defined construction area, Tree Protection Fencing (TPF) must be erected to form an appropriate Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) around trees proposed for retention to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. All TPZs must comply with the following:
a) Each TPZ must be installed prior to the commencement of any demolition or construction works and shall not be removed until such works have been fully completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
b) Each TPZ should be calculated by 12 x the Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) and be in general accordance with the Australian Standard – Protection of Trees of Development Sites (AS4970-2009).
c) Each TPZ should be no less than 2m or greater than 15m. The TPZ of tree ferns should be less than 1m outside of the crown projection.
d) The following activities should be excluded from the inside of the TPZ:
i) Machine excavation including trenching;
ii) Directional drilling that is less than 600mm deep;
iii) Excavation for silt fencing;
iv) Storage;
v) Preparation of chemicals, including preparation of cement products;
45
vi) Parking of vehicles and plant;
vii) Refuelling;
viii) Dumping of waste;
ix) Wash down and cleaning of equipment;
x) Placement of fill;
xi) Temporary or permanent installation of utilities and signs; and
xii) Physical damage to a tree.
e) A tree will be considered lost and require an offset if one of the above activities occurs over more that 10% of the total area of the TPZ unless a qualified arborist can confirm that the specified works will not significantly damage the tree.
5. Soil erosion control measures must be employed throughout the construction stage of the development in accordance with Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control, EPA 1991 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
6. All topsoil removed during the earthworks must be stockpiled, maintained in a weed-free condition, respread on the disturbed ground after the completion of the earthworks and revegetated to prevent erosion, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
7. Before the development commences, a Construction Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The Construction Management Plan must provide details of:
a) Location of the construction zone;
b) Vegetation within the zone that is to be retained and removed;
c) Measures to control sediment laden water runoff including design detail of any structures;
d) Where equipment, machinery and earth is to be stored / stockpiled during construction;
e) Location of any temporary structures for construction purposes;
f) A protocol to be followed if the Growling Grass Frog is detected during construction works, the protocol must provide details of:
i) Engagement of a suitable qualified zoologist / herpetologist or wildlife handler to identify frogs and undertake translocation to the nearest suitable habitat, under the relevant authorisation (Management Authorisation under the Wildlife Act 1975).
8. To provide the required offset, within 12 months of the vegetation removal, the applicant or the owner must either:
a) Provide to the Responsible Authority, an Allocated Credit Extract issued by the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) Native Vegetation Credit Register which satisfies the required offset; or
b) Have prepared an offset plan endorsed by the Responsible Authority. The offset plan must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The offset plan must include a:
i) Description of the site where the offset will be provided including a site plan;
ii) Schedule of the works required to achieve the offset over a 10 year period, detailing the:
a. Management actions to be performed (eg. Fencing, weed control, pest control, revegetation)
b. Person(s) responsible for implementing the specified management actions;
46
c. Timeline for the implementation of the management actions;
d. Method for which the management actions will be undertaken;
e. Standard to which the management actions will be undertaken.
iii) When approved, the offset plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.
9. Within 12 months of the vegetation removal:
a) The endorsed offset must be permanently protected to the satisfaction of the responsible Authority (eg. Encumbrance on Title); and
b) A copy of the endorsed offset plans and protection mechanism (eg. Title showing encumbrance) must be lodged with the DSE.
10. All vehicles, earth moving equipment and other machinery must be cleaned of soil and plant material before entering and leaving the site to prevent the spread of weeds and pathogens.
Ongoing Management 11. The offset requirements must be provided on the subject site to the satisfaction of the
Responsible Authority.
12. Within 1 year of the vegetation removal, the owner of the land must provide the Responsible Authority with the protection mechanism to ensure that the native vegetation offset is provided for in accordance with the endorsed offset plans and is protected in perpetuity, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The costs associated with the preparation of the protection mechanism are to be borne by the owner / developer.
General Amenity Conditions 13. The amenity of the area must not be detrimentally affected by the works hereby approved,
through the:
i) Transport of materials, goods or commodities to or from the land.
ii) Appearance of any building, works or materials.
iii) Emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or oil.
iv) Presence of vermin.
v) Any other way.
Completion of Works 14. Once the works (native vegetation removal) hereby permitted has started it must be continued and
completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Permit Expiry 15. In accordance with section 68 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, this permit will expire if
one of the following circumstances applies:
• The development (removal of native vegetation) is not started before two (2) years from date of this permit.
• The development (removal of native vegetation) is not completed before four (4) years from the date of this permit.
In accordance with section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the responsible authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires, or within three months afterwards.
47
Note: For a tree to be used as an offset for other tree clearing, it must meet the definition of Protection of tree stated on page 28 of the Guide for Assessment of Referred Planning Permit Applications (DSE, 2007).
OR In the event that the Council wishes to oppose the Officer’s recommendation to refuse the application, it can do so on the following grounds:
1. The proposal fails to adequately respond to the State Planning Policy Framework and Local Planning Policy Framework, namely Clause 12 – Environment and Landscape Values, Clause 13 – Environmental Risks, Clause 15 – Built Environment and Heritage, Clause 21.09 – Environment, Wetland and Waterways, Clause 21.10 – Non Urban Areas and Clause 22.04 – South East Non-Urban Area Policy.
2. The proposal fails to adequately address the principles of Victoria’s Native Vegetation Management – A Framework for Action.
3. The proposal does not adequately address the Net Gain approach through the failure to avoid or minimise the loss of native vegetation with an endangered conservation status.
48
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT
1.0 RELEVANT LAND HISTORY 1.1 Planning Permit No. KP96/559 was issued on the 22nd October, 1996, for the subdivision
of the land (boundary realignment). This Planning Permit applied to Lots 3-9, 13-20, 23-30, 33-40 and Parts Lots 2, 12, 22, 32 on PS309.
1.2 Planning Permit No. KP96/559 was amended on the 22nd January, 1997, amending reference to the specific lots for which a Section 173 was applicable, where the construction of an extension to Canterbury and Darling Roads was required.
1.3 The above permit and amendment resulted in the subdivision of the land into Lots A to Z and Lot AA on PS407068W. Lot AA forms part of the current application.
2.0 SITE PARTICULARS 2.1 The site is irregular in shape and comprises of a number of allotments that fall between
the Canterbury Road Industrial Land and the Aspendale Gardens Residential Estate. The shape of the land is best described by an image included on the following page of this report, which demonstrates the subject site as being contained within the white and red dotted line.
APPLICANT Melbourne Water c/o Watsons Pty Ltd ADDRESS OF LAND Mordialloc Creek PLAN OF SUBDIVISION REFERENCE
Lot AA PS407068W, Lot 1 TP857406C, Lot 1 TP585132D, Lot 1 TP879621Y, Lot 1 878577E, Lot 1 879606U & Part of Crown Allotment 2012 Parish of Lyndhurst
PROPOSAL Remove Native Vegetation PLANNING OFFICER Tara Bryce REFERENCE NO. KP-134/2009 ZONE Clause 33.01 - Industrial 1 Zone
Clause 37.03 - Urban Floodway Zone OVERLAYS Clause 44.04 - Land Subject to Inundation Overlay
Clause 45.01 - Public Acquisition Overlay PARTICULAR PROVISIONS Clause 52.17 - Native Vegetation OBJECTIONS None CONSIDERED PLAN REFERENCES/DATE RECEIVED
12/7/2012 – Flora and Fauna Assessment 11/7/2012 – Vegetation Removal Plan 25/5/2012 – Titles Plan and Application Form 11/11/2010 – Landscaping Plan 6/3/2009 – Planning Statement 6/3/2009 – Detail Plans (wetland construction – form information purposes only)
ABORIGINAL CULTURAL HERITAGE SENSITIVITY
Yes - Exempt
49
2.2 The total land area of the allotment is approximately 21.91ha and encompasses a total of seven (7) allotments (as outlined in the following image), including one (1) crown allotment.
2.3 The land is currently vacant, with Mordialloc creek running through the centre of the land in a south-east / north-west direction. Vegetation scattered throughout the length of the site. A granitic sand shared pathway extends along the south of the creek and can be accessed via several points within the Aspendale Gardens residential estate including: Clair Court Reserve Woodcock Walk (extends off Winners Circle Reserve) Amott Court Reserve Palm Grove Boulevard Reserve
2.4 With regard to flora and fauna, the following has been observed within the ecological study undertaken by Brett Lane and Associates: The subject land, in the area adjacent to the main drain, supports Plains Grassy
Wetland (Ecological Vegetation Class 125) being Habitat Areas A and B. This Vegetation Class is considered to be endangered within the Gippsland Plain Bioregion, based on the level of historic clearing.
Four Scattered River Red Gums are located adjacent to the main drain (2 x medium and 2 x small)
Eight (8) areas of scattered native understorey plants are located on the banks of
the Main Drain channel. Both the Eastern Great Egret and the Growling Grass Frog occur along the
Mordialloc Creek.
2.5 Powerlines run parallel to the footpath and the creek for the length of the subject site.
2.6 A 6.10m wide pipeline easement (identified as E-1, E-2, E-3, E-4 and E-5) extends along the north property boundary of Lot AA on PS407068W, which abuts the industrial
50
allotments to the north. The Pipeline Easement is identified as the W.A.G Pipeline, which was installed around 1972 to carry petroleum products from Hastings to Geelong.
2.7 Lot AA is encumbered by a Section 173 Agreement, (V152427V) which was required to be entered into in accordance with Condition 1 of Planning Permit No. 96559 which was issued for the subdivision of the land (boundary realignments).
2.8 Obligations within the Agreement are outlined at Paragraph 3.1 (as follows): 3.1 It is acknowledged that if or when any part of Canterbury Road abutting Lots K to Z
inclusive on the plans endorsed under Planning Permit No. 96559 (Amended) is constructed as a road then the owners from time to time of the said Lots K to Z inclusive (or the lots derived from them by further subdivision) may each become liable (in accordance with the laws then applicable) for a proportion of the costs of such construction.
2.9 It should be noted that Lot AA is not included within the lots encumbered by this liability and thus the proposal will not result in a breach of this Agreement.
3.0 SURROUNDING ENVIRONS 3.1 Due to the extensive size of the subject land, the surrounding land uses are diverse in
nature, comprising of residential, industrial and parkland uses. The immediate surroundings are discussed in more detail below:
Land to the north of the site is zoned Industrial 1 Zone and comprises Lots A to Z on PS407068W, which were formed under the Planning Permit KP96559. The land parcels comprise a mixture of developed and vacant allotments. Allotments T, U and V, which abut the subject land, have been further subdivided, with Lot T being occupied by various industrial / warehouse use. Allotments W, X, Y and Z remain intact, with no further subdivision or development occurring on these land parcels. The industrial precinct extends further north to Centre Dandenong Road. Two channelised open drains run in a north / south direction into the Mordialloc Creek Main Drain. The first of which dissects Lots W and X, with the second channel located between Haymer Court and Hedland Place.
Land to the south of the subject site is zoned Residential 3 Zone, and comprises the Aspendale Gardens Residential Estate, which extends between the subject land and Wells Road. Land within this precinct is development for single dwellings, with medium density development generally absent. Residential development within this area generally extends along the length of the subject site and then deviates in a south-eastern direction, and terminates at the Richfield Retirement Village. Land to the south and south-west of Wells Road is also zoned Residential 3 Zone. It is important to note that the southern boundary of the subject site does not abut the Residential Land, however is separated by a land parcel with a width of approximately 25 metres whose main feature is the Melbourne Water open drainage channel.
51
Land to the east of the site is zoned Public Use Zone (Schedules 1 and 7) and is subject to a number of overlays. The land comprises the Waterways (wetland) Water Reserves. This land is dissected by residential zoned land, set aside for the future extension of the Mornington Peninsula Freeway. Land further east comprises an established residential area identified as the Waterways Estate. The Estate was approved under Planning Permit No. KP922/99, issued for the subdivision of the land into approximately seven-hundred (700) vacant allotments. Subsequent Planning Permits have been issued for each dwelling. The north east corner of the Waterways Estate was developed it its entirety by Mirvac, under Planning Permit No. KP747/06, issued on the for the development of the land for one-hundred forty-five (145) dwellings. Wells Road (Road Zone Category 1) abuts the western perimeter of the subject site. The road forms a bridge at the point it intersects the site to provide passage over the swampy land of the creek. Further west of Wells Road, Mordialloc Creek dissects Industrial 1 zoned land to the north, with land zoned for Public Parks and Recreation adjacent to the northern shore of the creek extending off Jack Grut Reserve). Land to the south of the creek is zoned Public Use Zone 1 and comprises of Yammerbook Nature Reserve and Browns Reserve.
4.0 PROPOSAL 4.1 Melbourne Water has proposed to create a freshwater wetland within the boundaries
outlines within Section 2 of this report. Proposed works comprise:
• Remove existing vegetation from the land; • Remove the levee bank on the northern (Braeside) section of the creek; • Remove soil and silt form the floodplain; and • Replanting of vegetation surrounding the new wetland area.
4.2 As will be explained within Section 5 of this report, the proposal for the purposes of this
planning application is restricted to the removal of Native Vegetation.
4.3 The following image indicates the areas of native vegetation within the subject site, as covered by Victoria’s Native Vegetation Management Framework.
52
5.0 PLANNING PERMIT PROVISIONS
Overlays
5.1 Pursuant to Clause 45.01 – Public Acquisition Overlay (PAO), a planning permit is required to Damage, remove, destroy or lop any vegetation. Whilst it is noted that the title boundaries for the subject site extend into the Overlay, the boundaries of the subject site for the purposes of this application do not include land within the PAO (Mornington Peninsula Freeway Extension). Accordingly a permit is not required under this overlay. Particular Provisions
5.2 In accordance with Clause 52.17 – Native Vegetation, a planning permit is required to remove, destroy or lop native vegetation, including dead native vegetation. The proposal does not meet any of the exemptions outlined within this clause. General Provisions
5.3 In accordance with Clause 62.02 – Buildings and Works of the Kingston Planning
Scheme, the following is applicable: Clauses 62.02-1 and 62.02-2 set out exemptions from permit requirements in this scheme relating to the construction of a building or the construction or carrying out of works. These exemptions do not apply to the removal, destruction or lopping of trees and the removal of vegetation.
5.4 Clause 62.02-1 – Buildings and Works not requiring a Permit states that: Any requirement in this scheme relating to the construction of a building or the construction or carrying out of works does not apply to:
Maintenance works carried out by a municipality or public authority to prevent or alleviate flood damage.
53
5.5 Accordingly the permit triggers of Clause 33.01 - Industrial 1 Zone, Clause 37.03 - Urban
Floodway Zone and Clause 44.04 - Land Subject to Inundation Overlay for the construction of a building or the construction ore carrying out of works are not applicable in this instance.
5.6 Exemptions apply for the removal of vegetation at Clause 62.02-3 – Vegetation Removal, which states Any requirement in this scheme relating to the construction or carrying out of works does not apply to the removal, destruction or lopping of trees and the removal of vegetation.
This does not apply if a permit is specifically required to remove, destroy or lop trees or to remove vegetation.
5.7 Accordingly, a planning permit is not required to remove vegetation under the provisions of Clause 33.01 - Industrial 1 Zone, Clause 37.03 - Urban Floodway Zone and Clause 44.04 - Land Subject to Inundation Overlay.
5.8 The Decision Guidelines of Clause 65 of the Kingston Planning Scheme are relevant to this application and require consideration to be given to a variety of matters including planning scheme policies, the purpose of the zone, orderly planning and the impact on amenity.
6.0 RELEVANT POLICIES 6.1 State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF)
Clause 12 Environmental and Landscape Values Clause 13 Environmental Risks Clause 15 Built Environment and Heritage
6.2 Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) Clause 21.09 Environment, Wetland and Waterways Clause 21.10 Non Urban Areas Clause 22.04 South East Non Urban Area Policy
6.3 Particular Provisions
Clause 52.17 – Native Vegetation
6.4 General Provisions
Clause 62 Uses, Buildings, Works, Subdivisions and Demolition not Requiring a Planning Permit
Clause 65 Decision Guidelines
54
7.0 ADVERTISING 7.1 The proposal was advertised by sending notices to properties (both owners and
occupiers) within a reasonable proximity of the site and by maintaining four (4) notices on site along the southern boundary of the subject site for fourteen (14) days. The application was also advertised in the Leader newspaper (Chelsea and Moorabbin editions) for two (2) weeks. One (1) submission was received, however the content of the submission did not relate to the proposed works (rather concerns with the industrial land to the north) and thus was not treated as an objection.
7.2 Council’s Planning Department was made aware of the requests of the Aspendale Gardens Residents Association (AGRA), regarding screen planting along the northern corridor of the site, however no formal objections were raised with regard to the proposal. Whilst Council’s Planning Department recognises the views of the association, it is considered that linear screen planting along the northern boundary should not be applied in this instance as:
• The northern property boundary accommodates a 6.10 metre wide easement that accommodates significant infrastructure which should not be compromised;
• Linear planting would not provide a sympathetic response to the natural ecosystem being created within the proposed wetland area;
• The distance between the residential area and the rear of the industrial zone is in excess of 150 metres, which provides a buffer to limit immediate visual intrusion;
• Vegetation buffers have been incorporated by way of covenant, on the titles of subdivided industrial land to alleviate the impact of built form facing the wetland area; and
• The applicant for the current proposal should not be burdened by the amenity impacts of future industrial development on land that is not part of the subject application.
7.3 In saying this, the revegetation of the wetlands should include a variety of planting types that should provide some visual screening of the properties to the north of the designated wetlands area. The indicative vegetation plan nominates scattered planting throughout the site that creates a varied buffer between the two areas in question. A condition of permit requires a landscape plan (in conjunction with the nominated plantings in addition to the offset requirements) to ensure that plantings are provided throughout the length of the site to provide some vegetation relief.
8.0 SECTION 50A– AMENDMENT OF APPLICATION 8.1 Following review of the application after Council’s original request for information, the
application was amended at the request of Council to remove a number of the allotments included within the planning application.
8.2 The original planning application incorporated a number of the industrial allotments (Lots U, V, W, X, Y and Z on PS407068W) to the north of the Mordialloc Creek area. As works relating to flood alleviation / prevention undertaken by the public authority are exempt from the permit requirements within the scheme (as discussed in detail within Section 5 of this report), the application before Council relates only to the removal of native vegetation,
55
of which none is to be removed from Lots U to Z. Accordingly Council requested that the description of the land be amended in accordance with Section 50A (2) (b) of the Planning and Environment Act, 1987.
8.3 The land description was amended on the 25th May, 2012 with the relevant amended documentation received on the 12th July, 2012.
9.0 REFERRALS 9.1 The application was referred to the following internal departments:
• City Strategy – provided comments relating to the assessment of the proposal including the accuracy of the plans (now amended), the ‘three step’ approach, the significance of Habitat Area ‘C’ (land no longer incorporated within the subject allotments) and matters relating to earthworks and fill (no planning permit required). Further recommendations were made into the investigation of screen planting in accordance with the requests of AGRA.
• Council’s Vegetation Management Officer – who did not provide formal referral comments, however undertook a site visit and verbally stipulated that the River Red Gums must be maintained on site.
• Council’s Parks Department - Did not object to the proposal and did not seek any
planning permit conditions
• Council’s Engineering Department - Did not object to the proposal and did not seek any planning permit conditions
9.2 The application was referred to the following external departments:
• Department of Sustainability and Environment – Who did not object to the application provided that extensive conditions were included on any planning permit issued which generally relate to the following: Tree / vegetation protection during construction
Erosion control measures
Topsoil management
Construction management
Native vegetation offsets
Weed and pathogen control • Melbourne Water – who did not object to the application, with no conditions
recommended.
9.3 As the proposal could have a significant impact upon the Growling Grass Frog (Litoria raniformis), which is identified as a vulnerable species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) – List of Threatened Fauna, the applicant referred the proposal to the Commonwealth Department of Sustainability,
56
Environment, Water, Population and Communities. A decision was issued on the 19th October, 2010, stating that the proposed action is not considered a “Controlled Action” and this no further assessment and approval is required under the EPBC Act before it can proceed.
9.4 The Growling Grass Frog and the Eastern Great Egret (now elevated to full species) are
both listed on the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG Act) Threatened List. The Department of Sustainability and Environment (administrator of the FFG Act) have reviewed the application and have provided recommendations and conditions to ensure that the proposed works do not further impact the threatened fauna species.
10.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
State Planning Policy Framework 10.1 The State Planning Policy Framework sets out the relevant state-wide policies in relation
to the protection of environmentally sensitive areas at Clause 12 (Environmental and Landscape Values), Clause 13 (Environmental Risks), Clause 15 (Built Environment and Heritage) Essentially the provisions recognise the importance of natural environments and the importance of their preservation and protection to enhance the health of ecological systems and their inherent value.
10.2 The policies contained at Clause 12 (Environmental and Landscape Values) seek to ensure that planning protects sites and features of nature conservation, biodiversity, geological or landscape value. The following policy objectives are applicable to this application: To assist the protection and conservation of biodiversity, including native vegetation
retention and provision of habitats for native plants and animals and control of pest plants and animals.
To achieve a net gain in the extent and quality of native vegetation.
To protect native habitat and areas of important biodiversity through appropriate land-use planning.
To protect landscapes and significant open spaces that contribute to character, identity and sustainable environments.
10.3 Clause 12.01-1 emphasises the importance of habitat conservation though consideration
of land use and impacts upon significant environments and processes that could impact threatened species listed under various Legislation and conventions including the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988, RAMSAR Convention, Japan-Australia Migratory Birds Convention and the like. Appropriate siting of buildings and works and the provision of suitable landscaping is encourages through vegetation plans and programs.
10.4 The three step process of Avoid, Minimise and Offset as set out by Victoria’s Native Vegetation Management – A Framework for Action is highlighted as a key strategy at Clause 12.01-2 to manage the removal and protection of native vegetation with a focus on reducing the loss of extent and quality of existing vegetation. Further gains in extent and quality of vegetation through rehabilitation and revegetation are of priority. This
57
strategy is furthered at Clause 12.01-3 where native vegetation management plans (to achieve net gain) are encouraged to be developed.
10.5 Clause 12.04-2 recognises the aesthetic value and contribution of natural environments to the identity and sustainability and seeks to improve and ensure that key features are protected and enhanced.
10.6 Clause 13 (Environmental Risks) aims to ensure that planning adopts a best practice environmental management and risk management approach which aims to avoid or minimise environmental degradation and hazards. Clause 13.02-1 recognises the importance of the flood carrying capacities of river and waterways and the water storage function of waterways and floodplains.
10.7 Whilst the proposal does not seek to create a built environment, the heritage principles at Clause 15.03 (Heritage) seek to protect and conserve places and sites of significant heritage value. Of key importance is Clause 15.03-2 (Aboriginal Cultural Heritage), which seeks to ensure the protection and conservation of places of Aboriginal cultural heritage significance through the application of the following strategies: Identify, assess and document places of Aboriginal cultural heritage significance, in
consultation with relevant Registered Aboriginal Parties, as a basis for their inclusion in the planning scheme.
Provide for the protection and conservation of pre- and post-contact Aboriginal cultural heritage places.
Ensure that permit approvals align with recommendations of a Cultural Heritage Management Plan approved under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006.
10.8 Importantly, the Subject Land is identified in an area of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Sensitivity. “The Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 (the Act) and Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007 provides for the protection and management of Victoria’s Aboriginal heritage with streamlined processes linked to the Victorian planning system. The Act also provides clear guidance to planners and developers about when, and how, Aboriginal cultural heritage needs to be considered, and in some situations work cannot proceed until compliance is met. Large developments and other high impact activities in culturally sensitive landscapes can cause significant harm to Aboriginal cultural heritage”. [Source: DCPD website].
10.9 In accordance with Section 46 (Mandatory Cultural Heritage Management Plans), a Cultural Heritage Management Plans is required for a proposed activity if the regulations require the preparation of the plan for the activity. Regulation 6 of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007 outlines when a Cultural Heritage Management Plan is required:
6 When a cultural heritage management plan is required A cultural heritage management plan is required for an activity if—
(a) all or part of the activity area for the activity is an area of cultural heritage sensitivity; and
(b) all or part of the activity is a high impact activity.
10.10 Regulation 23 identifies waterways as areas of cultural heritage sensitivity and states:
58
23 Waterways (1) Subject to subregulation (2), a waterway or land within 200 metres of a
waterway is an area of cultural heritage sensitivity.
(2) If part of a waterway or part of the land within 200 metres of a waterway has been subject to significant ground disturbance, that part is not an area of cultural heritage sensitivity.
10.11 The subject site is dissected by the Mordialloc Creek and thus meets the criteria of Sub-regulation (1), however the applicant has provided evidence by way of expert report (archaeological survey prepared by Heritage Insight) that the site has been subject to significant ground disturbance and thus sub-regulation (2) applies. Accordingly the site is not an identified area of cultural heritage sensitivity and therefore a mandatory Cultural Heritage Management Plan is not required in this instance.
10.12 The archaeological survey was undertaken in 2005 with the study area comprising both
the industrial land to the north and the subject creek area. The summary of the findings indicate that: The survey did not locate any indigenous or historic archaeological sites. In
addition, no areas of potential archaeological sensitivity were located or identified; The subject site has been subject to large amounts of ground disturbance
including the fill of Lots U, W, Y and Z (not part of this application), excavation of a main open drain along and the construction of a sewer easement;
Previous archaeological studies in the region indicate possible preference for locating scarred trees along the margins of the Carrum swamp, with camp sites likely to occur at higher ground than the subject site as the site is within the swamp; and
The soil in the stud area is peaty soil and it is unlikely that human burials will occur on the property.
10.13 This report was submitted to Aboriginal Affairs who advised on the 21st May, 2009 that a mandatory Cultural Heritage Management Plan was not required on the basis of the report and the proposed works. Local Planning Policy Framework
11.11 The Local Planning Policy Framework extends upon the State Planning Policy Framework with regard to Kingston’s natural environmental resources and the importance of their protection and enhancement.
11.12 Clause 21.09 (Environment, Wetland and Waterways) highlights the significance of the diversity of Kingston’s environmental landscape and recognises the opportunity to enhance the quality and ecological value of these areas. The policy recognises the potential to create a series of wetlands along the Mordialloc Creek, which would offer major opportunities for improvements to water quality, flood storage, landscape character and ecological values. The rehabilitation of the creek and creation of a chain of wetlands is nominated as a key issue at Clause 21.09-2.
11.13 To address the key issues surrounding Kingston’s natural environments, the following objectives have been identified within the Scheme:
59
To protect and improve the flood storage and water quality treatment functions of existing floodplains and waterways, and to consolidate their habitat and recreation importance.
To improve water quality within the municipality’s waterways and the Port Phillip Bay.
To maintain the diversity of flora and fauna habitats and promote opportunities for reinstating local native flora.
To manage and protect floodplains and flood prone areas to minimise the impacts of flooding.
11.14 Strategies to achieve these objectives (as applicable to this application) include: Support the creation of a chain of wetlands within the Mordialloc Creek environs as
a strategy for combining water storage with opportunities for enhancing water quality, creation of wildlife habitat, and extension of strategic open space links.
Improve the aesthetic, cultural and conservation value of the Mordialloc Creek and its surrounding natural landscape to add value to its primary drainage and flood management function.
Protect identified areas of botanical or zoological significance from further degradation.
Support the enhancement, restoration and re-creation of pre-settlement vegetation communities and landscapes.
Promote the values and significance of existing flora and fauna habitats, and support initiatives that aim to protect and restore the integrity of these.
11.15 The management of Kingston’s non urban areas is identified as one of the greatest
challenges. Clause 21.10 (Non Urban Areas) marks the improvement of environmental values of key importance, including consideration of flood storage, water quality improvement and flora / fauna habitats. As applicable to this application, the policy seeks to ensure that development provides for the protection and enhancement of locate and regional assists of significance, including wetland morphologies, drainage and flooding, flora and fauna corridors and wildlife habitats.
11.16 Whilst the title boundaries for the subject site fall within the South East Non Urban Area Policy (Clause 22.04), the boundaries for the purpose of this planning application do not extend into the Non Urban Area Policy as identified within the map on page 4 of the Policy (policy area terminates at the west boundary of the proposed Mornington Peninsula Freeway extension).
11.17 It is submitted that the proposed removal of native vegetation should not have an adverse
impact on the biodiversity of the area, particularly in light of the overall project to be undertaken by Melbourne Water in creating the wetland. The creation of the wetland is specially supported within Kingston’s Local Planning Policy and should provide for new habitat areas for fauna and flora.
11.18 Whilst Habitat Areas A and B (endangered conservation status) are not proposed to be retained, the Department of Sustainability and Environment have considered the proposal in detail and consider that offsetting of the vegetation to be removed is a reasonable option, with recommendations made for the offsets to be located on site, maximising a net gain within the local area.
60
11.19 Whilst works are not considered as part of the application, the removal of vegetation in
order to allow the construction of the wetland should support improvements in water quality and flood alleviation whilst also providing an enhanced natural environment, which should have positive contribution to the area. Particular Provisions
11.20 The purpose of Clause 52.17 - Native Vegetation is to protect and conserve native vegetation to reduce the impact of land and water degradation and provide habitat for plants and animals.
11.21 In accordance with the decision guidelines the framework for native vegetation management (Victoria’s Native Vegetation Management – A Framework for Action) was considered, in order to facilitate the net gain goal. The net gain approach place priority of avoidance of clearing, and highlights that ‘natural is best’ with regard to native vegetation, however recognises that it is possible to partially recover quality and extent through active intervention. A quantitative approach is utilised to set target and performance measures where natural losses are permitted and a gain is required to be implemented.
11.22 The three step approach of “avoid, minimise, offset” is implemented to achieve the overarching objective. In this instance, due to the scale of the proposal, the application was required to be considered by the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE).
11.23 Four (4) scattered trees (River Red Gums) have been identified on the land. Whilst offset targets could be applied, the applicant has proposed to retain all four (4) trees located on the south side of the creek. Tree Protection conditions are recommended to be included on any permit, should on issue, in accordance with the conditional requirements of the DSE.
11.24 The subject site accommodates two (2) areas of native vegetation (Habitat Zones A and B) that are classified as Plains Grassy Wetland (Ecological Vegetation Class 125 – Gippsland Plain bioregion). This EVC has an endangered conservation status. A habitat hectare assessment of these areas indicates that these areas have high conservation significance.
11.25 In areas of high conservation significance, clearing is generally not permitted, however net gains of 1.5 (times the calculated loss of habitat hectares) can be applied to offset the loss of these areas. Given the net benefit of the project, in providing future habitat for flora and fauna, the removal of Habitat Zones A and B were deemed reasonable by the DSE and thus the Department has recommended permit conditions to regulate the net gain offsets to ensure that the planting of vegetation improves the extent and quality of vegetation within the area. Furthermore conditions requiring the permanent protection of the offset would also be included on any permit should one issue to ensure that the vegetation is protected in perpetuity.
11.26 The report prepared by Brett Lane and Associates indicates that the eight (8) areas of scattered native understorey plants are growing on an artificial substrate following the channelization of the Mordialloc Creek and thus the provisions of the framework are not
61
applicable. Background comments made by the DSE indicate that it is unclear as to whether the edge of the channel can be classified as artificial substrate, however given the type of project and overall creation of the native vegetation through the wetland system the DSE considered the Swamp Scrub to be located on artificial substrate (thus the framework provisions are not applicable in this instance).
11.27 With regard to the impact of the removal of native vegetation on fauna, the Statutory Framework considers the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988, for which the Eastern Great Egret (now promoted to full species status) and the Growling Grass Frog are listed as threatened species. As the administrator of the Act, the Department of Sustainability and Environment have recognised that the Mordialloc Creek is likely to be used as a wildlife corridor for the Growling Grass Frog however is unlikely to be a resident of the creek. Accordingly the Department has recommended that plantings be arranged to recreate natural indigenous communities and any construction associated with the wetland to be undertaken in accordance with the guidelines prepared by Melbourne Water and DSE.
11.28 The possible presence of threatened wading birds (Latham’s Snipe and Eastern Great Egret) has been considered, with indigenous vegetation plantings recommended to support the birds known to the area.
11.29 As the proposed removal of native vegetation marks the commencement of the creation of
the Mordialloc Creek wetland, it is not foreseen that the removal of vegetation will result in land degradation from soil erosion, salinisation, acidity, instability and water logging, however should upon the construction of the wetland, enhance the natural ecosystem within the area and improve water quality within the area. Further, the overall outcome, subject to suitable conditions, should improve the biodiversity of the area.
11.30 With regard to Aboriginal Cultural Heritage, a detailed assessment is undertaken at Section 10.8 to 10.13 of this report.
11.0 CONCLUSION: 11.1 The proposed development is considered appropriate for the site, subject to conditions, as
evidenced by:
• Subject to conditions, the proposal will result in a net gain in native vegetation and should have a net community benefit;
• The proposal should not have a detrimental impact on the existing threatened flora and fauna communities in the area;
• The proposal should not have a detrimental impact on surrounding properties (subject to appropriate conditions); and
• The proposal generally satisfies the requirements of the Kingston Planning Scheme, including the State Planning Policy Framework, Local Planning Policy Framework (including MSS and Local Planning Policies) and Particular Provisions, and Clause 65 – Decision Guidelines.
11.2 On balance and subject to the inclusion of suitable conditions, the proposal is considered reasonable and warrants support.
62
11 Central Avenue, Moorabbin (Lot 93 on PS 010705) – Planning Permit Application No. KP-443/2012
Executive Summary for Ordinary Council Meeting APPLICATION No: KP-443/2012 LAND: 11 Central Avenue, Moorabbin (Lot 93 on PS 010705) PLANNING OFFICER: Jeremy Hopkins PROPOSAL: Develop the land for the construction of a Mixed Use
Development comprising two (2) shops, a food and drink premises, eight (8) offices, thirty (30) dwellings, thirty-eight (38) bicycle parking spaces with reduced car parking and associated signage.
PERMIT TRIGGER: Buildings and works; dwellings with a ground floor frontage greater than 2m in width; offices with a ground floor frontage greater than 2m shared with dwellings; variation to the maximum overall building height; reduction in car parking; waiver of loading bay requirements; bicycle parking; and internally-illuminated signage greater than 1.5m2.
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS: Double-storey office/retail brown brick building with on site car parking provided to the rear with access from Macs Lane.
APPLICANT: Keen Planning Services Pty Ltd ZONE / OVERLAYS: Business 1 Zone, and Design and Development
Overlay (DDO19 – Moorabbin Activity Centre) RESIDENTIAL POLICY AREA Not Applicable OBJECTIONS None
1.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL 1.1 The application seeks to develop the land for the construction of a six-storey Mixed
Use Development comprising two (2) shops, a food and drink premises, eight (8) offices and thirty (30) dwellings with reduced car parking, and a waiver of the loading bay requirements. Vehicle access and car parking with the provision of forty (40) spaces in a car stacker system would be provided via Macs Lane with pedestrian access to the shops, offices and dwellings from the Central Avenue frontage. Amenities including a bin enclosure for the dwellings and a bicycle storage facility for up to thirty-eight (38) bicycles are also proposed. Three (3) internally-illuminated signs are proposed being one (1) each for the two (2) shops, and the food and drink premises.
1.2 The proposed building would be constructed of concrete tilt-up panels in various
painted finishes; galvanised section slats; glass balustrades; aluminium framed glazing; painted galvanised roller shutter doors; and Colorbond roof cladding.
69
1.3 The proposal has an overall site coverage of 95.7%; a total building height of 21m; and would be constructed to the road frontage and east and west side boundaries; and set back 1.83m from the rear northern boundary clear of the sewer and stormwater easement.
2.0 SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDS 2.1 The following map illustrates the subject site in its surrounding context.
TA
YL
OR
S
TT
AY
LO
R
ST
TA
YL
OR
S
TT
AY
LO
R
ST
TA
YL
OR
S
TT
AY
LO
R
ST
TA
YL
OR
S
TT
AY
LO
R
ST
TA
YL
OR
S
T
CENTRAL ACENTRAL ACENTRAL ACENTRAL ACENTRAL ACENTRAL ACENTRAL ACENTRAL ACENTRAL A
ST
AT
ION
S
TR
EE
TS
TA
TIO
N S
TR
EE
TS
TA
TIO
N S
TR
EE
TS
TA
TIO
N S
TR
EE
TS
TA
TIO
N S
TR
EE
TS
TA
TIO
N S
TR
EE
TS
TA
TIO
N S
TR
EE
TS
TA
TIO
N S
TR
EE
TS
TA
TIO
N S
TR
EE
T
NE
PEA
N H
I
NE
PEA
N H
I
NE
PEA
N H
NE
PEA
N H
I
NE
PEA
N H
NE
PEA
N H
I
NE
PEA
N H
I
NE
PEA
N H
NE
PEA
N H
I
MA
CS
LA
NE
MA
CS
LA
NE
MA
CS
LA
NE
MA
CS
LA
NE
MA
CS
LA
NE
MA
CS
LA
NE
MA
CS
LA
NE
MA
CS
LA
NE
MA
CS
LA
NE
KEILLER STREET
KEILLER STREET
KEILLER STREET
KEILLER STREET
KEILLER STREET
KEILLER STREET
KEILLER STREET
KEILLER STREET
KEILLER STREET
42
390
40
3/ 10
8A/ 2
8/ 2
9/ 2
7/ 2
5/ 2
19/ 2
4/ 2
2
18/ 2
5/ 999 9
30-32
28
22
2/ 1
18-20
40
3634
7
7-1111
13-15
17
15-16/ 8
11-12/ 2
14/ 4
13/ 2
4-6
7/ 88
4/ 8
6
1/ 8
2/ 8
3/ 8
13A11A
710
12
4
918
916
914
912
908
920
06
0 50 100
meters
MapXtreme 2008 ® SDK Developer License, © 2009 Pitney Bowes Sof tware Inc .
2.2 The site is generally rectangular in shape with a frontage to Central Avenue of
20.42m, a side depth of 42.67m, resulting in a site area of 871m2. It currently contains a double-storey brown brick commercial building used in the past for both retailing and offices. The existing building fronts to Central Avenue with a car park located to the rear of the subject site with access via Macs Lane, where thirteen (13) car parking spaces are provided.
2.3 Macs Lane runs along the western boundary of the subject site and is 3.05m wide
and currently constructed of concrete. The land is generally flat and does not contain any significant vegetation. A street tree is centrally located in front of the subject site on the Central Avenue footpath.
2.4 The land is encumbered by a 1.83m stormwater and sewerage easement running
along its rear northern property boundary. There appears to be no restrictions listed on the Certificate of Title.
2.5 The subject site is located within the Moorabbin Central Activity Centre and the
surrounding area generally comprises of commercial and civic developments. This includes low-order retail tenancies; offices; specialist services such as financial
70
facilities; cafes; a Safeway supermarket; and car parks. The predominant scale of the buildings within the vicinity is of one and two-storey; however it is noted that the building located to the east of the subject site is three-storeys in height. Most buildings front directly onto the street.
3.0 KEY PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 3.1 The key planning considerations relate to: (a) Urban design
The proposed development is located within Precinct G as identified on the plan
attached to Schedule 19 of Clause 43.02 (Design and Development Overlay) of the Kingston Planning Scheme. Within Precinct G, development should not exceed a maximum of 4 storeys and 14m in height. Pursuant to Clause 2 of the Schedule to Overlay DDO19 (Moorabbin Activity centre), a planning permit may be granted to vary the maximum overall building height in circumstances where it can be demonstrated that the Design objectives can be satisfied. The proposal is 6 storeys with a maximum height of 21m, therefore the application seeks a variation under Clause 2 of the Schedule to Overlay DDO19. An Urban Design report was requested to outline and justify the proposal of a 6 storey building, noting that the Structure Plan and the DDO19 outlines a 4 storey height limit in this area. Of particular concern was shadowing onto Central Avenue, visual impact within the centre and lastly, how the building reads from Central Avenue. Council’s Place Manager – Activity Centres has commented that the proposal has a strong 2 storey commercial edge which is framed by a contemporary in-design canopy which morphs into a well considered entrance element. The 3rd and 4th storeys are set back with built out balconies, so the building reads as 4 storeys from the street, with appropriate detailing to allow the 3rd and 4th storeys to receed. The 5th and 6th storeys are set back appropriately to have limited presence when viewed from Central Avenue, as well as limited additional shadowing onto the street as shown in the Urban Design Report. The perspective images of the proposal from the surrounding locations within the centre show that the 5th and 6th storey are visible from these locations, where a 4th storey building would not read as strongly. However, it should also be noted that this proposal is the first within the centre and as such will not be as visible once the surrounding properties are developed as outlined in the Structure Plan. As this proposal is the first within the centre, it is important that it demonstrates the future desired character and it is considered that it is an important catalyst development. As such the proposed building form and massing is supported.
(b) Vehicular access and egress from Macs Lane
Council’s Traffic Engineer – provided pre-application advice objecting to the proposed development on the basis that the existing 3.05m width of Macs Lane is too narrow to accommodate the proposed additional residential and commercial traffic generated by the proposed development. Council’s Traffic Engineer
71
recommended that the development should be set back 3m from the western side boundary adjoining Macs Lane to facilitate an increase in width of the laneway to a minimum of 6m.
In response to the above concerns, the applicant provided a Traffic Report prepared by Cardno Victoria Pty Ltd dated 9 October 2012 (ref: CG120144) which included a traffic count undertaken at the southern end of Macs Lane adjacent to Central Avenue for the week of 15-21 March 2012. The Traffic Report found that during the commuter peaks (8-9am and 5-6pm) the maximum volumes were 12 vehicles per hour and 14 vehicles per hour respectively. No more than one heavy vehicle was recorded using Macs Lane on any day, with the exception of Wednesday (4 heavy vehicles) and Friday (2 heavy vehicles). Part 6.2 of the Traffic Report finds that by adding the expected increase in traffic movements with the existing movements along Macs Lane, it is expected that post development, up to 24 vehicle movements per hour could be expected along Macs Lane. The Traffic Report concludes that:
Considering the length of this section of the lane and the limited number of vehicle movements expected during peak hours, the chance of two vehicles meeting in this section of the lane at peak times is 0.25%, or 1 in 500 vehicle movements. It is noted that Clause 3.2.2 of the Australian Standard for Off Street Parking (AS2890. 1:2004) states that: “subject to consideration of traffic volumes on a case-by-case basis, lesser widths down to a minimum of 3.0m at a domestic property, may be provided. As a guide 30 or more movements in a peak hour (in and out combined) would usually require provision for two vehicles to pass on the driveway, .i.e. a minimum width of 5.5m. On long driveways, passing opportunities should be provided at least every 30m.” Given that the location of the car park access is less than 30m from the property boundary, and that the volumes post-development are less than what warrants for the provision of two vehicles to pass on the driveway (Macs Lane), it is considered that the existing Macs Lane will continue to be appropriate for two-way traffic.
At the time of writing this Report, Council’s Traffic Department has not provided any additional comments to that provided at pre-application stage nor any commentary in relation to the analysis and conclusions discussed above in the Traffic Report prepared by Cardno Victoria Pty Ltd. It is important to note that the adopted Moorabbin Structure Plan dated May 2011 requires all vehicular access to the subject site from Macs Lane and does not contemplate an increase in the width of the laneway to accommodate increased usage. Alternatively, whilst the draft Activity Centre Zone – Moorabbin Activity Centre (currently on exhibition) specifies an increase in the width of the laneway to 6m through a 3m setback for all new development on the western (opposite) side of Macs Lane to that of the subject site, it is considered that any condition of approval to require the development to provide a setback of 3m resulting in a 6m setback to Macs Lane would be inconsistent with the Moorabbin Structure Plan dated May 2011 and the draft Activity Centre Zone – Moorabbin Activity Centre and the analysis and conclusions in the Traffic Report prepared by Cardno Victoria Pty Ltd.
72
3.2 The subject site is identified within Area 1 of the Kingston Neighbourhood Character Study (May 2003). However, the average lot size within this area has not been calculated as the subject site is not located within a Residential 3 Zone.
4.0 OBJECTOR CONCERNS 4.1 The proposal was advertised by sending notices to adjoining and opposite property
owners and occupiers and by maintaining a notice on site for fourteen (14) days. No representations for or against this application have been received.
5.0 CONCLUSION 5.1 Based on a thorough assessment of the application against the relevant provisions of
the Kingston Planning Scheme and taking into consideration the internal referral comments, the proposal, subject to the inclusion of conditions, is deemed appropriate and should therefore be supported.
73
RECOMMENDATION That Council determine to support the proposal and issue a Planning Permit to use and develop the land for the construction of a Mixed Use Development comprising two (2) shops, a food and drink premise, eight (8) offices, thirty (30) dwellings with reduced car parking and a waiver of the loading and unloading of vehicle requirements together with associated signage at No. 11 Central Avenue, Moorabbin (Lot 93 on PS 010705), subject to the following conditions:
1. Before the development starts amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be substantially in accordance with the plans submitted to Council on 11 October 2012, but modified to show:
a. the provision of a full colour, finishes and building materials schedule, including samples (illustrated on an A4 or A3 sheet), for all external elevations and driveways of the development;
b. the location of all externally-located heating and cooling units, exhaust fans and the like, clearly shown;
c. the guttering pertaining to the walls on boundary on the site’s property boundary nominated as being contained wholly within the title property boundaries of the subject land;
d. a notation detailing the floor area of the Unit 1A courtyard located on the second floor;
e. details of the proposed planting (including a schedule detailing expected mature height, plant size, and quantities) to the balcony planter boxes located on the second, third, fourth, and fifth floors;
f. a minimum 2m x 2m splay at the corner of Central Avenue and Macs Lane for the ground floor for improved visibility; and
g. a comprehensive stormwater management strategy of the site comprising a brief drainage report with drainage concept plan to address the minor and major storm events and incorporating Rainwater Tank/s and Water Sensitive Urban Design Treatments to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
2. The development and/or use as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
3. The development must be in accordance with the Sustainability Management Plan (SMP) prepared by Eco Results referenced as Report No. 2012-160-SMP revised on 5 October 2012 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
4. Prior to the occupation of any building approved under this permit, written confirmation from the author of the SMP report, approved pursuant to this permit, or similarly qualified person or company, must be submitted to the Responsible Authority. The report must be to the satisfaction of the
74
Responsible Authority and must confirm that all measures specified in the SMP have been implemented in accordance with the approved Plan.
5. Prior to the occupation of the building hereby permitted, all buildings and works and the conditions of this permit must be complied with, unless with the further prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
6. Before the commencement of any buildings and works on the Land, a Construction Management Plan (CMP), to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority and when approved shall thereafter be complied with. The CMP must specify and deal with the parking of vehicles during construction, delivery of materials, containment of waste on site and suppression of dust, business operations on the site during construction.
7. Before the commencement of any buildings and works on the Land, a Waste Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. Three copies of the plan must be submitted. The plan must include but is not limited to:
a) The manner in which waste will be stored and collected including: type, size and number of containers.
b) Spatial provision for on-site storage.
c) Details whether waste collection is to be performed by Council’s services or privately contracted.
d) The size of the collection vehicle and the frequency, time and point of collection.
The waste management plan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The waste management plan must not be modified unless without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
8. The development of the site must be provided with stormwater works which incorporates the use of water sensitive urban design principles to improve stormwater runoff quality and which also retains on site any increase in runoff as a result of the approved development. The system must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Council's Development Engineer can advise on satisfactory options to achieve these desired outcomes which may include the use of an infiltration or bio retention system, rainwater tanks connected for reuse and a detention system. The overall outflow of the site to Council drainage system must be limited to 14 litres per second.
9. Before the development commences, a Stormwater Management Plan showing the stormwater works to the nominated point of discharge must be prepared and submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Stormwater Management Plan must be prepared by a qualified person and show all details of the proposed stormwater works including all existing and proposed features that may have impact (e.g. trees to be retained, crossings, services, fences, abutting buildings, existing boundary surface levels, etc.).
10. Stormwater works must be provided on the site so as to prevent overflows onto adjacent properties.
75
11. Property boundary and footpath levels must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
12. The replacement of all footpaths, including offsets, must be constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
13. All reinstatements and vehicle crossings must be constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
14. No street trees are to be removed or pruned without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
15. A tree protection barrier must be erected/installed around the existing street tree located at the Central Avenue frontage of the subject site, prior to the commencement of any works, to ensure that no physical damage occurs to the tree or the root system of the tree, to prevent the compaction of soil and to prevent the storage of any materials near the street tree trunk to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
16. Prior to the occupation of the buidling hereby permitted, areas set aside for parking vehicles, access lanes and paths as shown on the endorsed plans must be: a. Constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
b. Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans.
c. Surfaced in accordance with the endorsed plans under this permit or in an all weather coloured concrete seal-coat, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
d. Drained and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Parking areas and access lanes must be kept available for these purposes at all times and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
17. The location and details of the sign(s) as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
18. The sign(s) must not be animated and no flashing or intermittent lights may be displayed.
19. The intensity of the light on the sign(s) must be limited so as not to cause glare or distraction to motorists or other persons or loss of amenity in the surrounding area all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
20. Once the erection of the sign(s) has commenced it must be continued and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
21. The sign(s) shown on the endorsed plans must be constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
22. All works on or facing the boundaries of adjoining properties must be finished and surface cleaned to a standard that is well presented to neighbouring properties in a manner to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
23. All piping and ducting above the ground floor storey of the development (other than rainwater guttering and downpipes) must be concealed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
76
24. Once the development has started it must be continued and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
25. In accordance with section 68 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, this permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
• The development and use are not started within two (2) years from the date of permit issue.
• The development is not completed within four (4) years from the date of permit issue.
In accordance with section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the responsible authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires, or within three months afterwards.
Note: Prior to the commencement of the development you are required to obtain the necessary Building Permit.
Note: The applicant/owner must provide a copy of this planning permit to any appointed Building Surveyor. It is the responsibility of the applicant/owner and Building Surveyor to ensure that all building development works approved by any building permit is consistent with the planning permit.
Note: Ramps and steps in doorways facing the footpath are to be at grade with the property boundary and not at the footpath.
OR
In the event Council wishes to oppose the Officer Recommendation to support the application, it can do so on the following grounds:
1. The proposal would detrimentally affect the amenity of the Neighbourhood.
2. The proposal would detract from the visual amenity of the locality and the streetscape.
3. The proposal constitutes an over-development of the site.
4. The proposal would cause traffic congestion to Macs Lane.
5. The proposal is inconsistent and exceeds the maximum height limit of 4 storeys and 14m pursuant to Clause 2 of the Schedule to Design and Development Overlay 19 of the Kingston Planning Scheme.
77
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT
1.0 RELEVANT LAND HISTORY 1.1 Planning Permit KP-411/2012 was issued by Kingston City Council on 24 June 2008
to construct buildings and works (canopy) on the site. 1.2 No other information on file is relevant to the assessment of the planning permit
application. 2.0 SITE PARTICULARS 2.1 The site is generally rectangular in shape with a frontage to Central Avenue of
20.42m, a side depth of 42.67m, resulting in a site area of 871m2. It currently contains a double-storey brown brick commercial building used in the past for both retailing and offices. The existing building fronts to Central Avenue with a car park located to the rear of the subject site with access via Macs Lane, where thirteen (13) car parking spaces are provided.
2.2 Macs Lane runs along the western boundary of the subject site and is 3.05m wide
and currently constructed of concrete. 2.3 The land is generally flat and does not contain any significant vegetation. A street tree
is centrally located in front of the subject site on the Central Avenue footpath. 2.4 The land is encumbered by a 1.83m stormwater and sewerage easement running
along its rear northern property boundary. There appears to be no restrictions listed on the Certificate of Title.
APPLICANT Keen Planning Services Pty Ltd ADDRESS OF LAND 11 Central Avenue, Moorabbin PLAN OF SUBDIVISION REFERENCE
Lot 93 on PS 010705
PROPOSAL Develop the land for the construction of a Mixed Use Development comprising two (2) shops, a food and drink premises, eight (8) offices, thirty (30) dwellings, thirty-eight (38) bicycle parking spaces with reduced car parking and associated signage.
PLANNING OFFICER Jeremy Hopkins REFERENCE NO. KP-443/2012 ZONE Clause 34.01 – Business 1 Zone OVERLAYS Clause 43.02 – Design and Development Overlay –
Schedule 19 (Moorabbin Activity Centre) OBJECTIONS None CONSIDERED PLAN REFERENCES/DATE RECEIVED
Plans prepared by Moull Murray Architects submitted to Council on 11 October 2012
ABORIGINAL CULTURAL HERITAGE SENSITIVTY
No
78
3.0 SURROUNDING ENVIRONS 3.1 The subject site is located within the Moorabbin Central Activity Centre and the
surrounding area generally comprises of commercial and civic developments. This includes low-order retail tenancies; offices; specialist services such as financial facilities; cafes; a Safeway supermarket; and car parks. The predominant scale of the buildings within the vicinity is of one and double-storey; however it is noted that the building located to the east of the subject site is three-storeys in height. Most buildings front directly onto the street.
3.2 Land directly abutting the subject site and opposite is described as follows:
North:
To the north of the subject site at 7-11 Taylor Street is a single-storey commercial building currently occupied by a Bumby’s bakery; a retail outlet; and a newsagent. The building is constructed of brown face brickwork and provides for approximately ten (10) car parking spaces to the rear of the site with access from Macs Lane.
East:
To the east of the subject site at 1 Taylor Street is a large three-storey face brickwork building containing a number of office and retail outlets. This includes an Australia Post; a denture clinic; the City of Kingston Moorabbin Community Centre and other office/retail tenancies. The building encompasses the entire site with no on-site car parking provided.
South:
To the south of the subject site is the intersection of Central Avenue with Tuck Street, which again contains a variety of commercial and retail tenancies in a single-storey face brickwork building form. A pedestrian landscaped area providing paving, a lawned area, and street furniture are notable features opposite the subject site.
West:
To the west of the subject site at 7 Central Avenue is a double-storey early 1960’s style building comprising a number of retail outlets and vacant tenancies. The building encompasses the entire site with no on-site car parking provided.
4.0 PROPOSAL 4.1 The application seeks to develop the land for the construction of a six-storey Mixed
Use Development comprising two (2) shops, a food and drink premises, eight (8) offices and thirty (30) dwellings with reduced car parking, and a waiver of the loading bay requirements. Vehicle access and car parking with the provision of forty (40) spaces in a car stacker system would be provided via Macs Lane with pedestrian access to the shops, offices and dwellings from the Central Avenue frontage. Amenities including a bin enclosure for the dwellings and a bicycle storage facility for up to thirty-eight (38) bicycles are also proposed. Three (3) internally-illuminated
79
signs are proposed being one (1) each for the two (2) shops, and the food and drink premises.
4.2 Basement:
The basement floor will comprise of thirty (30) storages cages with a minimum area of 6m3 for each of the proposed dwellings.
4.3 Ground Floor: The ground floor would comprise of:
Two (2) shops fronting Central Avenue measuring 67m2 and 48m2; A food and drink premise comprising a servery, kitchen and storeroom measuring
78m2; A uni-sex accessible toilet and commercial bin area located to the rear of the
shops and food and drink premise for the exclusive use of the commercial tenancies;
A Lobby with a frontage to Central Avenue measuring 3.313m in width providing access via a lift and stairwell to the first floor offices and the thirty (30) dwellings at levels 2 to 6;
At grade car parking with access from Macs Lane comprising two (2) triple stackers with the provision for a total of forty (40) car parking spaces. The spaces would be allocated with one (1) space each for the dwellings (thirty (30) in total); one (1) space each for the offices (eight (8) in total) and two (2) spaces to be shared for the shops and the food and drink premises; and
Amenities including a bin enclosure for the dwellings and a bicycle storage facility for up to thirty-eight (38) bicycles.
4.4 First Floor: The first floor would comprise of:
Eight (8) offices ranging in size from 57m2 to 116m2. Each office would contain a kitchenette and a toilet; and
A lobby area adjacent to the lift and internal stairwell together with a male and female shower.
4.5 Second Floor: The second floor would comprise of:
A lobby area adjacent to the lift and internal stairwell; Dwelling 1A which would include two (2) bedrooms (master with ensuite),
bathroom with European laundry, open plan living/dining/kitchen area, a balcony measuring 12m2, and a courtyard;
Dwelling 1B which would include two (2) bedrooms, open plan living/dining/kitchen area, bathroom with European laundry, and a balcony measuring 15m2;
Dwelling 1C which would include two (2) bedrooms, open plan living/dining/kitchen area, bathroom, European laundry, and a balcony measuring 12m2;
80
Dwelling 1D which would include one (1) bedroom, a bathroom, a European laundry adjacent to the study nook, a open plan living/dining/kitchen area, and a balcony measuring 11.5m2;
Dwelling 2D which would include one (1) bedroom, a bathroom, a European laundry adjacent to the study nook, a open plan living/dining/kitchen area, and a balcony measuring 11.5m2;
Dwelling 1E which would include two (2) bedrooms, a bathroom, a European Laundry, a open plan living/dining/kitchen area, and a balcony measuring 12m2;
Dwelling 1F which would include two (2) bedrooms, a bathroom, a European laundry, a study nook, a open plan living/dining/kitchen area, and a balcony measuring 18m2; and
Dwelling 1G which would include two (2) bedrooms (master with ensuite), bathroom with European laundry, open plan living/dining/kitchen area, and a balcony measuring 15m2.
4.6 Third Floor: The third floor would comprise of:
A lobby area adjacent to the lift and internal stairwell; Dwelling 2A which would include two (2) bedrooms (master with ensuite),
bathroom with European laundry, open plan living/dining/kitchen area, and a balcony measuring 12m2;
Dwelling 2B which would include two (2) bedrooms, open plan living/dining/kitchen area, bathroom with European laundry, and a balcony measuring 15m2;
Dwelling 2C which would include two (2) bedrooms, open plan living/dining/kitchen area, bathroom, European laundry, and a balcony measuring 12m2;
Dwelling 3D which would include one (1) bedroom, a bathroom, a European laundry adjacent to the study nook, a open plan living/dining/kitchen area, and a balcony measuring 11.5m2;
Dwelling 4D which would include one (1) bedroom, a bathroom, a European laundry adjacent to the study nook, a open plan living/dining/kitchen area, and a balcony measuring 11.5m2;
Dwelling 2E which would include two (2) bedrooms, a bathroom, a European laundry, a open plan living/dining/kitchen area, and a balcony measuring 12m2;
Dwelling 2F which would include two (2) bedrooms, a bathroom, a European laundry, a study nook, a open plan living/dining/kitchen area, and a balcony measuring 18m2; and
Dwelling 2G which would include two (2) bedrooms (master with ensuite), bathroom with European laundry, open plan living/dining/kitchen area, and a balcony measuring 15m2.
4.7 Fourth Floor: The fourth floor would comprise of:
A lobby area adjacent to the lift and internal stairwell; Dwelling 3A which would include two (2) bedrooms (master with ensuite),
bathroom with European laundry, open plan living/dining/kitchen area, and a balcony measuring 12m2;
81
Dwelling 3B which would include two (2) bedrooms, open plan living/dining/kitchen area, bathroom with European laundry, and a balcony measuring 15m2;
Dwelling 3C which would include two (2) bedrooms, open plan living/dining/kitchen area, bathroom, European laundry, and a balcony measuring 9m2;
Dwelling 5D which would include one (1) bedroom, a bathroom, a European laundry adjacent to the study nook, a open plan living/dining/kitchen area, and a balcony measuring 10m2;
Dwelling 6D which would include one (1) bedroom, a bathroom, a European laundry adjacent to the study nook, a open plan living/dining/kitchen area, and a balcony measuring 11.5m2;
Dwelling 4C which would include two (2) bedrooms, a bathroom, a European laundry, a open plan living/dining/kitchen area, and a balcony measuring 11m2;
Dwelling 4B which would include two (2) bedrooms, a bathroom, a European laundry, a study nook, a open plan living/dining/kitchen area, and a balcony measuring 17m2; and
Dwelling 1H which would include two (2) bedrooms (master with ensuite), bathroom with European laundry, open plan living/dining/kitchen area, and a balcony measuring 16m2.
4.8 Fifth Floor: The fifth floor would comprise of:
A lobby area adjacent to the lift and internal stairwell; Dwelling 4A which would include two (2) bedrooms (master with ensuite),
bathroom with European laundry, open plan living/dining/kitchen area, and a balcony measuring 12m2,
Dwelling 5B which would include two (2) bedrooms, open plan living/dining/kitchen area, bathroom with European laundry, and a balcony measuring 15m2;
Dwelling 5C which would include two (2) bedrooms, open plan living/dining/kitchen area, bathroom, European laundry, and a balcony measuring 9m2;
Dwelling 7D which would include one (1) bedroom, a bathroom, a European laundry adjacent to the study nook, a open plan living/dining/kitchen area, and a balcony measuring 11.5m2;
Dwelling 1I which would include two (2) bedrooms (master with ensuite), bathroom with European laundry, open plan living/dining/kitchen area, and a balcony measuring 18m2; and
Dwelling 1J which would include two (2) bedrooms, a bathroom, a European laundry, open plan living/dining/kitchen area, and a balcony measuring 31m2.
4.9 The proposed building would be constructed of concrete tilt-up panels in various
painted finishes; galvanised section slats; glass balustrades; aluminium framed glazing; painted galvanised roller shutter doors; and Colorbond roof cladding.
4.10 The proposal has an overall site coverage of 95.7%; a total building height of 21m;
and would be constructed to the road frontage and east and west side boundaries; and set back 1.83m from the rear northern boundary clear of the sewer and stormwater easement.
82
4.11 The proposal provides for three (3) internally-illuminated tenant below awning signs,
which each have a advertising area of 1600mm x 350mm resulting in a signage area of 1.12m2 (3.36m2 in total for the three (3) signs).
5.0 PLANNING PERMIT PROVISIONS
Zone 5.1 Business 1 Zone: Pursuant to Clause 34.01-4 of the Kingston Planning Scheme, a
planning permit is required to construct a building or construct and carry out works. 5.2 Business 1 Zone: Pursuant to Clause 34.01-1 of the Kingston Planning Scheme, a
planning permit is required to use the land for dwellings where the frontage at ground floor level is greater than 2m.
5.3 Business 1 Zone: Pursuant to Clause 34.01-1 of the Kingston Planning Scheme, a
planning permit is required to use the land for offices where the frontage at ground floor level is greater than 2m and is shared with dwellings.
Overlay
5.4 Design and Development Overlay 19 (Moorabbin Activity Centre): Pursuant to Clause
43.02-2 of the Kingston Planning Scheme, a planning permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works.
5.5 Design and Development Overlay 19 (Moorabbin Activity Centre): Pursuant to Part 2
of Schedule 19 to Clause 43.02-2 of the Kingston Planning Scheme, a planning permit is required to vary the maximum overall building height where it can be demonstrated that the design objectives and design standards can be satisfied.
Particular Provisions
5.6 Advertising Signs: Pursuant to Clause 52.05 of the Kingston Planning Scheme, a
planning permit is required for the internally-illuminated tenant signs which together exceed 1.5m2 in area.
5.7 Car Parking: Pursuant to Clause 52.06 of the Kingston Planning Scheme, a planning
permit is required to reduce the car parking requirements associated with the proposed mixed use development.
5.8 Loading and Unloading of Vehicles: Pursuant to Clause 52.07 of the Kingston
Planning Scheme, a planning permit is required to waive the requirements of the scheme.
5.9 Bicycle Facilities: Pursuant to Clause 52.34 of the Kingston Planning Scheme, in
developments of four or more dwellings 1 bicycle space is required for each 5 dwellings; together with 1 bicycle space for each 300m2 of net floor area of office; 1 space for each 600m2 of net floor area of shop; and 1 space for each 300m2 of net floor area of retail premises (Food and Drink Premises). In this instance a minimum of eleven (11) bicycle spaces will be required. With the development proposing a total of
83
thirty-eight (38) bicycle spaces, the minimum requirements under Clause 52.34 of the Kingston Planning Scheme is well exceeded.
5.10 Urban Context Report and Design Response for Residential Development for Four or
More Storeys: Pursuant to Clause 52.35-01 of the Kingston Planning Scheme, a planning permit application for a development of four or more storeys must be accompanied with a urban context report and a design response, which has been submitted with this planning permit application for the proposed mixed use development.
General Provisions
5.11 The Decision Guidelines of Clause 65 of the Kingston Planning Scheme are relevant
to this application and require consideration to be given to a variety of matters including planning scheme policies, the purpose of the zone, orderly planning and the impact on amenity.
6.0 RELEVANT POLICIES 6.1 State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF)
Clause 11 Settlement Clause 15 Built Environment and Heritage Clause 16 Housing Clause 17 Economic Development
6.2 Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) Clause 21.05 Residential Land Use Clause 21.06 Retail and Commercial Land Use
6.3 Other 6.4 Neighbourhood Character Area Guidelines (Incorporated Document under Clause
21.05 – Residential Land Use of the LPPF). The land is located within Area 1 of the Neighbourhood Character Guidelines.
6.5 Design Contextual Housing Guidelines (April 2003 – reference document within
Clause 22.11 – Residential Development Policy). The Design Contextual Housing Guidelines offer a range of design techniques and suggestions to assist with residential design, which is responsive to local character.
7.0 ADVERTISING 7.1 The proposal was advertised by sending notices to adjoining and opposite property
owners and occupiers and by maintaining a notice on site for fourteen (14) days. No representations for or against this application have been received.
84
8.0 PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE 8.1 As no representations for or against the application were made during the public
notification period, no preliminary conference meeting was required. 9.0 SECTION 50 / 50A / 57A – AMENDMENT TO PLANS 9.1 It is these plans that form the basis of this recommendation and are described at
section 4 of this report. 10.0 REFERRALS 10.1 The application was referred to the following internal departments:
• Council’s Development Engineer – raised no objection to the application, subject to conditions included on any permit issued relating to stormwater management and the provision of a splay with a minimum dimension of 2m x 2m at the corner of Central Avenue and Macs Lane for improved visibility.
• Council’s Place Manager - Activity Centres - raised no objection to the application,
and provided the following comprehensive comments, specifically in relation to the height, scale and urban form of the proposed building:
The following comments are made with respect to the plans date 9th October 2012 and the associated Urban Design Report. These comments assess the proposals with the Adopted Moorabbin Structure Plan objectives as well as the DDO19 Moorabbin Activity Centre.
A pre-application meeting was held on 22 February 2012, where the Structure Plan objectives for the site were outlined and the applicant was encouraged to explore a well-designed contemporary and environmentally friendly building. Following this, an internal referral meeting was held where, along with detailed comments, the following four major points were raised and outlined to the applicant: 1. Vehicular Access 2. Parking 3. Height 4. ESD & Architectural Excellence
After lodgment, preliminary Urban Design comments were provided on the 10th August 2012, where the following main comments were raised: • The applicant was again encouraged to provide an Urban Design Report, in
particular justifying the 6th storey and explaining the extent of the visual and solar impacts to the surrounding centre,
• It was highly recommended that one of the ground floor tenancies is designed to accommodate a ‘food catering’ use
• It was also recommended that that the applicant seek to improve the footpath and laneway public realm in conjunction with the construction.
It is considered that the applicant has sufficiently responded to most of the concerns raised above to enable a well informed assessment of the application.
85
The below urban design assessment reviews the application against the relevant objectives from the Adopted Moorabbin Structure Plan.
Moorabbin Structure Plan (adopted) - Precinct A – Retail Core
• Maximum 4 storeys beyond a robust 2 storey commercial edge setback a
minimum of 5 metres from Station Street (east side), Central Avenue (north side) and Taylor Street (west side). Ensure appropriate setbacks from laneways to enable clear sightlines;
An Urban Design report was requested to outline and justify the proposal of a 6 storey building, noting that the Structure Plan outlines a 4 storey height limit in this area. Of particular concern was shadowing onto Central Avenue, visual impact within the centre and lastly, how the building reads from Central Avenue.
The proposal has a strong 2 storey commercial edge which is framed by a contemporary in-design canopy which morphs into a well considered entrance element. The 3rd and 4th storeys are set back with built out balconies, so the building reads as 4 storeys from the street, which appropriate detailing to allow the 3rd and 4th storeys to receed. The 5th and 6th storeys are set back appropriately to have limited presence when viewed from Central Avenue, as well as limited additional shadowing onto the street as shown in the Urban Design Report.
The perspective images of the proposal from the surrounding locations within the centre show that the 5th and 6th storey are visible from these locations, where a 4th storey building would not read as strongly. However, it should also be noted that this proposal is the first within the centre and as such will not be as visible once the surrounding properties are developed as outline din the Structure Plan. As this proposal is the first within the centre, it is important that it demonstrates the future desired character and it is considered that it is an important catalyst development. As such the proposed building form and massing is supported.
The building at ground floor is ‘splayed’ at the corner of the laneway in order to provide safe sightlines to vehicles and passing pedestrians.
• Development must provide for a suitable transition to the Increased Residential
Precinct where a lower scale of change is envisaged; This property is not located adjacent to the Increased Residential Precinct.
• Development must provide clear address and activation to the enhanced
Central Avenue Plaza;
The contemporary design approach to the building canopy provides a strong sense of address from the building. The canopy then wraps to form a clever and highly visible building entry for the office and residential units above.
Importantly for Moorabbin, the ground floor plans show a food and drink premise with associated infrastructure. The Economic Report the informed the Structure Plan states - ‘the future expansions in retail floorspace will be in specialty retailing and food catering to meet the needs of populations and growing worker
86
catchments. This could be provided with the redevelopment of the centre and Central Avenue.’ Given the above, and the key location of the site on Central Avenue, it is strongly supported that the ground floor tenancy has been designed to accommodate a ‘food catering’ use. The provision for 2 other shop tenancies is also supported to provide an appropriate mix. Given, the importance of frontage onto Central Avenue, it is recommended that the property ownership and internal walls to the tenancies are designed so that the space is flexible to accommodate the appropriate use now and in the future.
• Encourage land consolidation opportunities as a means of achieving higher
built form and improved design outcomes;
This was encouraged early in discussions with the land owner however this was proved not achievable. Given this, it is considered that an appropriate and well designed outcome has been achieved on the site.
• Utilise lightweight materials, articulation and detailing to maintain the traditional
shopfront appearance and create reduced building bulk to upper levels;
The contemporary design of the 2 storey podium, with the strong canopy feature, draws the eye to the shops and offices and is an important element in helping to reduce the visual impact of the upper levels. Simple materials and articulation on the upper levels help these floors to recede.
• Encourage active ground floor retail/service uses and ensure upper level
residential and commercial uses provide for balcony space to add surveillance to the street;
The mix of uses within this building is strongly supported. The 3 tenancies at ground floor including 2 shops and a café is responding to the retail needs of Moorabbin and helping to form Central Avenue as the main retail strip within the centre. It will be important to seek suitable tenants which address the clear needs of Moorabbin. The 8 offices on the first floor help build on the existing business community within Moorabbin. The 30 apartments are strongly supported in this location.
This is considered a good example of mixed use development and helps address the objectives as outlined in the Structure Plan including: • To create a significant accommodation role within and on the edge of
Moorabbin Activity Centre; • To build upon the existing employment opportunities in Moorabbin; • To consolidate retailing into clear precincts within the centre.
As outlined above, it is noted that the building proposal is higher than the maximum height outlined in the Structure Plan, however it is considered that the building is well designed for its site and wider context, achieves many of the important objectives for Moorabbin and it is also considered that as this building proposal is the first within the centre, it will act as a catalyst and example of good design for future developments.
87
• Council’s Roads & Drains Officer - raised no objection to the application, subject to conditions included on any permit issued relating to the protection of Council assets.
• Council’s Street Trees Officer - raised no objection to the application, subject to
conditions included on any permit issued relating to the protection of the existing street tree located at the Central Avenue frontage of the subject site.
• Council’s Traffic Engineer – provided pre-application advice objecting to the
proposed development on the basis that the existing 3.05m width of Macs Lane is too narrow to accommodate the proposed additional residential and commercial traffic generated by the proposed development. Council’s Traffic Engineer recommended that the development should be set back 3m from the western side boundary adjoining Macs Lane to facilitate an increase in width of the laneway to a minimum of 6m.
In response to the above concerns, the applicant provided a Traffic Report prepared by Cardno Victoria Pty Ltd dated 9 October 2012 (ref: CG120144) which included a traffic count undertaken at the southern end of Macs Lane adjacent to Central Avenue for the week of 15-21 March 2012. The Traffic Report found that during the commuter peaks (8-9am and 5-6pm) the maximum volumes were 12 vehicles per hour and 14 vehicles per hour respectively. No more than one heavy vehicle was recorded using Macs Lane on any day, with the exception of Wednesday (4 heavy vehicles) and Friday (2 heavy vehicles). Part 6.2 of the Traffic Report finds that by adding the expected increase in traffic movements with the existing movements along Macs Lane, it is expected that post development, up to 24 vehicle movements per hour could be expected along Macs Lane. The Traffic Report concludes that:
Considering the length of this section of the lane and the limited number of vehicle movements expected during peak hours, the chance of two vehicles meeting in this section of the lane at peak times is 0.25%, or 1 in 500 vehicle movements. It is noted that Clause 3.2.2 of the Australian Standard for Off Street Parking (AS2890. 1:2004) states that: “subject to consideration of traffic volumes on a case-by-case basis, lesser widths down to a minimum of 3.0m at a domestic property, may be provided. As a guide 30 or more movements in a peak hour (in and out combined) would usually require provision for two vehicles to pass on the driveway, .i.e. a minimum width of 5.5m. On long driveways, passing opportunities should be provided at least every 30m.” Given that the location of the car park access is less than 30m from the property boundary, and that the volumes post-development are less than what warrants for the provision of two vehicles to pass on the driveway (Macs Lane), it is considered that the existing Macs Lane will continue to be appropriate for two-way traffic.
At the time of writing this Report, Council’s Traffic Department has not provided any additional comments to that provided at pre-application stage nor any commentary in relation to the analysis and conclusions discussed above in the Traffic Report prepared by Cardno Victoria Pty Ltd. It is important to note that the adopted Moorabbin Structure Plan dated May 2011 requires all vehicular access to the subject site from Macs Lane and does not contemplate an increase in the
88
width of the laneway to accommodate increased usage. Alternatively, whilst the draft Activity Centre Zone – Moorabbin Activity Centre (currently on exhibition) specifies an increase in the width of the laneway to 6m through a 3m setback for all new development on the western (opposite) side of Macs Lane to that of the subject site, it is considered that any condition of approval to require the development to provide a setback of 3m resulting in a 6m setback to Macs Lane would be inconsistent with the Moorabbin Structure Plan dated May 2011 and the draft Activity Centre Zone – Moorabbin Activity Centre and the analysis and conclusions in the Traffic Report prepared by Cardno Victoria Pty Ltd.
• Council’s Urban and Sustainable Design Officer - raised no objection to the
application, and noted that the amended Sustainable Management Plan (SMP) prepared by Eco Results satisfied all environmental design criteria. A condition is recommended on any permit issued that the development must be in accordance with the Sustainable Management Plan (SMP) prepared by Eco Results revised on 5 October 2012.
• Council’s Waste Management Officer - raised no objection to the application. The
planning permit application indicates that garbage collections and loading will occur via Central Avenue to the immediate south of the subject site. A maintenance contractor will be employed on site to take care of waste collection, with the bin store located adjacent to the car park off the laneway. A condition is recommended on any permit issued requiring the submission of a Waste Management Plan to be submitted to the Responsible Authority for assessment and endorsement.
10.2 The application was not required to be referred to any external departments. 11.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
State Planning Policy Framework 11.1 The State Planning Policy Framework sets out the relevant state-wide policies for
residential development at Clause 11 (Settlement), Clause 15 (Built Environment and Heritage) and Clause 16 (Housing). Essentially, the provisions within these clauses seek to achieve the fundamental objectives and policy outcomes sought by the Metropolitan Strategy – ‘Melbourne 2030’ and its recent update ‘Melbourne @ 5 Million’, which have been removed from an individual clause and integrated throughout the State Planning Policy Framework.
11.2 The settlement policies at Clause 11 seek to ensure a sufficient supply of land is
available for all forms of land use in Victoria. Of particular relevance to housing, Clause 11 promotes housing diversity and urban consolidation objectives in the established urban realm. Clause 11.02-1 states that Planning Authorities should plan to accommodate projected population growth over at least a 15 year period, taking account of opportunities for redevelopment and intensification of existing urban areas as well consideration being had for environmental aspects, sustainable development and the costs associated with providing infrastructure. This clause states:
Planning for urban growth, should consider:
89
o Opportunities for the consolidation, redevelopment and intensification of existing urban areas;
o Neighbourhood character and landscape considerations; o The limits of land capability and natural hazards and environmental
quality; o Service limitations and the costs of providing infrastructure.
11.3 Clause 11.01-2 places particular emphasis on providing increased densities of
housing in and around activity centres or sites that have good access to a range of services, facilities and transport options.
11.4 Clause 15 (Built Environment and Heritage) aims to ensure all new land use and
development appropriately responds to its landscape, valued built form and cultural context, and protect places and sites with significant heritage, architectural, aesthetic, scientific and cultural value.
The proposed development is considered to accord with the objectives of Clause 15.01 by responding positively to its context in terms of urban character; would not adversely impact on the significance of nearby heritage places; or block any views and vistas to nearby landmarks. The proposed development is considered to provide good natural surveillance, thereby contributing towards enhanced personal safety and property security to urban environments; with the ground and first floor benefiting from expansive windows together with the architectural detailing from the strong horizontal planes enhancing the visual and social experience for the user.
11.5 Clause 15.03-2 (Aboriginal Cultural Heritage) seeks to ensure the protection and
conservation of places of Aboriginal cultural heritage significance. The Subject Land is not identified in an area of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Sensitivity.
11.6 Housing objectives are further advanced at Clause 16. This Clause aims to
encourage increased diversity in housing to meet the needs of the community through different life stages and respond to market demand for housing. In much the same vein as Clause 11, this Clause advances notions of consolidation of existing urban areas, particularly in and around activity centres and employment corridors that are well served by all infrastructure and services.
11.7 The policies contained within Clause 16.01-4 encourage the provision of a range of
housing types to meet the increasingly diverse needs of the community. Emphasis is placed on development of well-designed medium density housing with respect to neighbourhood character. Further, this Clause aims to make better use of the existing infrastructure and provide more energy efficient housing.
11.8 Policies pertaining to urban design, built form and heritage outcomes are found at
Clause 15 of the State Planning Policy Framework. Of particular significance, Clause 15.01 encourages development to achieve high quality architectural and urban design outcomes that contribute positively to neighbourhood character, minimises detrimental amenity impacts and achieves safety for future residents, and the community, through good design. The provisions of Clause 15.02 promote energy and resource efficiency through improved building design, urban consolidation and promotion of sustainable transport.
90
11.9 Policies which aim to foster economic development and growth can be found at Clause 17 of the State Planning Policy Framework. Of particular relevance to the subject application, Clause 17.01-1 aims to encourage development which meet the communities’ needs for retail, entertainment, office and other commercial services and provides net community benefit in relation to accessibility, efficient infrastructure use and the aggregation and sustainability of commercial facilities.
11.10 It is submitted that the proposed mixed use development satisfies the aforementioned
State strategies and policy direction. Specifically, the subject site is located within an activity centre where increased housing densities are encouraged. The provision of three (3) commercial premises at ground level and eight (8) offices at first floor level will ensure that a continuous retail strip is retained and enhanced. The development itself is consistent with the provisions contained within Clause 15 pertaining to urban design. It should be noted that Council’s Urban Design Officer is also generally supportive of the proposal.
Local Planning Policy Framework
11.11 The City of Kingston’s MSS at Clause 21.05 (Residential Land Use) of the Kingston
Planning Scheme, seeks to provide guidance to development in residential zoned land, mixed use zoned lands and land within activity centres. The Residential Land Use Framework Plan illustrates the range of housing outcomes sought across the City of Kingston.
11.12 Relevant objectives and strategies in Clause 21.05-3: Residential Land Use
include: To provide a range of housing types across the municipality to increase housing
diversity and cater for the changing housing needs of current and future populations, taking account of the capacity of local areas in Kingston to accommodate different types and rates of housing change. This is to be achieved through encouraging residential development within activity centres via mixed-use development, and on transitional sites at the periphery of activity centres.
To ensure new residential development respects neighbourhood character and is site responsive, and that medium density dwellings are of the highest design quality. This is to be achieved through promoting new residential development, which is of a high standard, responds to the local context and positively contributes to the character and identity of the local neighbourhood.
To promote more environmentally sustainable forms of residential development. To be achieved through promoting medium density housing development in close proximity to public transport facilities, particularly train stations.
To manage the interface between residential development and adjoining or nearby sensitive/strategic land uses.
To ensure residential development does not exceed known physical infrastructure capacities.
11.13 Council’s Local Planning Policy at Clause 21.05 essentially reinforces State Planning
Policy relevant to housing, stressing the need to encourage urban consolidation in appropriate locations and to accommodate projected population increases.
91
11.14 Clause 21.06 Retail and Commercial Land Use states that a key challenge is in ensuring the ongoing sustainability of Kingston’s activity centres. It also notes the importance of strip shopping centres in contributing to the city’s retail scene, and states the need for new retail proposals to underpin and not undermine these centres.
11.15 It is considered that the proposed development satisfies the State and Local Planning
Policy Framework guidelines which aim to encourage well-designed medium density shop-top housing, and enhance and refurbish existing commercial premises within activity centres.
Zone Provisions
11.16 The subject site is located within the Business 1 Zone. Pursuant to Clause 34.01-1 of
the Kingston Planning Scheme, a planning permit is required to construct or carry out buildings and works, use the land for dwellings where the frontage at ground floor level is greater than 2m; and to use the land for offices where the frontage at ground floor level is greater than 2m and is shared with dwellings.
The development proposes a ground floor lobby measuring 3.313m in width with shared access for the offices located on the first floor with the thirty (30) residential buildings above. In this instance it is not considered that the width of the Lobby being greater than 2m to the street frontage together with the shared arrangement for the offices and dwellings would result in any land use conflict or be contrary to the purpose of the zone to encourage the intensive development of business centres for retailing and other commercial, entertainment and community uses. Excluding the 3.313m width of the Lobby to Central Avenue, the remaining 16.9m frontage to Central Avenue would be provided for the two (2) shops and the food and drink premises facilitating the intensive use of retail and complementary entertainment pursuits at ground floor level in accordance with the purpose of the zone.
The proposed development is considered to accord with the decision guidelines of Clause 34.01-4 of the Kingston Planning Scheme. The proposed development has been designed with an appropriate provision of car parking; provides for an efficient and safe movement of pedestrians, cyclist and vehicles; and has been designed to maximise solar access. A waste management plan is recommended as a condition on any permit issued, and there is the availability of and connection to services within the vicinity of the subject site.
Overlay Provisions
11.17 The subject site is located within a Design and Development Overlay (DDO19 –
Moorabbin Activity Centre). 11.18 The design objectives - General of this Overlay is:
To reinforce the urban form, character, streetscape of the Moorabbin Activity Centre.
To achieve responsive and sensitively designed development that is of a high quality architectural and urban design standard.
To achieve appropriately designed development that is consistent with the built form outcomes and heights envisaged by this Overlay.
92
To ensure development has proper regard for the established, streetscape and development pattern in terms of building design, height, scale and siting.
To preserve solar access to adjoining residential zones, dwellings, public and private open space and pedestrian paths.
To protect and enhance key views, vistas and landmarks.
The design objectives – Building form of this Overlay is to: Maintain upper level setbacks above street wall. Variations where permissible to
street frontage setbacks for upper storeys may be possible when a significant urban design outcome is achieved which adds vitality, interest and improves public safety of the public spaces below.
Ensure developments deliver an improved architectural quality for the centre. Innovative building forms and material detailing is encouraged to deliver a renewed built outcome.
Encourage generous balcony space for sites with a northerly aspect. Respect residential interfaces to ensure sunlight is maintained and
overshadowing of private open space is minimised. Ensure new development contributes to consistent 2 storey street facing facades
where applicable. Encourage the addition of urban, public open spaces which address the street. Encourage site consolidation to avoid underdevelopment of land in precincts
where higher built form outcomes are envisaged in accordance with the table to this Schedule.
11.19 The subject site is located within Precinct G as identified on the plan attached to the
Clause. Within Precinct G, development should not exceed a maximum of 4 storeys and 14m in height. Pursuant to Clause 2 of the Schedule to Overlay DDO19, a planning permit may be granted to vary the maximum overall building height in circumstances where it can be demonstrated that the Design objectives can be satisfied. The proposal is 6 storeys with a maximum height of 21m, therefore the application seeks a variation under Clause 2 of the Schedule to Overlay DDO19.
11.20 The Design standard within Precinct G is:
Building edges abutting laneways shall integrate adequate measures to enable clear sight lines for vehicles and pedestrians using the laneway.
Maintain fine grain building pattern and detailing along commercial street edges at all levels.
Developments shall contain a level of façade articulation and material detailing that distinguishes the lower floors from the upper floors to maintain a robust and traditional 2 storey street wall façade.
11.21 The proposed mixed use development is considered to comply with the Overlay’s
relevant Decision Guidelines and is deemed appropriate. As comprehensively discussed by Council’s Place Manager – Activity Centres, the proposed design of the building would reinforce the urban form, character, and streetscape of the Moorabbin Activity Centre; has proper regard for the established, streetscape and development pattern in terms of building design, height, scale and siting; and maintains upper level setbacks above street walls, therefore in spirit with the Design Objectives and Design Guidelines.
93
Particular Provisions 11.22 Clause 52.05 – Advertising Signs
The proposed three (3) internally-illuminated signs are considered to accord with the decision guidelines of Clause 52.05-3 of the Kingston Planning Scheme. The proposed signage would not impact on views and vistas; is consistent with existing commercial signage within the streetscape; and would not adversely impact on the architectural integrity of the proposed building on site. Notwithstanding the above, conditions are recommended on any permit issued to ensure the proposed signage does not adversely impact on the amenity of the area.
11.23 Clause 52.06 – Car Parking
The proposed mixed use development makes provision for forty (40) on site car parking spaces, whereas the Table 1 – Car Parking Requirement pursuant to Clause 52.06-5 of the Kingston Planning Scheme requires the provision for sixty-six (66) car parking spaces; resulting in a variation of twenty-six (26) spaces.
Clause 52.06-6 of the Kingston Planning Scheme requires that before a requirement for car parking is reduced (including reduced to zero), or car parking is permitted to be applied on another site, the applicant must satisfy the responsible authority that the provision of car parking is justified having regard to an assessment of the following: • The car parking demand likely to be generated by the use. • Whether it is appropriate to allow fewer spaces to be provided than the number
likely to be generated by the use. An assessment of the car parking demand likely to be generated by the use must have regard to the following factors, as appropriate: • Mult-purpose trips within the area. • The variation of car parking demand over time. • The short-stay and long-stay car parking demand. • The availability of public transport in the locality. • The convenience of pedestrian and cyclist access to the site. • The provision of bicycle parking and end of trip facilities for cyclists. • The anticipated car ownership rates of likely or proposed occupants (residents or
employees). An assessment of the appropriateness of allowing fewer spaces to be provided than the number likely to be generated by the use must have regard to the following, as appropriate: • Any relevant local planning policy or incorporated plan. • The availability of car parking including:
o Efficiencies gained from the consolidation of shared car parking spaces. o Public car parks intended to serve the land. o On street parking in non residential zones and streets in residential zones
specifically managed for non-residential parking. o On street parking in residential zones for residential uses.
• Any adverse economic impact a shortfall of parking may have on the economic viability of an activity centre.
• The future growth and development of an activity centre. • Any car parking deficiency associated with the existing use of the land. • Any credit that should be allowed for car parking spaces provided on common
land or by a Special Charge scheme or cash-in-lieu payment. • Local traffic management.
94
• The impact of fewer car parking spaces on local amenity including pedestrian amenity and the amenity of nearby residential areas.
• The need to create safe, functional and attractive parking areas. • Access to or provision of alternative transport modes. • The equity of reducing the car parking requirement having regard to any historic
contributions by existing businesses. • The character of the surrounding area and whether reducing the car parking
provision would result in a quality/positive urban design outcome. • Any other relevant consideration.
It is considered that the reduction in the car parking requirement to provide for the provision of forty (40) car parking spaces rather than the required sixty-six (66) spaces is reasonable and accords with the decision guidelines spelt out above. Part 5.8 of the Traffic Report submitted with the planning permit application prepared by Cardno Victoria Pty Ltd dated 9 October 2012 (ref: CG120144) finds that:
The new development proposes to reduce the total office and retail floor areas from the existing site (by approximately 50%) and reduce the number of car parking spaces currently available on-site to these uses (30%), which will provide for a net reduction in the demand for on street car spaces in the Activity Centre area by staff and visitors. The anticipated car parking demand for residents is expected to be accommodated by the off-street supply and is considered appropriate. It is considered that the location of the car park (and the use of the stacker spaces) is not conductive to visitor parking and that the small number of short term spaces will be available within the Activity Centre.
The Traffic Report concludes that:
The proposed parking provision of 40 spaces is expected to adequately cater for the expected peak parking demand generated by the proposed development. The proposed development is expected to generate up to 10 additional vehicle trips during the AM and PM peak periods, and that the traffic generated by the proposed development will have negligible impact on the operation of Central Avenue and the surrounding road network.
For the reasons set out above it is considered reasonable to waive the car parking requirements.
The forty (40) car parking spaces will be provided in a mechanical triple stacker system. The proposed mechanical system is considered to accord with Design Standard 4 of Clause 52.06-8 of the Kingston Planning Scheme, with the spaces not being allocated for visitors and only for the residents and tenants of the proposed development and at least 25 percent of the mechanical car parking spaces able to accommodate a vehicle clearance height of at least 1.8m.
The proposed car parking arrangement would have an internal radius of at least 4m with swept paths provided with the planning permit application demonstrating that vehicle parking, access, egress and manoeuvring would be safe for users and enable easy and efficient use and would generally accord with the decision guidelines of Clause 52.06-9 of the Kingston Planning Scheme.
95
Please refer to Part 10.1 of this Report in relation to the discussion regarding the current width of Macs Lane.
11.24 Clause 52.07 – Loading and Unloading of Vehicles
The purpose of Clause 52.07 is to set aside land for loading and unloading of commercial vehicles to prevent loss of amenity and adverse effect on traffic flow and road safety. In accordance with this Clause, no building or works may be constructed for the manufacture, servicing, storage or sale of goods or materials without land being set aside for the loading and unloading of vehicles.
A permit may be granted to reduce or waive these requirements if either: • The land area is insufficient; and • Adequate provision is made for loading and unloading vehicles to the satisfaction
of the responsible authority.
There is limited opportunity to provide a dedicated loading facility on the site to service the proposed two (2) shops, eight (8) offices and the Food and Drink Premise as a significant portion of the ground floor (other than the lobby and the three (3) commercial premises) is utilised for bicycle and car parking. Any requirement for the provision of a dedicated loading and unloading facility would take up a significant portion of the remaining ground floor area to accommodate turning and manoeuvring. Given the nature and modest floor area of the proposed commercial premises, it is considered likely that deliveries would occur via vans and small trucks, with delivery vehicles parking in the on-street parking spaces located at the street frontage.
It should be noted that many other businesses located in this section of Central Avenue do not have dedicated loading facilities and also rely on deliveries being made using existing on-street parking spaces. The proposed lack of provision of a dedicated loading bay facility is therefore considered acceptable in this instance.
11.25 Clause 52.34 – Bicycle Facilities:
Pursuant to Clause 52.34 of the Kingston Planning Scheme, in developments of four or more dwellings 1 bicycle space is required for each 5 dwellings; together with 1 bicycle space for each 300m2 of net floor area of office; 1 space for each 600m2 of net floor area of shop; and 1 space for each 300m2 of net floor area of retail premises (Food and Drink Premises). In this instance a minimum of eleven (11) bicycle spaces will be required. With the development proposing a total of thirty-eight (38) bicycle spaces, the minimum requirements under Clause 52.34 of the Kingston Planning Scheme is well exceeded.
11.26 Urban Context Report and Design Response for Residential Development for Four or
More Storeys:
Pursuant to Clause 52.35 of the Kingston Planning Scheme, a urban context report and design response was provided with the planning permit application to the satisfaction of Council. The report was thoroughly assessed by Council officers to ensure that the design of the development responded to the existing urban context and preferred future development of the area.
96
Draft Moorabbin Activity Centre Zone 11.27 Whilst not a statutory document at this stage, consideration is given to the draft
Moorabbin Activity Centre Zone, which is currently being exhibited. The land use development objectives of the draft schedule to the Activity Centre Zone are: To create a centre which acts as a gateway into the City of Kingston that provides
a vibrant focus for the surrounding community in terms of housing, employment, recreation, social gathering, and arts and cultural services.
To develop the centre as a safe, pedestrian focussed centre, which balances the access needs of public transport users, cyclists and those using private vehicles.
The subject site is located within Precinct 2B of the Plan as identified on the plan
attached to the draft zone. Within Precinct 2B building height should not exceed a maximum of 4 storeys and 14m in height. Pursuant to Clause 4.4 of the Schedule to draft zone, a planning permit may be granted to vary the maximum overall building height in circumstances where it can be demonstrated that the precinct objectives and guidelines are met. The proposal is 6 storeys with a maximum height of 21m, therefore the application seeks a variation under Clause 4.4 of the Schedule to the draft zone.
The Precinct Objectives are: To provide for a mix of uses within the precinct with street level retail activity and
commercial and residential uses located within the upper floors of development. To undertake significant changes to the manner in which the road network
operates to provide for better transport connectivity and improved centre amenity for pedestrians and cyclists.
To provide for significant redevelopment opportunities in the key development areas.
To expand the retailing role of the precinct to create a vibrant precinct. To ensure development fronting Central Avenue provides a clear sense of
address and active street frontage to reinforce the role of this key east-west linkage.
To strengthen the role Central Avenue plays as a key spine in the centre connecting the Cultural and Transit Precinct and the Moorabbin Reserve.
The Precinct guidelines are: Building form should achieve a stepping back of the building from the Tuck Street
significant tree to maximise views of the tree as a visual focal point. Develop a robust frontage along Nepean Highway to reinforce the gateway along
Nepean Highway into the Activity Centre. Development should address laneways providing alternate access and frontages
to activate pedestrian scales thoroughfares. Building edges abutting laneways should integrate adequate measures to enable
clear sight lines for vehicles and pedestrians using the laneway. Establish vehicular links within Precinct 2C from South Road and between
Redholme Street and Taylor Street. Developments should contain a level of façade articulation and material detailing
that distinguishes the lower floors from upper floors to maintain a robust and traditional 2-3 storey street edge.
Future building form adjacent to Redholme Street should be sympathetic to the scale of the existing residential neighbourhood by stepping back upper storeys,
97
and minimising building bulk through materials and colours that appear lightweight and to read differently to the street wall façade.
Any new development should provide a suitable transition in height to surrounding residential areas.
The proposed mixed use development is considered to generally accord with the precinct objectives and precinct guidelines of the draft Schedule to the Moorabbin Activity Centre Zone. The proposed development would provide a mix of uses with street level retail activity and commercial and residential uses located within the upper floors; would support the objective of expanding the retailing role of the precinct; ensures that development fronting Central Avenue provides a clear sense of address and active street frontage; provides for building edges abutting Macs Lane to enable clear sight lines for vehicles and pedestrians using the laneway; provides façade articulation and material detailing that distinguishes the lower floors from the upper floors to maintain a robust and traditional 2 – 3 storey street edge; and provides for a suitable transition in height to surrounding residential areas.
As discussed previously within the body of this Report and specifically under Part 10.1, Council’s Place Manager Activity Centres does not object to the height variation to allow for the building to be constructed to 6 storeys with a maximum height of 21m.
12.0 INTERNAL AMENITY IMPACTS 12.1 The internal configuration of the residential dwellings is considered to provide an
acceptable standard of amenity for future residents. Whilst not directly applicable in a Business 1 Zone, the thirty (30) dwellings each exceed the minimum requirements of 8m2 of private open space in Clause 55 (ResCode) of the Kingston Planning Scheme and provides a dedicated 6m3 storage facility for each dwelling. Furthermore, access to natural light has been achieved through the orientation of habitable room windows and balcony areas where possible to the north and west, with no bedrooms and living rooms relying on borrowed light.
12.2 Each of the eight (8) offices located on the first floor would receive adequate access
to natural daylight through the large glass windows. It is also noted that Offices 1-3 would enjoy direct accessible access to north orientated balconies measuring between 9m2 to 12m2.
12.3 As discussed previously within the body of this report, Council’s Urban and
Sustainable Design Officer is supportive of the proposed environmental design of the building.
13.0 EXTERNAL AMENITY IMPACTS 13.1 It is considered that the proposed development adequately responds to the
neighbourhood character of the Moorabbin Activity Centre, whilst providing a more contemporary response in line with the Schedule 19 of the Design and Development Overlay as previously discussed within the body of this report. The building presents appropriately to adjoining properties having regard to their context, with a sufficient level of façade articulation and detailing provided to the front, side and rear elevations of the proposed building.
98
13.2 Shadow diagrams submitted with the planning permit application suggests that the six-storey building would not result in any unreasonable overshadowing, with much of the shadow being cast onto the rooftops of existing buildings, Macs Lane, or directly onto Central Avenue. The proposed building would be built to simultaneously constructed boundary walls on the east boundary, whilst the west boundary adjoins Macs Lane and will therefore not adversely impact on existing windows of adjoining properties.
13.3 No residential habitable room windows and private open space is located within the
vicinity of the proposed habitable room windows and balconies, therefore screening devices are not required. Additionally, each balcony would be screened to prevent any opportunity for direct views into the balconies and habitable room windows of the dwellings within the development.
14.0 CONCLUSION: 14.1 The proposed development is considered appropriate for the Site, subject to
conditions, as evidenced by:
• The design and siting of the proposed development is compatible with the surrounding area and in accordance with the strategic vision for the Moorabbin Activity Centre;
• Suitability of the site for a six (6) storey commercial/residential development having regard to the policy context; the draft Moorabbin Activity Centre Zone; and the applicable planning provisions;
• Consideration of any external amenity impacts; • Adequacy of internal amenity for the proposed dwellings; • Adequacy of car parking and traffic related matters; and • The proposal generally satisfies the requirements of the Kingston Planning
Scheme, including the State and Local Planning Policy Framework, Business 1 Zone, the relevant Particular Provisions including Clause 52.06 and Clause 65 – Decision Guidelines (subject to appropriate conditions).
99
31-33 Garfield Street Cheltenham (Lot 16 & 17 on PS007711) – Planning Permit Application No. KP-324/2012
Executive Summary for Ordinary Council Meeting APPLICATION No: KP-324/2012 LAND: 31-33 Garfield Street Cheltenham PLANNING OFFICER: Tanya Sokolowski PROPOSAL: Develop the land for the construction of a three (3)
storey apartment building containing twenty two (22) apartments with basement car parking
PERMIT TRIGGER: Construct two or more dwellings on a lot EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS: Two (2) single storey dwellings APPLICANT: AR Project Consultants Pty Ltd ZONE / OVERLAYS: Residential 1 Zone RESIDENTIAL POLICY AREA Increased Housing Diversity OBJECTIONS Thirteen (13)
1.0 RELEVANT HISTORY 1.1 A previous application for this site (KP516/10) was refused by Council on 2 May 2011,
with this decision upheld by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) on 24 January 2012. The application proposed twenty-five (25) dwellings within a three storey apartment style building with basement car parking.
1.2 Council’s grounds of refusal related to off-site amenity impacts, overdevelopment of
the site, visual bulk and non-compliance with ResCode requirements relating to: Neighbourhood Character; Street Setback; Building Height; Site Coverage; Private Open Space; Solar Access to Private Open Space; Design Detail and Front Fencing.
1.3 The Tribunal found that a three storey apartment building was acceptable in this
location, but did not provide a recessed upper floor to fit within the streetscape. The Tribunal agreed with Council that the proposal did not satisfy planning objectives regarding Street Setback, Solar Access to Private Open Space and Design Detail.
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL 2.1 It is proposed to demolish the existing dwellings and outbuildings on the land and
construct twenty-two (22) apartments within a three storey building, with basement car parking. It is proposed to provide a mix of dwellings with one, two and three bedroom compositions. Twenty-six (26) car parking spaces are provided for residents and an additional four (4) parking spaces for visitors. Bicycle parking would also be provided in the basement. The main differences in this application compared to the previous application, primarily relate to increased front, side and rear boundary setbacks which have reduced the visibility of the upper floor, met or exceeded setback requirements, improved solar access and enabled greater landscaping to the front of the site.
119
3.0 SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDS 3.1 The following map illustrates the subject site in its surrounding context.
3.2 The subject site is located on the western side of Garfield Street Cheltenham,
between Sinclair Street and May Street. The site is comprised of two regular shaped allotments with a combined frontage width of 30.48 metres, a depth of 48.77 metres, and an overall area of 1486 square metres. A 1.22 metre wide drainage easement extends along the rear boundary of the site.
3.3 The surrounding area is generally characterised by a predominant mix of single and
double storey housing. Examples of multi-dwelling and infill development is common, with a three dwelling development abutting the site at No. 29 Garfield Street. An older style apartment development that is two storeys can be found at No. 26 Garfield Street. On the corner of Garfield Street and May Street is a three storey apartment building. Further north-west along Garfield Street can be found examples of newer housing stock that is double storey and attached in form. The area is experiencing change and has been noted by members of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal as being an area that is “evolving” and in “transition”.
4.0 KEY PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 The key planning considerations relate to:
(a) The current applications response to the previous Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal decision relating to the site
The proposal has addressed the key concerns that were raised by the Tribunal in a decision relating to a proposed three storey apartment building on the site. The Tribunal determined that a three storey apartment building could be approved on this combined allotment provided that the design allowed for an appropriately recessed upper floor, adequate front setback for landscaping, addressed potential
120
overshadowing and provided adequate on-site amenity. It is considered that the proposal has sufficiently addressed these issues as identified by the Tribunal and can now be supported.
4.2 The subject site is identified within Area 31 of the Kingston Neighbourhood Character
Study (May 2003). However, the average lot size within this area has not been calculated as the subject site is not located within a Residential 3 Zone.
5.0 OBJECTOR CONCERNS 5.1 Thirteen (13) objections were received to the application. A summary of the concerns
and response to each ground is provided below:
(a) Neighbourhood Character
Objectors contend that the proposal is not consistent with the existing single storey built form character of the area, and contend that any ‘evolving’ character is double storey in form. The proposal is considered to be consistent with existing development in the area, recent VCAT development approvals in the area (No. 36-40 Jean Street) and consistent with the planning policies which apply to the area. Policy for this area deems it suitable for medium density development, where it is expected that new forms of housing, such as apartments will continue to be introduced into local streets. See discussion above at Section 4.1. (b) Car parking and traffic impacts
Objectors are concerned that the proposal will have an unreasonable impact on existing on-street parking conditions and traffic in Garfield Street and surrounding streets. The proposal satisfies the parking provision requirements of Clause 52.06 of the Kingston Planning Scheme, meeting both resident and visitor parking requirements within the basement. The basement parking arrangement (subject to conditions) is able to be used efficiently and safely by visitors and residents and will also provide secure bicycle parking spaces. It is acknowledged that the proposal will result in increased traffic on local streets in the area, the issues identified by local residents with regard to the narrowness of Garfield Street and that existing traffic conditions in the area are hampered by the layout of local streets restricting flow of traffic and access to and from Nepean Highway. Unfortunately these issues extend beyond the scope of this particular application and require a precinct scale response on the part of Council and VicRoads. Council’s Traffic Engineering Department did not raise concerns with regard to the additional traffic generated by the proposal and this issue was not deemed fatal to the previous application when considered by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. (c) Loss of privacy – overlooking
Some objectors noted that the proposal would result in overlooking and a loss of
121
privacy. All upper floor windows and balconies have been treated to ensure that unreasonable overlooking will not occur from habitable rooms and balconies. (d) Overshadowing
Some adjoining and nearby residents objected to the potential overshadowing cast by the proposed building. The proposal has demonstrated that it meets the overshadowing restrictions imposed by the Kingston Planning Scheme, and will not unreasonably overshadow adjoining properties. The current application has improved upon the previous application by providing greater side and rear setbacks, particularly to the upper floor. (e) Internal overlooking
One objector noted that proposed apartments would be able to overlook each other (internal overlooking). Where balconies abut each other, screening between them has not been nominated on plans. A condition has been recommended to show internal screening between balconies on plans. (f) Drainage
Objectors are concerned that the extent of the proposal will result in less open space left on the site to absorb stormwater and that this will have a detrimental impact on existing drainage infrastructure. The proposal has been assessed with regard to the site permeability requirements of the Planning Scheme and is compliant with that particular standard. The proposal has also been referred to Council’s Development Engineer for comment, and standard drainage conditions have been recommended to provide a drainage strategy for the site which implements Water Sensitive Urban Design treatments to reduce run-off from the site as well as prevent any overflows to adjoining properties. The proposal currently entails the provision of tanks within the basement for stormwater capture and re-use on the site, any drainage strategy will need to nominate their capacity and what the water will be re-used for eg. toilet flushing/irrigation etc in addition to other measures. A condition is recommended for plans to show the capacity of tanks on plans. (g) Poor internal amenity with regard to daylight access
Some objectors consider that the layout of apartments will not result in adequate internal amenity. Conditions are recommended to remove overhanging built form from habitable room windows – maximising daylight to these windows. (h) Inadequate street setback
Some objectors consider the proposed street setback inadequate.
122
The proposal satisfies the street setback requirement of the Planning Scheme, at 6.1 metres. Balconies do encroach into this setback however they will still enable the building to have a sufficient setback for the planting of trees. (i) Insufficient side setbacks, with private open spaces adjacent to the boundary
An adjoining resident objected to the proposed side setbacks of the building and siting of individual apartment private open spaces along the site’s side boundary. The proposed side and rear boundary setbacks exceed the requirements of the Planning Scheme. The siting of private open spaces along a side boundary are not considered to be unreasonable, with these areas gaining benefit from a north-west orientation in terms of sunlight, and are buffered by the driveway which extends along this boundary on the abutting site.
(j) Overdevelopment of the site and visual bulk
Similar to objector concerns regarding neighbourhood character, some objectors assert that the proposed built form and density of dwellings proposed is excessively bulky and will not fit comfortably on the site and the proposed massing will dominate Garfield Street. The proposal has demonstrated that it will not unreasonably impact on adjoining properties through overlooking and overshadowing and will be able to limit views of its three storeys built form to the street, along with providing sufficient space to landscape the front setback. A variety of materials, colours and setbacks are proposed to articulate the building, and will provide a 16 metre street setback to the upper floor. This setback and setbacks from side and rear boundaries will reduce its visibility from the street and adjoining properties. The proposal is considered an appropriate response to the guidance provided by the previous Tribunal decision. (k) Noise from increased residents and services (airconditioning units)
An objector from a neighbouring property is concerned that there will be a number of air-conditioning condenser units oriented to her property and would result in noise. Other objectors noted that an increase in residents on the site would result in more noise generally. Noise associated with this development would be normal residential noise that would be expected in this residential setting, and is not considered to be unreasonable. (l) Waste management
Some objectors are concerned that the number of apartments will result in a large number of bins, and query how these will be managed and collected. A Waste Management Plan was submitted with the application proposing that the site will utilise Council’s collection service. The application was referred to Council’s Waste Management Co-ordinator who considers that this collection can be undertaken by Council. An amended Waste Management Plan is recommended to show a smaller bin size for storage in the basement to make sure they are able to be transferred to and from the front of the site. The Plan will need to nominate specific arrangements with regard to ensuring that bins are removed from the nature strip
123
once waste has been collected. (m) Landscaping
It was noted by some objectors that the proposal will entail the removal of the mature Eucalypt tree at the front of the site and the White Cedar tree at the rear of the site. The previous Tribunal decision relating to the site noted that mature vegetation makes an important contribution to the Garfield Street streetscape and that the Eucalypt in the front setback should be retained, or if an arborist report deemed it unsuitable to be retained that it be replaced by canopy tree plantings. The applicant submitted an arborist report which assessed this tree as being in decline and unsafe, and this assessment has been supported by Council’s Vegetation Management Officer. A landscape condition has been recommended to provide six (6) canopy trees within the front setback as replacement planting, increasing upon existing vegetation on the subject site. The White Cedar tree at the rear of the site was determined to be suitable for removal by the previous Tribunal decision. (n) Response to local policy – does not contain an attic style upper floor
Some objectors noted that the proposal is clearly a three storey building with a flat roof, not two storeys and an attic, contrary to applicable local policy contained in Clause 22.01 – Cheltenham Business Centre Policy. This policy has been discussed by several Tribunal members with regard to appeals on several sites in the surrounding area and on the subject site. The Tribunal has deemed that the intent of the policy is to ensure that any third storey is appropriately recessed so as to reduce its visibility. The proposal in this instance has a 16 metre street setback (compared to the previously application’s 9 metre street setback). The proposed flat roof is considered appropriate in the context of the contemporary architectural style proposed. A hipped or gabled roof form would add to the appearance of building height when viewed from the street or adjoining properties. (o) Accuracy of plans with regard to details of adjoining properties
Residents of No. 6 Jean Street noted that the plans submitted with the application continue to show incorrect details regarding their house where a verandah is shown to the rear. This is a living area with windows facing the subject site. These details have been noted and taken into consideration when assessing the proposal’s impact on adjoining properties.
The following objections raised are not valid planning considerations:
• Devaluation of property • Boundary fencing issues • Loss of views • The apartments will be rented out and occupied by tenants in the future
rather than owners 6.0 CONCLUSION 6.1 Based on a thorough assessment of the application against the relevant provisions of
124
the Kingston Planning Scheme and taking into consideration the concerns raised by objectors, the proposal, subject to the inclusion of conditions, is deemed appropriate and should therefore be supported.
125
RECOMMENDATION That Council determine to support the proposal and issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit to develop the land for the construction twenty two (22) dwellings at No. 31-33 Garfield Street Cheltenham (Lot 16 & 17 on PS007711), subject to the following conditions: 1. Before the development starts amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible
Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be substantially in accordance with the plans submitted to Council on 21 August 2012, but modified to show:
a. the provision of an improved landscape plan and associated planting schedule for the site showing the proposed location, species type, mature height and width, pot sizes and number of species be planted on the site, with such plans to be prepared by a suitably qualified landscape professional and incorporating:
i. an associated planting schedule showing the proposed location, species type, mature height and width, pot sizes and number of species to be planted on the site. The schedule must be shown on the plan;
ii. the delineation of all garden beds, paving, grassed areas, retaining walls, fences and other landscape works including areas of cut and fill throughout the development;
iii. all existing trees on the site and within three (3) metres to the boundary of the site on adjoining properties, accurately illustrated to represent actual canopy width and labelled with botanical name, height and whether the tree is proposed to be retained or removed;
iv. a range of plant types from ground covers to large shrubs and trees;
v. adequate planting densities (e.g.: plants with a mature width of 1 metre, planted at 1 metre intervals);
vi. no vegetation planted within the rear easement with intrusive roots that may affect the existing drainage pipe;
vii. the provision of six (6) suitable medium sized (at maturity) canopy trees within the front setback of the property and one (1) medium (at maturity) tree within the private open space area of each dwelling taking into consideration the proposed basement, with species chosen to be approved by the Responsible Authority;
viii. sustainable lawn areas and plant species taking current water restrictions into consideration;
ix. all trees provided at a minimum of two (2) metres in height at time of planting;
x. medium to large shrubs to be provided at a minimum pot size of 200mm; and
xi. the provision of notes on the landscape plan regarding site preparation, including the removal of all weeds, proposed mulch, soil types and thickness, subsoil preparation and any specific maintenance requirements.
b. the hipped roof of the porch entry deleted and a more contemporary style entry provided;
126
c. the introduction of horizontal design detail to the front façade, in order to reduce the dominance of vertical elements, with this detail also demonstrated through the provision of coloured perspectives (in addition to elevations and floor plans);
d. the provision of a full colour, finishes and building materials schedule, including samples (illustrated on an A4 or A3 sheet), for all external elevations and driveways of the development with the number of materials and colours selected simplified (no more than two materials or two colours);
e. a reduction of the number of window types provided to the front façade;
f. simplification of the side elevation building lines, with a reduction of the number of varied setbacks provided and the removal of overhanging built form to ground floor habitable room windows;
g. a height of 1 metre to the north-west balcony balustrades of units 21 and 22;
h. the kitchen window of unit 10 provided with a minimum sill height of 1.4 metres above ground level;
i. dimensions of all balconies and private open space areas. All balconies must comply with Standard B28 of Clause 55 of the Kingston Planning Scheme. Any changes to achieve compliance must not result in reduced setbacks;
j. any changes to the bin store area as required by the amended Waste Management Plan at Condition 3 of this Permit;
k. full details and dimensions of the proposed bicycle parking area in the basement, with specifications of any proposed racks;
l. intercom entry for visitors to the basement car park;
m. column locations within the basement to comply with Design Standard 2 of Clause 52.06-8 of the Kingston Planning Scheme;
n. the provision of a 500mm blind aisle extension adjacent to car spaces numbered 1, 11 and 17;
o. the provision of internal screening treatments between balconies to prevent internal views;
p. an apex a minimum of 300mm above the existing invert of kerb and channel along the Garfield Street frontage;
q. the actual location of the existing 150mm diameter stormwater drain at the rear of the property and any modifications required to the proposed basement so as to not affect the drain;
r. a note stating: “150mm diameter stormwater drain located at the rear of the property must be protected at all times and the temporary support of the drain must be provided during construction of the basement”;
s. a longitudinal section of the basement ramp with grades, levels at change of grade and 300mm apex;
t. the capacity of the water tanks in the basement nominated on plans;
u. a comprehensive drainage strategy for the development of the site incorporating Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) treatments;
127
v. the surface material of all driveways / accessways and car parking spaces nominated in all-weather coloured concrete sealcoat, or similar;
w. the sustainable design initiatives outlined in the endorsed Sustainable Management Plan (SMP) required by Condition 6 of this Permit;
x. obscured glazing windows to habitable rooms nominated as awning windows, with openings no greater than 400mm;
y. passive solar shading devices to habitable room windows, with the design of shading treatments appropriate to the orientation of the window;
z. the provision of a roof plan, detailing lift overrun and any other services/plant equipment, along with details of screening; and
aa. the location of all externally-located heating and cooling units, exhaust fans and the like, clearly shown and screened from public view, located outside of primary secluded open space areas.
Endorsed Plans
2. The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
Waste Management
3. Prior to the endorsement of plans pursuant to Condition 1, an updated Waste Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. Three (3) copies of the plan must be submitted. The plan must be based upon the Waste Management Plan, prepared by Leigh Design, dated 12 July 2012, but modified to show:
a. The manner in which waste will be stored and collected, including nominating the use of 240 litre shared bins for general waste and recyclables, specifying arrangements and responsibilities for the movement of bins to and from the front of the site for Council collection.
b. Safety arrangements for the moving of bins up and down the basement ramp.
c. Spatial provision for on-site storage of 240 litre shared bins.
d. Details of arrangements for bin storage at the front of the site on Council collection days to accommodate all bins within the nature strip to the front of the site.
The waste management plan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The waste management plan must not be modified unless without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.
Sustainable Development
4. Prior to the endorsement of plans pursuant to Condition 1, a Sustainability Management Plan (SMP) that outlines proposed sustainable design initiatives must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.
The SMP must incorporate consideration of the following sustainable design criteria:
a. Indoor environment Energy efficiency
128
b. Water resources c. Stormwater management d. Building materials e. Bicycle parking f. Waste Management g. Urban Ecology h. Innovation i. Ongoing building and site management In relation to these sustainable design criteria, an SMP must; a. Identify relevant sustainability targets or performance standards; b. Document the means by which the appropriate target or performance will be
achieved; c. Identify the different areas of responsibility and provide a schedule for
implementation, ongoing management, maintenance and monitoring; and d. Demonstrate that the design elements, technologies and operational practices
that comprise the SMP can be maintained over time.
5. Prior to the endorsement of plans pursuant to Condition 1, a STORM report (or similar) with STORM rating of at least 100% or equivalent with a reliability not less than 80%, to demonstrate that the development meets Victoria’s best practice stormwater targets pursuant to Clause 19.03-2. Achieving compliance with this condition must not conflict with other conditions contained within the permit.
Construction Management
6. Before the commencement of any buildings and works on the Land, a Construction Management Plan (CMP), to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed as evidence of its approval and will then form part of the permit and shall thereafter be complied with. The CMP must specify and deal with, but is not limited to, the following:
a. a detailed schedule of works including a full project timing;
b. a traffic management plan for the site, including when or whether any access points would be required to be blocked; an outline of requests to occupy public footpaths or roads, or anticipated disruptions to local services; and preferred routes for trucks delivering to the site;
c. the location for the parking of all construction vehicles and construction worker vehicles during construction;
d. delivery of materials including times for loading/unloading and unloading points; expected frequency; and details of where materials will be stored and how concrete pours would be managed;
e. proposed traffic management signage indicating any inconvenience generated by construction;
f. a fully detailed plan indicating where construction hoardings would be located;
g. a waste management plan including the containment of waste on site, disposal of waste, stormwater treatment and on-site facilities for vehicle washing;
h. containment of dust, dirt and mud within the site and method and frequency of clean up procedures in the event of build up of matter outside the site;
129
i. business operations on the site during construction;
j. site security;
k. public safety measures;
l. construction times, noise and vibration controls;
m. restoration of any Council assets removed and/or damaged during construction;
n. protection works necessary to road and other infrastructure (limited to an area reasonably proximate to the site);
o. remediation of any damage to road and other infrastructure (limited to an area reasonably proximate to the site);
p. an emergency contact that is available for 24 hours per day for residents and the Responsible Authority in the event of relevant queries or problems experienced;
q. traffic management measures to comply with provisions of AS 17 42.3-2002 Manual of uniform traffic control devices - Part 3: Traffic control devices for works on roads; and
r. all contractors associated with the construction of the development must be made aware of the requirements of the Construction Management Plan.
7. Prior to the commencement of any buildings and works on the land, a pre construction site and immediate surrounds inspection and condition assessment of all road ways and footpaths abutting the development is to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Responsible Authority. This must occur in a media (photos/video) which is able to accurately illustrate the full condition of all potentially impacted assets prior to the construction commencing. In the event of damage during construction, such damage will be required to be repaired by the developer, at the developer's cost and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
8. During the construction, the following must occur:
a. any stormwater discharged into the stormwater drainage system is to comply with EPA guidelines;
b. stormwater drainage system protection measures must be installed as required to ensure that no solid waste, sediment, sand, soil, clay or stones from the premises enters the stormwater drainage system;
c. vehicle borne material must not accumulate on the roads abutting the site;
d. the cleaning of machinery and equipment must take place on site and not on adjacent footpaths, roads or parks;
e. all litter (including items such as cement bags, food packaging and plastic strapping) must be disposed of responsibly; and
f. all site operations must comply with the EPA Publication TG302/92 (including all revisions or replacement guidelines).
Drainage and Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD)
130
9. The drain as described in Condition 1 q) and r) must be protected at all times during construction.
10. An apex (ie hump) a minimum of 300mm above the existing invert of kerb and channel along the Garfield St frontage must be provided. This apex is to continue through any driveways or pathways that may cross it. The apex is to be a permanent structure (eg. hump in concrete driveway/pathway, sleeper retaining wall, solid brick fence/wall).
11. The development of the site must be provided with stormwater works which incorporates the use of water sensitive urban design principles to improve stormwater runoff quality and which also retains on site any increase in runoff as a result of the approved development. The system must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Council's Development Engineer can advise on satisfactory options to achieve these desired outcomes which may include the use of an infiltration or bioretention system, rainwater tanks connected for reuse and a detention system.
12. Before the development commences, a Stormwater Management Plan showing the stormwater works to the nominated point of discharge (stormwater connection to the drain located at the rear is not permitted) must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Stormwater Management Plan must be prepared by a qualified person and show all details of the proposed stormwater works including all existing and proposed features that may have impact (e.g. trees to be retained, crossings, services, fences, abutting buildings, existing boundary surface levels, etc.). Stormwater outflow from the development to the Council drainage system should not exceed 12l/s.
13. Stormwater works must be provided on the site so as to prevent overflows onto adjacent properties.
Infrastructure and Road Works
14. Property boundary and footpath levels must not be altered without the prior written consent from Council’s Roads and Drains Department.
15. The replacement of all footpaths, including offsets, must be constructed the satisfaction of Council’s Roads and Drains Department.
16. All reinstatements and vehicle crossings must be constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, with the vehicle crossing to be constructed to Council’s industrial strength specifications.
17. All redundant vehicle crossings must be removed (including redundant portions of vehicle crossings) to the satisfaction of Council’s Roads and Drains Department.
Parking construction
18. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, areas set aside for parking vehicles, access lanes and paths as shown on the endorsed plans must be:
a. Constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
b. Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans.
131
c. Surfaced in accordance with the endorsed plans under this permit or in an all weather coloured concrete seal-coat, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
d. Drained and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
e. Line-marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes, with the basement ramp line-marked to indicate two way traffic.
f. Provided with wheel stops to the front of each car parking space designed to meet Australian Standards AS2890.1 – 2004, Parking Facilities: Off-street parking.
Parking areas and access lanes must be kept available for these purposes at all times and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Lighting
19. Exterior lighting must be installed in such positions as to effectively illuminate all communal areas. Such lighting must be designed, baffled and located to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to prevent any adverse effect on neighbouring land.
General amenity conditions
20. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, any changes to, or construction of boundary fences required for under this development, shall be constructed at the cost of the applicant/owner.
21. The obscure glazing shown on the endorsed plans must be through frosted glass or similarly treated glass, and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Adhesive film or the like that can be removed must not be used.
22. All fixed external screening to prevent overlooking marked on the endorsed plans shall be maintained by the owner of the land to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
23. All piping and ducting above the ground floor storey of the development (other than rainwater guttering and downpipes) must be concealed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
24. All works on or facing the boundaries of adjoining properties must be finished and surface cleaned to a standard that is well presented to neighbouring properties in a manner to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Completion
25. Prior to the occupation of any building approved under this permit, written confirmation from the author of the endorsed Sustainable Management Plan is to be submitted to the Responsible Authority that all of the required measures specified in the SMP have been implemented.
26. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, the landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be completed to the satisfaction of the
132
Responsible Authority. The landscaping must then be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
27. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, all buildings and works and the conditions of this permit must be complied with, unless with the further prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.
28. Once the development has started it must be continued and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.
Time Limits
29. In accordance with section 68 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, this permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:
• The development is not started within two (2) years from the date of permit issue.
• The development is not completed within four (4) years from the date of permit issue.
In accordance with section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the responsible authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires, or within three months afterwards.
Note: It is noted that the development includes fencing to be built over an easement. Separate consent from Council and the relevant service authority is required to build over the easement and will need to be obtained prior to the issue of a building permit.
Note: No resident parking permits will be issued to occupiers of the development.
Note: Prior to the commencement of the development you are required to obtain the necessary Building Permit.
Note: The applicant/owner must provide a copy of this planning permit to any appointed Building Surveyor. It is the responsibility of the applicant/owner and Building Surveyor to ensure that all building development works approved by any building permit is consistent with the planning permit.
Note: Before removing / pruning any vegetation from the site, the applicant or any contractor engaged to remove any vegetation, should consult Council’s Vegetation Management Officer to verify if a Local Laws Permits is required for the removal of such vegetation.
OR In the event that Council wishes to oppose the application, it can do so using the following grounds:
1. The application fails to provide adequate daylight to new windows, not satisfying the objective of Clause 55.05-3 – Daylight to New Windows, of the Kingston Planning Scheme.
2. The application does not incorporate adequate design detail that responds to the streetscape, failing to meet the objective of Clause 55.06-1 – Design Detail, of the Kingston Planning Scheme.
133
3. The application has not allowed sufficient circulation spaces in the basement for waste removal from the bin store area, not meeting the objective of Clause 55.06-4 – Site Services, of the Kingston Planning Scheme.
134
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT
1.0 RELEVANT LAND HISTORY 1.1 Planning Application No. KP516/2010 was refused by Council on 2 May 2011, with
this decision upheld by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal on 24 January 2012 in ARPC Consultants Pty Ltd v Kingston City Council & Ors [2012] VCAT 100. The application proposed twenty-five (25) dwellings within a three storey apartment style building with basement car parking.
1.2 Council’s grounds of refusal related to off-site amenity impacts, overdevelopment of
the site, visual bulk and non-compliance with ResCode requirements relating to: Neighbourhood Character; Street Setback; Building Height; Site Coverage; Private Open Space; Solar Access to Private Open Space; Design Detail and Front Fencing.
1.3 In ARPC Consultants Pty Ltd v Kingston City Council & Ors Member Paterson
acknowledged that the site is located in an area where medium density housing, including apartment buildings is supported by local and state planning policy. A three storey apartment building was deemed to be suitable, provided that the building responded to existing neighbourhood character and did not result in unreasonable off-site amenity impacts. Critically, in the instance of that planning application, the proposal did not meet the Tribunal’s expectations with regard to the design of the upper storey and did not provide a sufficient street setback to allow for adequate landscaping.
1.4 The Tribunal considered the requirements of Clause 22.01 Cheltenham Business
Centre Policy with regard to the built form. Three storey built form is supported by this policy, with Clause 22.01 stating that the third storey should be in the form of an ‘attic’. The Tribunal took this to mean that the third storey of buildings in this area should be “appropriately recessed to reduce its overall bulk and appearance from the
APPLICANT AR Project Consultants Pty Ltd ADDRESS OF LAND 31-33 Garfield Street Cheltenham PLAN OF SUBDIVISION REFERENCE
Lots 16 & 17 on PS007711
PROPOSAL Develop the land for the construction of twenty two (22) dwellings
PLANNING OFFICER Tanya Sokolowski REFERENCE NO. KP-324/2012 ZONE Residential Zone 1
OVERLAYS Not applicable
OBJECTIONS Thirteen (13) CONSIDERED PLAN REFERENCES/DATE RECEIVED
21 August 2012
ABORIGINAL CULTURAL HERITAGE SENSITIVTY
No
135
streetscape and mitigate any impacts from the adjoining properties”, which may not necessarily require the design response to be in the form of an attic. This approach is consistent with other recent Tribunal decisions in this locality, including opposite the site at No. 28-34 Garfield Street (Boxtel Homes Pty Ltd v Kingston CC [2012] VCAT 3) and at No. 36-40 Jean Street, Cheltenham (Beyprop Pty Ltd v Kingston CC [2012] VCAT 1271). It is also noted that there is a three storey apartment style building on the corner of Garfield Street and May Street which does not entail an attic style third storey.
1.5 The Tribunal considered the proposed street setback of 4.8 metres which did not
meet the required 6.05 metre setback for the site. Member Paterson deemed the proposed setback insufficient (along with the extent of the basement) to enable the retention of an existing Eucalypt tree, or replacement planting. Member Paterson concluded that in Garfield Street and surrounding streets there are a number of established trees which make an important contribution to the streetscape character and this is a characteristic which would need to be implemented within the front setback.
1.6 In considering off-site amenity impacts the Tribunal looked at overshadowing and
proposed side and rear setbacks of the building. Overshadowing impacts to the adjoining property at No. 3A Sinclair Street was discussed by Member Paterson where it was deemed that the plans submitted did not adequately demonstrate that the proposal would not increase upon the existing shadows that affected the private open space of that property and that any new application would need to ensure that this is addressed. Member Paterson acknowledged that the building would be visible from adjoining properties, particularly No’s 29 and 35 Garfield Street, but determined that the proposed side setbacks were adequate.
1.7 On-site amenity concerns raised by the Tribunal primarily related to inadequate solar
access to private open space areas being achieved for nine (9) of the twenty-five (25) apartments. Member Paterson indicated that “any new proposal should ensure that the private open space areas of all dwellings receive adequate daylight”.
2.0 SITE PARTICULARS 2.1 The subject site is located on the western side of Garfield Street, Cheltenham, in the
section between Sinclair Street and May Street. The site consists of two regular shaped allotments with a combined frontage width of 30.48 metres, a depth of 48.77 metres, and an overall area of 1486 square metres. A 1.22 metre wide drainage easement extends along the rear (western) boundary of the site.
2.2 The site is generally flat, with a gradual fall to the rear of less than 500mm. Vehicle
access to the site is currently via two single width crossovers, with No. 31 Garfield Street accessed from a crossover located towards the north-western side boundary. No. 33 Garfield Street is accessed from a crossover located towards its south-eastern side boundary.
2.3 Each site is currently occupied a single storey detached dwelling with associated
outbuildings. No. 31 Garfield Street also has a swimming pool located within the rear yard. The site contains scattered vegetation, including a large Eucalypt tree to the front of No. 33 Garfield Street and a White Cedar tree to the rear of the site.
136
3.0 SURROUNDING ENVIRONS 3.1 The surrounding area is characterised by a mix of single storey and double storey
housing. Examples of multi-dwelling and infill development is common, with a three dwelling development abutting the site at No. 29 Garfield Street. An older style apartment development that is two storeys can be found at No. 26 Garfield Street. Adjacent to that development on the corner of Garfield Street and May Street is a three storey apartment development. Further north-west along Garfield Street can be found examples of newer housing stock that is double storey and attached in form. The area is experiencing change and has been noted by members of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal as being an area that is “evolving” and in “transition”.
3.2 The site is located approximately 250 metres south of Southland Shopping Centre (a
Principal Activity Centre) and approximately 590 metres north of the Cheltenham Train Station which is located within the Cheltenham Major Activity Centre.
3.3 Land directly abutting the subject site and opposite is described as follows:
North-west: No. 29 Garfield Street is occupied by a three dwelling development of attached, single storey, brick villa units with a common driveway running along the boundary with the subject site and a garage at the rear constructed on the boundary with the subject site. The front dwelling on this site is set back 4.5 metres from the street.
North-east: Opposite the site at No.’s 30 and 32 Garfield Street are two single storey detached dwellings, each with vehicle access to their respective south-eastern sides. South-West: Two properties directly abut the site to the south-west, at No. 6 Jean Street and at No. 3A Sinclair Street. No. 6 Jean Street is occupied by a detached single storey dwelling and setback 21 metres from the subject site. It is noted that the Site Plan does not accurately reflect the extent of this dwelling and location of habitable room windows, with the plan showing an extensive verandah (it is not a verandah, but is an extension to the dwelling). No. 3A Sinclair Street is occupied by a double storey rendered brick dwelling and contains a section of wall constructed on the shared boundary of the subject site. South-East: No. 35 Garfield Street is occupied by a detached single storey brick dwelling, which is setback from the street 7.6 metres and has vehicle access located on its south-eastern side boundary.
4.0 PROPOSAL 4.1 It is proposed to demolish the existing dwellings and outbuildings on the land and
construct twenty-two (22) apartments within a three storey building, with basement car parking. It is proposed to provide a mix of dwellings with three, two and one bedroom compositions.
4.2 Within the basement, twenty-six (26) car parking spaces are provided for residents
and an additional four (4) parking spaces for visitors. The basement would be accessed via a double width (two-way) ramp, and access to upper floors would be provided by way of a lift and one stair well. Also located within the basement would
137
be bicycle parking, rubbish bin store area, rain water tanks and individual storage cages for each apartment.
4.3 At ground floor would be located ten (10) apartments. Each ground floor apartment
would be provided with private open space varying in area between 30 square metres and 60 square metres. Six apartments will comprise 2 bedrooms each, two apartments would contain 1 bedroom each and two apartments would contain 3 bedrooms each. A centrally located lift and stair well provide access to the basement and upper floors.
4.4 At the first floor would be located ten (10) apartments, each provided with balconies
for private open space. Seven apartments would contain 2 bedrooms each and three apartments would comprise 1 bedroom each.
4.5 At the second floor would be located two apartments, each with 3 bedrooms and
north-west facing balconies. 4.6 The building would be setback from Garfield Street 6.1 metres at ground floor, 7.19
metres at first floor (with balconies encroaching) and 16 metres at the second floor. The building is proposed to have an overall height of 8.65 metres.
4.7 A contemporary architectural style is proposed, with a flat roof form. A variety of building materials are proposed to be incorporated into the façades of the building including timber cladding and rendered finishes. A combination of 1.2 metre and 1.5 metre high front fencing is proposed to be constructed of brick piers with picket infill.
4.8 The proposal would have an overall site coverage of 55.1% and a permeability of
approximately 23%. 5.0 PLANNING PERMIT PROVISIONS
Zone 5.1 Residential 1 Zone: Pursuant to Clause 32.01-4 of the Kingston Planning Scheme, a
planning permit is required to construct two (2) or more dwellings on a lot. A development must meet the requirements of Clause 55 of the Scheme. The Schedule to the Residential 1 Zone includes a variation to one of the standards within Clause 55, relating to front fence height.
Particular Provisions 5.2 Car Parking: Pursuant to Clause 52.06 of the Kingston Planning Scheme, a planning
permit is required to reduce or waive the car parking requirements associated with a dwelling. The proposal satisfies the car parking requirement and a reduction is not sought.
5.3 Clause 55 - Two or More Dwellings on a Lot & Residential Buildings – (Refer to
Appendix A for the Planning Officer’s full assessment against this report).
General Provisions
138
5.4 The Decision Guidelines of Clause 65 of the Kingston Planning Scheme are relevant to this application and require consideration to be given to a variety of matters including planning scheme policies, the purpose of the zone, orderly planning and the impact on amenity.
6.0 RELEVANT POLICIES 6.1 State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF)
Clause 11 Settlement Clause 15 Built Environment and Heritage Clause 16 Housing
6.2 Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) Clause 21.05 Residential Land Use Clause 22.01 Cheltenham Business Centre Policy Clause 22.11 Residential Development Policy
6.3 Other
6.4 Neighbourhood Character Area Guidelines (Incorporated Document under Clause
21.05 – Residential Land Use of the LPPF). The land is located within Area 31 of the Neighbourhood Character Guidelines.
6.5 Design Contextual Housing Guidelines (April 2003 – reference document within
Clause 22.11 – Residential Development Policy). The Design Contextual Housing Guidelines offer a range of design techniques and suggestions to assist with residential design, which is responsive to local character.
7.0 ADVERTISING 7.1 The proposal was advertised by sending notices to adjoining and opposite property
owners and occupiers and by maintaining a notice on site for fourteen (14) days. Thirteen (13) objections to the proposal were received. The valid grounds of objection raised are summarised as follows:
• Loss of privacy • Overshadowing • Parking and traffic concerns • Drainage • Neighbourhood character • Internal overlooking • Poor internal amenity with regard to daylight access • Inadequate street setback • Insufficient side setbacks, with private open spaces adjacent to the
boundary • Overdevelopment of the site • Visual bulk • Noise from increased residents and services (airconditioning units)
139
• Waste management • Landscaping • Response to local policy – does not contain an attic style upper floor • Accuracy of plans with regard to details of adjoining properties
7.2 The following objections raised are not valid planning considerations: • Devaluation of property • Boundary fencing issues • Loss of views • The apartments will be rented out
7.3 The valid grounds of objection are addressed in the assessment section further in the
report. 8.0 PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE 8.1 A preliminary conference was held on 1 November 2012 with the relevant Planning
Officer, the Permit Applicant and objectors in attendance. The above-mentioned issues were discussed at length.
8.2 The above concerns were unable to be resolved at the preliminary conference, and
the objections still stand. 9.0 REFERRALS 9.1 The application was referred to the following internal departments:
• Council’s Development Engineer – raised no objection to the application, subject to conditions included on any permit issued relating to stormwater management and drainage of the site, including a requirement that no invasive plant species to be planted within the drainage pipe easement that extends along the rear of the site and a 300mm apex required along the site’s frontage.
• Council’s Vegetation Management Officer - raised no objection to the application,
subject to conditions included on any permit issued relating to the replacement planting of the Eucalypt tree to be removed from the front setback. Council’s Vegetation Management Officer agreed with the applicant’s arborist that this tree is in declining health and potentially dangerous. Conditions were also recommended for landscaping to ground floor private open spaces.
• Council’s Traffic Engineering Department – raised no objection to the application,
and noted that no resident parking permits would be issued for residents of the development.
• Council’s Roads and Drains Department – raised no objection to the application
subject to standard conditions regarding footpath and boundary levels and construction and reinstatement of crossovers.
• Council’s Sustainable Development Advisor – provided comments regarding the
submitted STEPS report and advised that the report was of insufficient detail for the scale of development proposed. A condition is recommended to require the
140
provision of a Sustainable Management Plan (SMP) with initiatives demonstrated on plans. It was noted that the orientation of some dwellings and daylight access was not optimal and needed to be improved. Passive shading devices appropriate to window orientations is also recommended, particularly for windows oriented to the north-west.
• Council’s City Strategy Department (Urban Designer) – raised no objection to the
proposal subject to changes to simplify the detail provided to elevations, with the design presenting over-articulated facades. Recommendations were also made with regard to balconies requiring weather protection, along with some recommendations to reduce screening (where not required) in order to reduce the appearance of visual bulk. Further discussion of these referral comments is provided in the assessment section.
• Council’s Waste Management Co-ordinator – raised no objection to the proposal
subject to conditions to require an amended Waste Management Plan nominating the use of 240 litre shared general waste and recycling bins. It was noted that the design of the basement and circulation spaces cannot accommodate the 660 litre bins that have been proposed to be used.
10.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
State Planning Policy Framework 10.1 The State Planning Policy Framework sets out the relevant state-wide policies for
residential development at Clause 11 (Settlement), Clause 15 (Built Environment and Heritage) and Clause 16 (Housing). Essentially, the provisions within these clauses seek to achieve the fundamental objectives and policy outcomes sought by the Metropolitan Strategy – ‘Melbourne 2030’ and its recent update ‘Melbourne @ 5 Million’, which have been removed from an individual clause and integrated throughout the State Planning Policy Framework.
10.2 The settlement policies at Clause 11 seek to ensure a sufficient supply of land is available for all forms of land use in Victoria. Of particular relevance to housing, Clause 11 promotes housing diversity and urban consolidation objectives in the established urban realm. Clause 11.02-1 states that Planning Authorities should plan to accommodate projected population growth over at least a 15 year period, taking account of opportunities for redevelopment and intensification of existing urban areas as well consideration being had for environmental aspects, sustainable development and the costs associated with providing infrastructure. This clause states: Planning for urban growth, should consider:
o Opportunities for the consolidation, redevelopment and intensification of existing urban areas;
o Neighbourhood character and landscape considerations; o The limits of land capability and natural hazards and environmental
quality; o Service limitations and the costs of providing infrastructure.
141
10.3 Clause 11.01-2 places particular emphasis on providing increased densities of housing in and around activity centres or sites that have good access to a range of services, facilities and transport options.
10.4 Clause 15 (Built Environment and Heritage) aims to ensure all new land use and development appropriately responds to its landscape, valued built form and cultural context, and protect places and sites with significant heritage, architectural, aesthetic, scientific and cultural value.
10.5 Policies pertaining to urban design, built form and heritage outcomes are found at
Clause 15 of the State Planning Policy Framework. Of particular significance, Clause 15.01 encourages development to achieve high quality architectural and urban design outcomes that contribute positively to neighbourhood character, minimises detrimental amenity impacts and achieves safety for future residents, and the community, through good design. The provisions of Clause 15.02 promote energy and resource efficiency through improved building design, urban consolidation and promotion of sustainable transport.
10.6 Clause 15.03-2 (Aboriginal Cultural Heritage) seeks to ensure the protection and
conservation of places of Aboriginal cultural heritage significance. 10.7 The Subject Land is not identified in an area of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage
Sensitivity. 10.8 Housing objectives are further advanced at Clause 16. This Clause aims to
encourage increased diversity in housing to meet the needs of the community through different life stages and respond to market demand for housing. In much the same vein as Clause 11, this Clause advances notions of consolidation of existing urban areas, particularly in and around activity centres and employment corridors that are well served by all infrastructure and services.
10.9 The policies contained within Clause 16.01-4 encourage the provision of range of housing types to meet the increasingly diverse needs of the community. Emphasis is placed on development of well-designed medium density housing with respect to neighbourhood character. Further, this Clause aims to make better use of the existing infrastructure and provide more energy efficient housing.
10.10 It is submitted that the proposed development satisfies the aforementioned State
strategies and policy direction. Specifically, the subject site is located on land earmarked for residential purposes, whereby residential development is an ‘as of right’ use under the zoning provisions. Subject to appropriate conditions on any permit issued, the development itself achieves an acceptable design outcome for the site and its immediate abuttals, whilst enjoying convenient and direct access to community facilities and the like, including public transport nodes.
Local Planning Policy Framework
10.11 The City of Kingston’s MSS at Clause 21.05 (Residential Land Use) of the Kingston
Planning Scheme, seeks to provide guidance to development in residential zoned land, mixed use zoned lands and land within activity centres. The Residential Land
142
Use Framework Plan illustrates the range of housing outcomes sought across the City of Kingston.
10.12 Relevant objectives and strategies in Clause 21.05-3: Residential Land Use include:
o To provide a range of housing types across the municipality to increase housing diversity and cater for the changing housing needs of current and future populations, taking account of the capacity of local areas in Kingston to accommodate different types and rates of housing change. This is to be achieved through encouraging residential development within activity centres via mixed-use development, and on transitional sites at the periphery of activity centres.
o To ensure new residential development respects neighbourhood character and is site responsive, and that medium density dwellings are of the highest design quality. This is to be achieved through promoting new residential development, which is of a high standard, responds to the local context and positively contributes to the character and identity of the local neighbourhood.
o To promote more environmentally sustainable forms of residential development. To be achieved through promoting medium density housing development in close proximity to public transport facilities, particularly train stations.
o To ensure residential development does not exceed known physical infrastructure capacities.
10.13 Council’s Local Planning Policy at Clause 21.05 essentially reinforces State Planning
Policy relevant to housing, stressing the need to encourage urban consolidation in appropriate locations and to accommodate projected population increases.
10.14 Clause 22.01 Cheltenham Business Centre Policy specifies that this area is located within Area J (Medium Density Residential Precinct) under the Cheltenham Business Framework Plan. Medium Density Residential Precinct
10.15 The key policies relating to new development within this precinct (where relevant), are as follows: • Medium density residential development be encouraged with a mixture of
accommodation types and building scales. • Development optimises site utilisation, is innovative, responsive to its streetscape
context and incorporates the following design features: o A high level of articulation in building setbacks, facades and roof lines. o Open landscaped front gardens. o Low or transparent front fencing styles.
• Where site consolidation is proposed, the following design responses may be
supported where the amenity of adjoining properties will not be significantly reduced: o Multi-level buildings (up to a maximum of two storey plus attic, giving three
levels).
143
o Construction of single storey walls on side boundaries. o Flexibility in the size and layout of private open space. o Reduction in street frontage setbacks.
10.16 The proposed development is considered to be generally consistent with the above
policies relating to articulation and landscaping. The proposed street setback will allow the planting of canopy trees. This was considered to be an important requirement in the Tribunal decision relating to this site, discussed in Section 1 of this report. That decision deemed the consolidated two sites as suitable for a three storey apartment building, provided that the upper floor was well recessed from the street (whilst not requiring that be in the form of an attic style). The current proposal has a second floor which is setback 16 metres from the street and is considered to meet this requirement established by the Tribunal. The overall proposal is considered to have had regard to this policy and the direction provided by the previous Tribunal decision.
10.17 Clause 22.11 Residential Development Policy extends upon the provision
contained at Clause 21.05 (Residential Land Use), relating to increased housing diversity areas, incremental housing change areas, minimal housing change areas, residential renewal areas and neighbourhood character. It provides design guidance on how new residential development should achieve architectural and urban design outcomes that positively respond to neighbourhood character.
10.18 Relevant objectives in Clause 22.11-2 Residential Development Policy include:
• To promote a managed approach to housing change, taking account of the differential capacity of local areas in Kingston to accommodate increased housing diversity, incremental housing change, residential renewal or minimal housing change, as identified within the MSS.
• To encourage new residential development to achieve architectural and urban
design outcomes that positively respond to neighbourhood character having particular regard to that identified in the Kingston Neighbourhood Character Guidelines – August 2007.
• To promote on-site car parking which is adequate to meet the anticipated needs
of future residents. • To ensure that landscaping and trees remain a major element in the appearance
and character of the municipality’s residential environments. • To limit the amount and impact of increased stormwater runoff on local drainage
systems. • To ensure that the siting and design of new residential development takes
account of interfaces with sensitive and strategic land uses.
10.19 It is considered that the proposed development generally complies and satisfies the State and Local Planning Policy Framework guidelines which aim to encourage well-designed medium density housing in appropriate locations. This is discussed in the Clause 55 assessment, later within this report.
144
11.0 CLAUSE 55 (RESCODE ASSESSMENT) 11.1 The proposal has been assessed against the standards of Clause 55 (ResCode) of
the Kingston Planning Scheme (refer to Appendix A). Overall, it is noted that the application achieves a high level of compliance with the ResCode provisions. Five (5) of the thirty-three (33) ResCode standards are sought to be varied.
11.2 The following assessment considers the relevant standards and objectives of
ResCode where they require further discussion to that provided in the attached Appendix, particularly those standards where concessions are sought.
Clause 55.02-1 – Neighbourhood Character & Infrastructure Standard B1 – Neighbourhood Character
11.3 The objective of Clause 55.02-1 is ‘to ensure that the design respects the existing neighbourhood character and responds to the features of the site and surrounding area’. Standard B1 of ResCode suggests that the proposed design should respect the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and respond to the features of the site.
11.4 The surrounding area is characterised by a mix of single storey and double storey
housing. Examples of multi-dwelling and infill development is common, with a three dwelling development abutting the site at No. 29 Garfield Street. An older style apartment development that is two storeys can be found at No. 26 Garfield Street. Adjacent to that development on the corner of Garfield Street and May Street is a three storey apartment development. Further north-west along Garfield Street can be found examples of newer housing stock that is double storey and attached in form. The area is experiencing change and has been noted by members of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal as being an area that is “evolving” and in “transition”.
11.5 The extent of infill and multi-dwelling development that has already occurred is an
indication of the site’s proximity to Southland Principal Activity Centre and the Cheltenham Major Activity Centre, along with transport infrastructure in the form of extensive bus routes and the Cheltenham Train Station. The proposal is therefore considered to be consistent with the existing and apparent evolving character of the area where it is acknowledged that more change will occur in line with existing state and local policies which encourage medium density development in this location. Clause 55.03 – Site Layout and Building Massing Standard B15 – Parking Location
11.6 The relevant objective of Clause 55.03-10 is ‘to protect residents from vehicular noise within developments’. The kitchen window of unit 10 would be located adjacent to the basement ramp, with no separation provided and a sill height of approximately 1 metre from ground level. A condition is recommended to lift the sill height to 1.4 metres to provide greater protection from vehicle noise.
Clause 55.04 – Amenity Impacts Standard B23 – Internal Views
145
11.7 The objective of Clause 55.04-7 is to ‘limit views into the secluded private open space and habitable room windows of dwellings and residential buildings within a development’. Screening treatments between balconies have not been nominated in order to prevent internal views. A condition is recommended to show screening to prevent internal views between balconies. Clause 55.05 – On-Site Amenity and Facilities Standard B27 – Daylight to New Windows
11.8 The objective of Clause 55.05-3 is ‘to allow adequate daylight to new habitable room windows’. A number of ground floor habitable room windows would entail overhanging built form; this will particularly impact upon ground floor windows oriented to the south-east.
11.9 The overall amount of staggered side setbacks is deemed to be over-articulation (and
discussed further at Standard B31 below), and could be simplified, allowing a decrease to some ground floor setbacks to reduce the extent of overhanging built form currently created by first floor balconies. The current side and rear boundary setbacks generously exceed the setback requirements of Standard B17, a permit condition can be drafted so that any changes to side and rear setbacks will still exceed these requirements. It is also noted that these changes at ground floor will impact upon the provision of private open space – this will be discussed under Standard B28.
11.10 Unit 6 will be significantly impacted by overhanging built form to its bedroom 1
window. A condition is recommended to either delete this bedroom or provide adequate daylight to this room through internal layout changes. Standard B28 – Private Open Space
11.11 The objective of Clause 55.05-4 is ‘to provide adequate private open space for the reasonable recreation and service needs of residents’.
11.12 A variation to the requirement of this Standard is sought, where two apartments at ground floor would be provided with 30 square metres of private open space instead of 40 square metres. The variation to the requirement is considered satisfactory, where it is generally accepted that apartments can be provided with lesser areas of private open space. Out of the twenty-two dwellings proposed, only two would require a variation, with 30 square metres still considered to be a generous area of private open space for this style of housing.
11.13 As discussed above under Standard B27, amendments are required to ensure that
adequate daylight is received to some ground floor windows and that the side elevations are simplified through a reduction of the number of building setbacks proposed. This will result in some losses to ground floor private open space areas. Reductions to side setbacks would still enable the provision of private open spaces in excess of 20 square metres, with areas generally being between 25 square metres and 30 square metres for units 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9. It is considered that these areas will still reasonably meet the future recreational and service needs of future apartment residents, satisfying the objective of this Clause.
146
11.14 At the first and second floors apartments would be provided with balconies that are shown to be either 8 square metres or greater meeting the requirements of this Standard, however when measured some balconies (eg. unit 19) is only 7.5 square metres. The required minimum dimension of 1.6 metres would appear to be met, however not all balconies are fully dimensioned and this should be rectified by a permit condition. A condition is also recommended to ensure that all balconies achieve a minimum of 8 square metres, with the additional 0.5 square metres able to be met.
11.15 Apartment 10 would be provided with private open space within the front setback with
fencing proposed at a height of 1.5 metres. Private open spaces oriented to the street do not meet the Standard with regard to the location not able to provide adequate privacy, unless provided with high fencing which in turn reduces the integration of the development with the street. On balance, in this instance it is considered adequate, noting that the majority of the apartment building will still be visible to the street at ground level, where a length of 6.5 metres of the front fencing will be 1.5 metres high.
Standard B29 – Solar Access to Private Open Space
11.16 The objective of Clause 55.05-5 is ‘to allow solar access into the secluded private open space of new dwellings and residential buildings.’
11.17 The orientation of the land provides some challenges with enabling all private open spaces to achieve good solar orientation. Spaces oriented to the south-east boundary will therefore be impacted by shadow. Private open space at the ground floor to units 7, 8 and 9 and at first floor 17, 18 and 19 will be most affected, with these areas only receiving sunlight in the morning. The previous Tribunal decision discussed the degree of overshadowing received to 9 apartments in the previous application. The proposal has improved on the last format and it is acknowledged that in a apartment style format that it is not always possible to achieve good solar access to all dwellings. The degree of solar access achieved in the current proposal, whilst not optimal, on balance it is considered to not be fatal to the application. Clause 55.06 – Detailed Design Standard B31 – Design Detail
11.18 The objective of Clause 55.06-1 is ‘to encourage design detail that respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character’.
11.19 The proposed number of materials, colours, and different window types, combined with a significant number of staggered setbacks results in the building being over-articulated and having a busy and cluttered appearance. Referral comments received from Council’s Urban Designer strongly recommended a simplification of setbacks, materials and window types. It is considered appropriate that conditions are recommended to reduce the number of materials, colours and setbacks to simplify the facades of the building. Conditions are also recommended to provide a more suitable porch entry fitting with the architectural style of the building, and introducing a horizontal element to the front façade – off-setting the degree of vertical detail proposed to this elevation.
Standard B32 - Front Fences
147
11.20 The objective of Clause 55.06-2 is ‘to encourage front fence design that respects the
existing or preferred neighbourhood character’.
11.21 The proposal will entail a 1.5 metre high fence for a portion of the front boundary (6.5 metres length. The remainder of fencing to the front boundary will meet the required maximum 1.2 metre height, and the variation is considered reasonable, with the building able to achieve adequate integration with the street.
11.22 Current conditions at No. 31 Garfield Street entails a high brick front fence, this fence
would be replaced by 1.2 metre high fencing with brick piers and picket infill, and part of the site currently occupied by No. 33 Garfield Street would be enclosed by the proposed 1.5 metre high fencing. The proposed style of fencing is consistent with fencing in the area, with brick piers and picket infill.
Standard B34 – Site Services
11.1 The relevant objective of Clause 55.06-4 ‘to ensure that site services can be installed and easily maintained’.
11.2 An amended Waste Management Plan (WMP) is recommended by way of permit condition to ensure that bins are able to be transferred to the front of the site for collection. The WMP nominates 660 litre shared bins, however there is insufficient space between the visitor parking space No. 4 and the wall adjacent to the basement ramp to fit a 660 litre bin through. The proposed arrangement would be dependent on one of the visitor parking spaces being vacant to move bins into or out of the bin store area. A condition is recommended to show the use of 250 litre bins, with this size of bin more practical to transfer up a basement ramp in terms of weight when full. The nature strip to the front of the site is limited in area due to a street tree and electricity pole, however it will be possible to accommodate bins in double rows, which is able to be managed by Council’s collection service. An amended WMP will also be required to provide greater detail regarding responsibilities and arrangements for transferring bins to the front of the site and removing them back to the basement when emptied.
12.0 CLAUSE 52.06 – CAR PARKING 12.1 Planning Scheme Amendment VC90 amended the Kingston Planning Scheme on 5
June 2012, deleting Standard B16 – Car Parking Provision of Clause 55 and requiring all residential development to be assessed under a revised Clause 52.06 – Car Parking. Amendments to Clause 52.06 have included enhanced design standards for car parking, including requirements for the design of car spaces and basement ramps.
12.2 The proposed provision of 30 car spaces (including 4 visitor spaces) meets the
requirements of Clause 52.06 for the provision of car parking on-site for residents and visitors. While not required by the Planning Scheme for a residential building less than four storeys, the proposal also incorporates bicycle parking. Full details of racks or storage arrangements that are proposed for bicycle parking is not detailed on plans, however a condition is recommended to rectify this.
12.3 The layout of the basement car parking area is generally satisfactory, however as
discussed above in Section 11 of this report, amendments are required to waste
148
management arrangements to ensure that there is adequate circulation space for bins to be moved to and from the store area. A variation is sought to Design Standard 2 of Clause 52.06-8 with regard to the location of some columns within the basement. Columns impacting on car spaces numbered 12, 13, and 16 are located outside of the area nominated as appropriate for columns or trees, however these columns are not located within the area that is required to be free of obstruction to allow for opening car doors. Columns impacting on car spaces numbered 18, 19, 21 and 23 are located within the area that is required to be free of obstruction. Conditions are recommended to re-locate the columns to be consistent with the requirements of this design standard to maximise the useability of these spaces. Consultation with the applicant has confirmed that columns are able to be re-located without impacting upon construction requirements.
12.4 The proposed basement ramp has been assessed by Council’s Traffic Engineers and deemed satisfactory. It is also noted that a splay is proposed to front fencing enclosing the private open space of unit 10 to ensure that adequate sightlines are provided of pedestrians and vehicular traffic when cars are exiting the basement. This accords with Design Standard 1 of Clause 52.06-8 of the Kingston Planning Scheme.
12.5 A standard condition regarding car parking and access construction is recommended
to ensure that appropriate line-marking of car spaces and the two way traffic flow on the ramp is provided, along with wheel stops to the front of car spaces.
12.6 One metre blind aisles extensions (extensions to the end of an aisle) have not been
provided for car spaces numbered 1, 11 and 17. Appropriate widths are provided for each of these car spaces (2.9 metres) that would be located abutting a wall, along with an aisle width of 6.4 metres. The reversing areas for these spaces in the absence of any extension to the end of the aisle are tight. Any increase to the basement area is to be balanced against the requirements for landscaping along side boundaries which are limited. Allocation of these car spaces to one user will ensure that familiarity and relatively low frequency of movements from these spaces could justify a lesser requirement for a 500mm blind aisle extension. This is considered to be an appropriately balanced remedy and is able to be required by a permit condition. Whilst a blind aisle is not provided to the end of the space numbered 10, this car space is benefited by a larger accessway width.
12.7 Correspondence was forwarded by the applicant from KJ Traffic Engineering
Consultants, dated 22 August 2012. The correspondence provides a brief assessment of the proposed parking provision and layout, access arrangements, waste storage and bicycle parking. An assessment of the traffic generation of the proposal was not provided, however the applicant seeks to rely on the previous Tribunal decision relating to this site where traffic generation was not considered to be an issue of concern regarding that proposal for twenty-five apartments. Council’s Traffic Engineering Department did not raise concerns with regard to the additional traffic generated by the proposal. It is acknowledged that residents have advised Council that existing traffic conditions in the area are hampered by the layout of local streets restricting flow of traffic and access to and from Nepean Highway. Unfortunately these issues extend beyond the scope of this particular application and require a precinct scale response on the part of Council and VicRoads. Whilst the proposal would result in an increase in traffic in the area, this is not considered a substantive reason to
149
refuse the application, and on the basis of Council’s Traffic Engineering Department the proposed increase in traffic is deemed reasonable.
13.0 RESPONSE TO THE PREVIOUS VICTORIAN AND CIVIL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL DECISION RELATING TO THE SITE
13.1 It is considered that the current proposal has had regard to the previous decision issued by the Tribunal. That decision acknowledged that a three storey apartment building is appropriate for this site, provided it is adequately responsive to the site’s surrounds. The key issues discussed in the decision are as follows:
• Street setback and landscaping
The previous proposal did not meet the required 6.05 street setback and therefore was unable to accommodate any meaningful landscaping in the front setback. The current proposal meets the required setback and will enable the incorporation of canopy tree plantings which were considered by the Tribunal to be an important element to the streetscape quality of the area. • Design of the upper (second) storey The Tribunal decision interpreted the applicable local planning policy contained within Clause 22.01 – Cheltenham Business Centre Policy to require a well recessed upper floor, limiting its visibility from the street. The Tribunal found that the proposed 9 metre setback to the second floor (with balconies encroaching) was insufficient. The current proposal would provide a 16 metre setback to its second floor, and is considered to be an appropriate response to the Tribunal’s decision. The proposed side and rear setbacks of this floor limits the impact on adjoining properties. • Overshadowing The Tribunal expressed concern that the previous proposal had not demonstrated that it would not unreasonably overshadow the property at No. 3A Sinclair Street and that any new proposal would need to demonstrate that this has been addressed. The current proposal has demonstrated that the requirements of Standard B21 – Overshadowing of Private Opens Space, of Clause 55 of the Kingston Planning Scheme are met. • On-site amenity – solar access to private open spaces The Tribunal was not satisfied that the extent of solar access to the private open spaces of nine (9) apartments was adequate. The current proposal will result in six (6) apartments being oriented to the south-east and would receive some solar access in the morning, but will be in shadow for a notable extent of the day. Whilst this outcome is not desirable, it is noted that the number of dwellings affected has been reduced, that conditions are recommended to improve the internal amenity of these apartments is improved (with regard to daylight access) and that on balance, this should not be fatal to the overall application.
14.0 RESPONSE TO GROUNDS OF OBJECTIONS
150
14.1 The objector concerns have largely been addressed in the Executive Summary and
Appendix A and, where necessary, further elaborated on in the assessment above. 14.2 The following objector concerns, however, remain outstanding:
• Devaluation of property • Boundary fencing issues • Loss of views • The apartments will be rented out
14.3 These are not planning matters and cannot be considered in the assessment of this
application. 15.0 CONCLUSION: 15.1 The proposed development is considered appropriate for the Site, subject to
conditions, as evidenced by:
• The compatibility of the design and siting with the surrounding area; • The mitigation of off-site amenity impacts; and • A suitable level of compliance with all relevant policies, including Clause 55 of the
Kingston Planning Scheme
151
APPENDIX A – CLAUSE 55 RESCODE ASSESSMENT Standard of the Kingston Planning Scheme Two or more dwellings on a lot and residential buildings (Clause 55 and Schedule to the Residential 1 Zone)
Title and Objective Complies with Standard?
Requirement and Proposed
B1 Neighbourhood Character Design respects existing neighbourhood character or contributes to a preferred neighbourhood character. Development responds to features of the site and surrounding area.
Yes See Section 11 of this report.
B2 Residential Policy Residential development is consistent with housing policies in the SPPF, LPPF including the MSS and local planning policies. Support medium densities in areas to take advantage of public transport and community infrastructure and services.
Yes The application is consistent with local and state planning policies which seek to promote urban consolidation in areas that have ready access to community and transport infrastructure. The site is located within the Cheltenham Business Centre Policy area where medium density housing is encouraged, and where up to three storey apartment style housing can be considered.
B3 Dwelling Diversity Encourages a range of dwelling sizes and types in developments of ten or more dwellings.
Yes
The development will contain a mix of one, two and three bedroom apartments, meeting this objective. The overall style of dwellings will also meet a broader need for a greater mix of housing stock in addition to the predominant detached housing which exists in the area.
B4 Infrastructure Provides appropriate utility services and infrastructure without overloading the capacity.
Yes The site has access to adequate road and drainage infrastructure. The development will need to make application to the appropriate suppliers for water, sewerage, electricity, gas and phone services. Council’s Engineers advised of conditions to be included to ensure adequate drainage of the site and limiting offsite drainage impacts including the use of water sensitive urban design principles. A drainage pipe located in the easement at the rear of the site will not be impacted by the development, with appropriate setbacks from the pipe proposed. Access to the easement will be provided from the shared central corridor to the rear of the site.
152
Title and Objective Complies with Standard?
Requirement and Proposed
B5 Integration with the Street Integrate the layout of development with the street
Yes Whilst some high front fencing is proposed to enclose the private open space of unit 10, the majority of the ground floor including the main entry will be visible from the public realm. First and second floor windows and balconies will be oriented to the street.
B6 Street Setback The setbacks of buildings from a street respect the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and make efficient use of the site.
Yes Required: 6.05 metres Proposed: 6.1 metres First floor balconies will encroach into the street setback, with these setback at 5.39 metres. These setbacks will still allow an adequate area in the front setback for the planting of canopy trees. First floor walls will be setback 7.19 metres, providing a transition from the ground floor and alleviating the visual dominance of the building from the street. The setback of the second storey is 16 metres, reducing the prominence of this floor substantially when viewed from the street.
B7 Building Height Building height should respect the existing or preferred neighbourhood character.
Yes Maximum: 9 metres Proposed: 8.65 metres
B8 Site Coverage Site coverage should respect the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and respond to the features of the site.
Yes Maximum: 60% Proposed: 55% The proposal is able to satisfy this objective due to a good degree of reasonably generous (for an apartment style building) side and rear setbacks.
153
Title and Objective Complies with Standard?
Requirement and Proposed
B9 Permeability Reduce the impact of stormwater run-off on the drainage system and facilitate on-site stormwater infiltration.
Yes At least: 20% Proposed: 40% (as noted on plans) The proposed permeability percentage would not appear to account for the extent of basement proposed which would result in less than 40% permeability. On calculations of the extent of basement area it would appear that the proposal would achieve approximately 23%, satisfying this Standard. Whilst the Standard is met, permit conditions are recommended to reduce the impact of relatively low permeability through the implementation of water sensitive urban design principles in order to reduce stormwater runoff from the site. Rain water tanks are nominated within the basement, however their capacity has not been nominated, it is recommended that this is shown on plans. A drainage strategy will need to nominate how rainwater will be collected and re-used on site.
B10 Energy Efficiency Achieve and protect energy efficient dwellings and residential buildings. Ensure orientation and layout reduces fossil fuel energy use and makes appropriate use of daylight and solar energy.
Yes Orientation of the site provides some challenges in achieving a northern orientation for all apartments. The proposal is considered an appropriate response to the site’s orientation, with adequate opportunities to achieve daylight to windows and reduce reliance on artificial light (subject to conditions – see Standard B27 below). Six apartments will have a single aspect south-easterly orientation, and whilst not optimal it is considered that conditions to remove built form from overhanging windows will improved daylight achieved to habitable rooms. Whilst not directly associated with the requirements of this standard, weather protection is recommended to balconies to enable these spaces to be used for external clothes drying facilities, reducing reliance on dryers.
154
Title and Objective Complies with Standard?
Requirement and Proposed
B11 Open Space Integrate layout of development with any public and communal open space provided in or adjacent to the development.
N/A No communal open space proposed.
B12 Safety Layout to provide safety and security for residents and property.
Yes Adequate surveillance opportunities from the development to the street will be provided. All of the private open spaces except for unit 1 are shown to be enclosed by fencing. A condition is recommended to show fencing enclosing the yard of unit 1. A security roller shutter is proposed to the basement parking. A condition is recommended to provide lighting to all communal areas, with lighting to be baffled where required to reduce light spill to adjoining properties.
B13 Landscaping To provide appropriate landscaping. To encourage: • Development that respects the landscape
character of the neighbourhood.
• Development that maintains and enhances habitat for plants and animals in locations of habitat importance.
• The retention of mature vegetation on the site.
Yes, subject to conditions
An arborist report was submitted with the proposal providing an assessment of trees on the site. The established White Cedar at the rear and the large Eucalypt in the front setback have been deemed unsafe and/or not requiring retention. Council’s Vegetation Management Officer has recommended that the Eucalypt is appropriate to be removed, and will be required to be replaced by six (6) canopy trees within the front setback. A drainage easement at the rear of the site will require appropriate non-invasive plantings in that area. A landscape plan will be required to be provided in accordance with the above recommendations.
B14 Access Ensure the safe, manageable and convenient vehicle access to and from the development. Ensure the number and design of vehicle crossovers respects neighbourhood character.
Yes One crossover is proposed towards the site’s southern side boundary, forming 18.04% of the site’s frontage, satisfying the standard. The reinstatement of the existing crossover towards the northern side boundary will maximise on-street car parking to the front of the site. The design of the basement will enable all vehicles to leave the site in a forward direction.
B15 Parking Location Provide resident and visitor vehicles with
No All parking will be located in the basement with access to the ground and upper floors
155
Title and Objective Complies with Standard?
Requirement and Proposed
convenient parking. Avoid parking and traffic difficulties in the development and the neighbourhood. Protect residents from vehicular noise within developments.
via a lift and stairs. The kitchen window of unit 1 will be adjacent to the basement ramp. A condition is recommended to protect the window by raising its sill height to 1.4 metres. See Section 11 of this report.
B16 – no longer exists following Planning Scheme Amendment VC90 approved on 5 June 2012. B17 Side and Rear Setbacks Ensure the height and setback respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and limits the amenity impacts on existing dwellings.
Yes All ground floor setbacks exceed 1 metre meeting this Standard. At the first floor a variety of setbacks is proposed, with the minimum being 4 metres to walls and 3 metres to balconies. The first floor wall height is 5.7 metres requiring a minimum setback of 1.63 metres. This is substantially exceeded, with balconies also located outside of the minimum setback requirement. At the second floor the minimum proposed setback is 7 metres. The wall height of 8.5 metres requires a setback of 3.59 metres, with this requirement also substantially exceeded.
B18 Walls on Boundaries Ensure the location, length and height of a wall on a boundary respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and limits the amenity impacts on existing dwellings.
Yes No walls on boundaries proposed.
B19 Daylight to Existing Windows Allow adequate daylight into existing habitable room windows.
Yes All existing windows are provided with substantial setbacks.
B20 North Facing Windows Allow adequate solar access to existing north-facing habitable room windows.
Yes Existing north facing windows will not be impacted by the proposal.
156
Title and Objective Complies with Standard?
Requirement and Proposed
B21 Overshadowing Open Space Ensure buildings do not significantly overshadow existing secluded private open space.
Yes The proposal has demonstrated that overshadowing cast to adjoining properties will satisfy the requirements of this standard. At 9am shadowing will occur to No. 6 Jean Street and No. 3A Sinclair Street, the majority of shadow however will fall within the existing fence shadow, particularly with regard to No. 3A Sinclair Street. These private open spaces will receive the required minimum 5 hours of sunlight between the hours of 9am and 3pm to at least 75% of their area.
B22 Overlooking Limit views into existing secluded private open space and habitable room windows.
Yes Windows and balconies have been treated to prevent unreasonable overlooking through the treatment of obscure glazing and screening. Changes are recommended to the north-west sides of second floor balconies of units 21 and 22 to lower the height of screening in order to reduce the visual bulk on this façade. It is noted that these balconies are located 11 and 14 metres from neighbouring windows and therefore exceed the 9 metres contemplated by this Standard. Their respective setbacks and height with regard to adjoining ground floor windows at No. 29 Garfield Street mean that unreasonable overlooking will not be achieved from these balconies. Where obscured glazing is shown to habitable room windows, the type of window is not nominated or shown to be operable. A condition is recommended to show that any treated habitable room window is shown to be an awning window – allowing for ventilation whilst preventing the window being opened to an extent to allow views to adjoining private open space or windows. See discussion associated with Standard B31.
157
Title and Objective Complies with Standard?
Requirement and Proposed
B23 Internal Views Limit views into existing secluded private open space and habitable room windows of dwellings and residential buildings within the same development.
No Screening treatments between balconies have not been nominated in order to prevent internal views. A condition is recommended to show screening to prevent internal views. See Section 11 of this report.
B24 Noise Impacts Protect residents from external noise and contain noise sources in developments that may affect existing dwellings.
Yes Any noise created as a result of this proposal can be directly attributed to typical residential noises associated with typical residential land use. It is not anticipated that the proposal will result in increased noise levels internally or externally.
B25 Accessibility Consider people with limited mobility in the design of developments.
Yes The main pedestrian entrance will be accessed via a ramp, providing wheel chair access to the building. A lift is proposed to access all levels of the building and it is noted that hallway widths will accommodate wheelchair access.
B26 Dwelling Entry Provide a sense of identity to each dwelling/residential building.
Yes The main entry of the building is highly visible from the street and provides an adequate sense of identification for the building. A condition is recommended to delete the hipped roof and provide an element more fitting for the contemporary architectural language used for the rest of the building – see Standard B31 discussion.
B27 Daylight to New Windows Allow adequate daylight into new habitable room windows.
No South facing windows to some apartments will have some built form overhanging. See Section 11 of this report.
158
Title and Objective Complies with Standard?
Requirement and Proposed
B28 Private Open Space Provide reasonable recreation and service needs of residents by adequate private open space.
No Required: 40m2 for each dwelling with one part of the private open space to consist of secluded POS at the side or rear of the dwelling or residential building with a minimum area of 25m2, a minimum dimension of 3m and convenient access from a living room, OR A balcony of 8 square metres with a minimum width of 1.6 metres and convenient access from a living room, OR A roof-top area of 10m2 with a minimum width of 2m and convenient access from a living room. See Section 11 of this report.
B29 Solar Access to Open Space Allow solar access into the secluded private open space of new dwellings/buildings.
No See Section 11 of this report.
B30 Storage Provide adequate storage facilities for each dwelling.
Yes
Storage areas are nominated in the basement, they would appear to meet minimum requirements.
B31 Design Detail Encourage design detail that respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character.
No See Section 11 of this report.
B32 Front Fences Encourage front fence design that respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character. Note: The Schedule to the Residential 1 Zone includes a variation to this standard
No See Section 11 of this report.
B33 Common Property Ensure car parking, access areas and other communal open space is practical, attractive and easily maintained. Avoid future management difficulties in common ownership areas.
Yes Common property would be formed by all shared areas such as hallways and the basement. These areas are easily identifiable and capable of future management without difficulty.
159
Title and Objective Complies with Standard?
Requirement and Proposed
B34 Site Services Ensure site services and facilities can be installed and easily maintained and are accessible, adequate and attractive. Avoid future management difficulties in common ownership areas.
No A Waste Management Plan was submitted with the application nominated the use of Council waste collection services. There would appear to be insufficient circulation spaces in the basement. See Section 11 of this report.
160
Ordinary Council Meeting
17 December2012 Agenda Item No: O 210 FORSHORE RESERVE FUND Contact Officers: Jared Megens, Foreshore Coordinator
Steve Perumal, Coordinator Park Projects & Design
Purpose of Report To obtain Council approval for the expenditure of the Foreshore Reserve Fund.
Disclosure of Officer / Contractor Direct or Indirect Interest No Council officer/s and/or Contractor/s who have provided advice in relation to this report have declared a Conflict of Interest regarding the matter under consideration.
Recommendation Officers recommend that Council resolve to: 1. Approve the allocation of up to $280,000 from the Foreshore Reserve Fund to renew
moorings and a jetty at the Mordialloc Creek, and 2. Approve up to $188,000 from the Foreshore Reserve Fund to construct the final stage of
the Carrum Erosion Control Wall.
1. Executive Summary The Foreshore Reserve Fund (FRF) was established by Council in the 2010/11 financial year to provide funding for significant structural changes to improve the Kingston foreshore and foreshore amenities. Upon the adoption of the 2012/13 budget, there was $1,383,330 available in the FRF. Council approved the expenditure of $600,000 from the FRF to implement components of the Carrum Foreshore Precinct Master Plan which is currently under construction. Council also approved $915,000 for projects at Mentone, Carrum and Parkdale in the 2012/13 financial year. There is $468,000 remaining in the FRF in the 2012/13 financial year. Depending on budget discussions and decisions, $1,158,000 would be available in the 2013/14 financial year. From the remaining foreshore reserve funds in 2012/13, it is proposed to seek Council approval to fund the refurbishment of new moorings and a jetty at Mordialloc Creek, following the completion of the Mordialloc Creek dredging. It is also proposed to construct stage two of the Carrum Foreshore Precinct erosion control wall. The rock wall would be constructed to allow for a connecting boardwalk to be built once funds became available either from the FRF or from other capital works programs.
169
2. Background The Foreshore Reserve Fund (FRF) was established by Council in the 2010/11 financial year to provide funding for structural changes to improve the Kingston foreshore and foreshore amenities. The focus of the Foreshore Reserve fund was to enable Council to address a historical lack of expenditure on the foreshore, implement recommendations in the Coastal Management Plan and to be able to fund significant, regional-sized projects. The success of the fund and the projects it has been able to facilitate is evident in the improvements to the Kingston foreshore, the feedback from the community, and the award-winning projects. To date, foreshore reserve funds have been used to: 2011/12 • Develop a Carrum Foreshore Precinct Master Plan and to update foreshore
furniture, pedestrian access and build a new play space at Carrum Beach($300,000)
• Contribute to the construction of the Carrum Lifesaving Club, in partnership with Lifesaving Victoria($660,000)
• Other projects funded also include foreshore revegetation and the design and construction of additional accessible beach access boardwalks at various locations on the foreshore ($285,000)
• Foreshore public toilet block upgrades at Dixon, Mundy Streets ($200,000)
With the adoption of the 2012/13 budget, there was $1,383,330 available in the FRF. In October 2012, Council approved the use of foreshore reserve funding for:
• Naples Road, MentoneBeach Shelter Replacement ($30,000) • Antibes Street Foreshore Precinct Landscape Plan – including the Birdwood Street
public toilet block ($700,000) • Parkdale War Memorial Precinct Renovations ($40,000) • Design of the Mentone Coastal Precinct Plan ($100,000)
There is $468,000 remaining in the Foreshore Reserve Fund for the 2012/13 financial year. It is proposed that:
• $280,000 be used to refurbish boat moorings and jetty at Mordialloc Creek following
the completion of dredging works • $188,000 be used to fund the construction of the final stage of the Carrum erosion
control wall.
3. Discussion 3.1. Council Plan Alignment
Planned Outcome 2 – A sustainable environment Strategy 2.3 – Protect and enhance Kingston’s natural environment. Under action 2.3.3 Review and reinvigorate Kingston’s foreshores through implementation of the Coastal Management Plan, including: Provide and maintain coastal infrastructure to a safe standard Specific foreshore infrastructure proposals and solutions identified by the Foreshore Committee The allocation of funding from the foreshore reserve fund will allow Council to provide new, safe infrastructure at a level expected by visitors.
170
3.2. Consultation/Internal Review Public consultation has already concluded for a majority of the 2012/13 funded projects including:
• Carrum Foreshore Precinct Master Plan (under construction) • Parkdale War Memorial (under construction) • Naples Road Shelter, Mentone Beach – public consultation • Antibes Street, Parkdale Beach Precinct (preliminary plans finalised,
consultation to start after Summer) All design work has been completed for the final stage of the Carrum erosion control wall with an application for Coastal Crown Consent already lodged with the Department of Sustainability & Environment. The Hon. Donna Bauer MP has already raised this project is State Parliament with a view to seeking matching funding from the State Government. Should this be successful, the amount of money required from the Foreshore Reserve Fund for this project would decrease.
3.3. Operation and Strategic Issues
Renewal of Mooring Piles in Mordialloc Creek ($280,000) Mooring piles within Mordialloc Creek were installed in early 60’s. Since then, there has only been minor maintenance activity to replace damaged mooring piles but many of the piles have remained untouched. The timber piles are infested with Toredo or “Ship worm”. Recent dredging works completed in 2011/12 have caused the piles to break at pre-dredge bed levels due to this deterioration. Over the past decade, Mordialloc Creek has also seen a change in the size of vessels moored within the creek, resulting in excessive loads being applied to existing mooring piles. Some 100 mooring piles were replaced following the 2011 dredging campaign around Lambert Island. The timber piles were replaced with steel piles, sleeved with HDPE tubing and filled with cement-stabilised sand to provide a buffer for vessels, protection for the steel pile and also to unify the moorings for an aesthetically appealing effect rather than having a conglomeration of varying pile types, width & height. Similarly, since the completion of 2012 dredging campaign, mooring piles in the main creek have also either collapsed at pre-dredge bed levels or have simply become destabilised due to the removal of soil of up to 1.4 to 1.9m. Consolidation of the hire boat facility, which is leased from Council, has also been earmarked for completion following dredging works. Plans to provide opportunity for access to hire boats was identified by local laws and property services some four- years ago following OHS concerns regarding the existing non-standard jetty structure. The proposed works will not only address the OHS implication of the existing structure, but will also provide ramps for wheelchair access and also make provision for the incorporation of 14 additional moorings. Officers are proposing that $280,000 from the FRF be used to replace the remaining mooring piles and replace the jetty. The re-design of mooring piles and consolidation of hire boats will provide for 18 additional moorings to address, to some degree, the 179 people who are still on Council’s waiting list for moorings.
171
Carrum Foreshore Precinct Master Plan – Final Stage Erosion Control Wall ($188,000) Following the construction of the first stage of Carrum erosion control wall and wall-top boardwalk (165 linear metres), a series of severe storms destabilized the dunes between the new wall and the Carrum Surf Lifesaving Club. A temporary fence has been installed to protect the public in the most eroded sections. Given the current construction of the new Carrum Surf Lifesaving Club and play space, it is recommended that the final section of erosion control wall should be constructed to prevent further dune erosion and destabilistaion. The rock wall would be constructed to enable a borardwalk to be constructed on top of the wall although this will need to be funded from another source (either the FRF for 2013/14 or another capital works program). Constructing the boardwalk on top of the rock wall would provide a seamless, accessible link from Stephens Street to the new club and play space. Potential future foreshore reserve funding - Mentone & Mordialloc Foreshore Activity Precincts Based on the original FRF terms of reference, and building on the success of a precinct-based approach to foreshore improvements, the FRF could be used for regional foreshore precinct projects at Mentone and Mordialloc in 2013/14 and 2014/15 financial years.It is estimated that the Foreshore Reserve Fund would have $1,158,000 following the adoption of the 2013/14 budget. The following projects could be considered as part of the usual budget process for a decision by Council:
• Implementation of the Mentone Foreshore Precinct Master Plan • Carrum Foreshore Café – based on previous Council decision and subject to
final decision from Council on design details • Gnotuk Avenue/Aspendale Lifesaving Club Precinct • Replacement of Foreshore steel drum bins with more appropriate bins that
can be more easily emptied and also allow for recycling
No decision on these projects is being sought from Council as part of this report.
3.4. Options 3.4.1. Option 1- Allocation of Foreshore Reserve Funds to the Mordialloc Creek
Moorings and Carrum Foreshore Erosion Control Wall To allocate the remaining funds for 2012/13 from the Foreshore Reserve Fund to refurbish boat moorings and a jetty at Mordialloc Creek ($280,000) and to construct the final stage of the Carrum Erosion Control Wall($188,000).
3.4.2. Option 2 –Don’t approve the allocation from the Foreshore Reserve Fund If the projects listed above were unable to be funded from the FRF, funds from other sources (e.g. capital works programs) would need to be used. This would result in other projects being delayed or down-sized. If the projects were not funded, the unspent funds in the FRF will be rolled-over to the following year.
4. Conclusion
Officers recommend option is Option 1- To obtain Council approval to allocate Foreshore Reserve Funds to the Mordialloc Creek Moorings and Carrum Foreshore Erosion Control Wall.
172
4.1. Environmental Implications The construction of the final stage of the Carrum erosion control wall will provide an unbroken barrier to protect the dunes, beach and Council assets.
4.2. Social Implications The implementation of the projects listed will provide beach-goers with a unique foreshore experience. The projects will provide new, visitor friendly infrastructure resulting in improved access, facilities, infrastructure integration and connectivity. The new moorings will increase the capacity of boat moorings at Mordialloc Creek thereby improving on recreational opportunities.
4.3. Resource Implications If funding is approved for both the Mordialloc moorings and the final stage of the Carrum erosion control wall, the $468,000 remaining in the 2012/13 Foreshore Reserve Fund will be allocated.
4.4. Legal/Risk Implications
Delaying or not undertaking improvements to foreshore infrastructure will result in degrading infrastructure not being replaced increasing the risk of injury to the public and possible litigation.
Author/s: Steve Perumal, Coordinator Park Projects & Design Jared Megens, Foreshore Coordinator Reviewed and Approved By: Rachel Hornsby, General Manager Environmental Sustainability
173
Ordinary Council Meeting
17 December 2012 Agenda Item No: O 211 MORDIALLOC CREEK DREDGING, DECISION ON FUNDING Contact Officer: Peter Bain
Purpose of Report The purpose of this report is to obtain a decision on project funding for the recently completed dredging program.
Disclosure of Officer / Contractor Direct or Indirect Interest No Council officer/s and/or Contractor/s who have provided advice in relation to this report have declared a Conflict of Interest regarding the matter under consideration.
Recommendation Officers recommend that Council: 1. Receive the information 2. Approve the re-allocation of the 2013 capital works budget as detailed in this report to
fund the dredging project. 3. Continue to pursue the $300k Melbourne Water contribution.
1. Executive Summary Kingston Council is the Committee of Management for the section of the Mordialloc Creek from the mouth of the creek (effectively the high tide mark) to the railway bridge. A strategy for a dredging program of works was presented to Council on 28 March 2011. The report proposed that dredging activities take place in two stages. Stage 1 was to complete the dredging and associated works on moorings around Lambert Island by the end of 2011. Stage 2 was to complete the dredging in the remainder of the Creek, namely in the main channel from the high water mark at the mouth to the Governor Rd boat ramp by the end of 2012. Subsequently a tender was issued for the completion of Stage 1. A second report and recommendation was presented to Special Council Meeting of 4 July 2011 to accept the tender for the Lambert Island Stage 1 works. In that report the estimate for the whole program was reassessed and presented to Council. This report to Council advised the program estimate was $7.75 million with $6.0 million to be provided by the State Government as a grant and $0.3 million by Melbourne Water as a co-contribution. The existing allocated funds were $800,000 which left an unallocated shortfall of $650,000. With additional work associated with the replacement of other infrastructure including mooring poles and jetties, the removal of an additional 500m3 of sediment and the repair of the Lambert Island sea wall an additional $387,000 was required. Additionally, the expected grant commitment of $300,000 from Melbourne Water has not yet eventuated which leaves an allocated funding shortfall of $1.467 million.
174
It is proposed to cover this shortfall by deferring current road and drainage infrastructure projects.
2. Background
Kingston Council is the Committee of Management for the section of the Mordialloc Creek from the mouth of the creek, (effectively the high tide mark), to the railway bridge. Melbourne Water Corporation (MWC) is the Committee of Management for waters upstream of the railway bridge. Extensive sedimentation in the Mordialloc Creek is caused by fluvial process. Sand grains and suspended and dissolved material is transported downstream and deposited near the mouth of the creek. The Mordialloc Creek last underwent major dredging in 1997 and 1973. The creek was barely navigable in sections at low tide and the exposure of sediments containing acid sulfate soils created odour and acidity problems. The creek user community had lobbied strongly for a dredging program for some years prior to 2011. A program of works and associated consultative actions and investigations required to complete dredging was presented to Councillors in March 2011. The report proposed that dredging activities take place in two stages. Stage 1 was to complete the dredging and associated works on moorings around Lambert Island by the end of 2011. Stage 2 was to complete the dredging in the remainder of the Creek, namely in the main channel from the high water mark at the mouth to the Governor Rd boat ramp by the end of 2012. The State Government had made a commitment of $6.0 million funding which was independent of the actual cost to complete the works. Council has not had an on-going maintenance plan for dredging the creek or related harbour infrastructure. A relatively small amount had been allocated in the last 5 years for ad-hoc repairs and dredging based on 1997 costs.
3. Discussion 3.1. Commentary
3.1.1. Extra cost base One of the major costs incurred in this round of dredging and not experienced in previous dredging projects was the additional cost to dispose of the sediment to a classified contaminated material landfill site and the associated EPA disposal fees. Officers unsuccessfully appealed to the Minister for an exemption on the EPA levy which contributed $1.45 million to the costs. Previously dredged material was used at Browns Reserve and beneath the Mordialloc Sailing Club
3.1.2. Lack of an asset management plan
The creek and associated assets, including the protection for the buildings on Lambert Island, were not subject to a formal maintenance plan. As a consequence the recently completed works represent a once in 15 year major renewal of the creek. This is clearly not sustainable over the longer term.
3.1.3. Project performance
The actual dredging works were completed on-schedule and slightly under-budget. The performance of the project team to manage the numerous time and cost risks while engaging with the community groups was exemplary.
175
3.2. Recommended Actions
The proposed actions are: 1. Reduce the current year expenditure on Roads and Drains projects by the
value of $1.467 million to balance the actual dredging costs. The proposed drainage projects to defer are shown below. Other projects will be deferred in subsequent years. a. Levanto Street, Mentone - Stage 3 $450,000 b. Lower Dandenong Rd (Warren / Bundora) $400,000 c. Fraser Ave, Edithvale – Stage 1 $650,000
2. Develop a formal sustainable Asset Management Plan for the creek and associated coastal assets to ensure a balance of income and expenditure into the future. Technical improvements and cost savings in dredging and disposal of sediment to be pursued.
4. Conclusion The lack of a sustainable asset management plan has led to the need to perform major renewal works on the creek. The dredging project was delivered in accordance with the strategy and the estimate provided to Council in 2011. Variations due to additional scope have contributed 1.9 %. As no further savings were achieved, it is proposed to cover the funding shortfall by deferring current road and drainage infrastructure projects.
Author: Peter Bain, Manager Infrastructure Reviewed and Approved By: Rachel Hornsby, General Manager Environmental Sustainability
176
Ordinary Council Meeting
17 December 2012 Agenda Item No: O 212
OUTCOME OF EARLY LEARNING FACILITY UPGRADE GRANT APPLICATIONS Contact Officers: Steve Lewis & Tim Bearup ______
Purpose of Report This report seeks to advise Council on the outcome of three grant applications made under the State Government's Early Learning Facility Upgrade Programme 2013 and the implications for Council’s 5 Year Capital Works Plan.
Disclosure of Officer / Contractor Direct or Indirect Interest No Council officer/s and/or Contractor/s who have provided advice in relation to this report have declared a Conflict of Interest regarding the matter under consideration.
Recommendation: It is recommended that Council:
1. Note the recent successful outcome of three Council bids for grant funding for projects totalling $2.4 million submitted under the 2013 Early Learning Facility Upgrade Programme, namely Edithvale Integrated Children’s Centre ($1.5 million),) Kallay Street, Clayton South Redevelopment ($600K) and Terrigal Drive, Patterson Lakes expansion ($300K).
2. Refer the following proposed funding contributions for inclusion in the 2013/14 Budget and Financial Strategy deliberations, as set out in the table below.
177
Funding Breakdown for Early Years Projects 2012/13 2013-2014 2014-2015 Total
Terrigal Drive Pre-school, Patterson Lakes Council Capital Programme Funds (NB - already approved as part of Council's 2012/13 Budget) – Rate Funded
$ 375,000.00
$ 375,000.00
$ -
$ 750,000.00
DEECD Early Years Grant $ -
$ 300,000.00
$ -
$ 300,000.00
Estimated project costs for Terrigal Drive, Patterson Lakes
$ 375,000.00
$ 675,000.00
$ -
$ 1,050,000.00
Edithvale Integrated Children's Centre
DEECD Early Years Grant $ -
$ 1,500,000.00
$ -
$ 1,500,000.00
Council Capital Funding (NB - Notional Building Renewal Capital Funding recommended to be allocated from 2013/14 and 2014/15 allocations) – Rate Funded
$ -
$ 2,000,000.00
$ 1,000,000.00
$ 3,000,000.00
Other funding required (e.g. asset sales) $ -
$ 1,100,000.00
$ 1,100,000.00
Estimated project costs for Edithvale ICC $ -
$ 3,500,000.00
$ 2,100,000.00
$ 5,600,000.00
Kallay Street Redevelopment, Clayton South
DEECD Early Years Grant $ -
$ 600,000.00
$ -
$ 600,000.00
Council Capital Funding (NB - Notional Building Renewal Capital Funding recommended to be allocated from 2013/14 and 2014/15 allocations)
$ -
$ 600,000.00
$ 600,000.00
Other funding required (e.g. borrowing, asset sales, etc)
$ -
$ 610,000.00
$ 610,000.00
Estimated project costs for Kallay Street Redevelopment
$ -
$ 1,200,000.00
$ 610,000.00
$ 1,810,000.00
1. Executive Summary
1.1 Officers have recently undertaken a Strategic Review of community buildings & facilities, which has involved significant research and analysis of community service needs & demands, demographic projection and building condition & performance.
The key information from the Review was shared previously with Councillors in draft form and has been used to inform the development of a number of external grant submissions for Early Years Facility Upgrade Programme funding from State Government during 2012. These submissions were endorsed in principle by Councillors prior to their formal submission.
178
1.2 In late November 2012, State Government announced that Council's three most recent grant applications had been successful and that a total of $2.4 million was now available to support the development of new early years building infrastructure at the following three locations:-
(i) Edithvale Integrated Children Centre - to replace outdated infrastructure at Lochiel Avenue and Swanpool Avenue. Total cost of project = $5.6 million. Grant offered = $1.5 million
(ii) Clayton South Primary School - to facilitate the relocation & expansion of the existing Kallay Street Preschool. Total cost of project = $1.81 million. Grant offered = $600K
(iii) Terrigal Drive, Patterson Lakes - contribution towards the cost of creating expanded kinder facilities at the site and to add value to works already contained within the 2012/13 and 2013/14 capital programme. Total cost of project = $1,050,000. Grant offered = $300K
Council should note that these recently announced grants are in addition to the $1.8 million Early Learning Facility Upgrade Programme grants already secured by Council in 2012 for the Parkdale Community Hub and Evesham Road kinder upgrade projects. In total, $4.2 million has now been secured from this grant programme during 2012 to support the renewal of outdated early years’ infrastructure in Kingston that has been identified as a priority within the draft Strategic Review of Community Buildings & Facilities.
Copies of the concept designs and quantity surveyor estimates for each of the above projects, used to inform the Early Learning Facility Upgrade Programme grant submissions, are contained within Appendix B of this report for Council's information.
1.3 The most recent grant applications submitted in July 2012 indicated that, subject to the offer of grant assistance from State Government, Council would be prepared to consider allocation of capital resources from with the 2013/14 and 2014/15 capital programmes to support the projects, subject to Council approval.
1.4 In order to secure the grant offered and to facilitate the further planning and implementation of these important community infrastructure projects, this report seeks Council's endorsement to facilitate inclusion of the projects within the 2013/14 and 2014/15 capital works plan and to allocate the required capital resources from the Notional Building Renewal Allocations for each year, as per the following table and subject to 2013/14 Budget and Financial Strategy deliberations.
Summary Financial Breakdown of Proposed Project Funding 2012/13 2013-2014 2014-2015 Total Early Years Project - estimated costs Edithvale Integrated Children's Centre $ - $ 3,500,000.00 $ 2,100,000.00
$ 5,600,000.00
Kallay Street Redvelopment $ - $ 1,200,000.00 $ 610,000.00 $ 1,810,000.00
Terrigal Drive, Patterson Lakes $ 375,000.00 $ 675,000.00 $ -
$ 1,050,000.00
Total Estimated Project Costs $ 375,000.00 $ 5,375,000.00 $ 2,710,000.00
$ 8,460,000.00
179
Proposed Project Funding Arrangements
2012/13
2013-2014
2014-2015
Total DEECD Early Years Facility Grant $ - $ 2,400,000.00 $ -
$ 2,400,000.00
- approved Council Capital Resources - 2012/13 and 2013/14 Programmes (allocated to Terrigal Drive, Preschool project) $ 375,000.00 $ 375,000.00 $ -
$ 750,000.00
Proposed allocation from Council Capital - Notional Building Renewal Allocations for 2013/14 and 2014/15 $ - $ 2,600,000.00 $ 1,000,000.00
$ 3,600,000.00
Other funding required (to be included in Council deliberations for 2013/14 Budget and Financial Strategy) $ - $ - $ 1,710,000.00
$ 1,710,000.00
Total Project Costs $ 375,000.00 $ 5,375,000.00 $ 2,710,000.00
$ 8,460,000.00
2. Discussion
2.1 Council Plan Alignment
The proposals are consistent with the following Outcomes and Strategies from the Council Plan:
Planned Outcome 1 - Infrastructure for a Safe and Active Community
• Strategy 1.3 – Quality community facilities that are accessible, safe and well utilised.
Planned Outcome 3 – Healthy, Strong and Connected Communities
• Strategy 3.1 – Promoting family and community wellbeing and participation in
community life.
2.2 Background
Changing Government Policy
The Australian States and Territories agreed to implement the Council of Australia Governments Early Childhood Reform Agenda under the banner of the National Quality Framework (NQF) that provides for better outcomes for children. This framework includes new quality standards and regulations that services have to meet that were implemented on 1 January 2012; as well the universal access to education and care (15 hours) commencing 2013.
The implementation of the NQF requires investment in a number of initiatives including early years’ infrastructure such as kindergartens, to provide facilities that are able to cater for increased teacher to child ratios and longer program hours.
To facilitate this investment in early years’ infrastructure the State Government has recently announced the creation of a new “Early Learning Facility Upgrade Grant” in order to enhance existing early years’ facilities across the State.
180
This new program, in partnership with matching funding from Councils and other partners, will be used to enable services already providing funded kindergarten programs to:
• provide additional kindergarten places to meet increasing demand; and
• maintain other early education and care programs, especially as organisations move to implement the commitment to universal access to 15 hours per week of high quality kindergarten commencing 2013.
Renewal Need Council’s has 21 early years facilities with an average age of 55 years and an average Maloney building condition score of 6 (Fair-poor condition). Together with the above policy changes, these building condition issues presented a strong case for Council investment to facilitate renewal of these important community assets. This has been identified as an urgent and pressing issue within the draft Strategic Review of Community Buildings & Facilities.
2.3 Consultation/Internal Review
The Strategic Review of Community Buildings & Facilities has been developed in consultation with the full range of Council services/departments and has been presented to the previous Council in draft form. Using building condition data and current/future demand information, this has identified the need for renewal and/or enhancement of a children’s services facilities in a number of areas across the city.
As part of the Universal Access implementation, officers have also met with a number of kindergarten committees of management to better understand the impact of the policy changes. In addition, a number of workshops, training and information sessions and consultations have been provided to kindergartens, kindergarten cluster managers and kindergarten teachers in relation to the policy changes.
In investigating the feasibility of the concept projects submitted under the 2013 Early Learning Facility Upgrade Programme, officers have consulted with the following internal departments / staff:-
• Procurement & Contracts Department
• Property Department
• Parks Department
• Finance
The need for Early Years infrastructure improvement was also raised from the consultation undertaken during its development of the Family, Youth & Children’s Strategy.
2.4 Operation and Strategic Issues
The following issues, outlined below, were considered by officers in the context of the staging / timing of the projects:
181
2.4.1 Service access
The Universal Access to Education and Care require that kindergartens offer 15 hours of 4 year old kindergarten to children per week for 40 weeks per year. An unintended consequence of this policy is the potential displacement or reduction of approximately 56% of 3 year old kindergarten places in addition to current waiting lists.
Renewal and redevelopment of existing infrastructure to provide additional floor space allows for the maintenance and increase of 3 & 4 year old kindergarten programs.
2.4.2 Kindergarten demand
Kindergarten demand remains strong across Kingston. In some areas parents are unable to receive their preferred choice in kindergarten placement. Whilst there are currently sufficient overall places for 4 year old kindergarten across Kingston, the inability for families to access their kindergarten of choice, along with changes in the hours of kindergarten (the increase from 10 to 15 hours in 2013) and the changes in staff to child ratios (form 1:15 to 1:11), place increased pressure on the system as the current floor space will not be able to support the same number of children.
Given the current and future circumstances associated with demand, the proposed works at Edithvale, Terrigal Drive and the relocation of the Kallay Street facilities provide increased capacity to maintain and increase available places in areas of high or increasing demand and restricted accessibility.
2.4.3 Facility condition
Assessment of children’s services facilities such as kindergartens has revealed that the condition of this category of buildings is generally fair to poor, with a Maloney range of between 5-6. This indicates that there is generally a need to invest resources in these facilities over the next 3- 5 years to maintain asset performance. In addition, environmentally, all of Council’s buildings rate extremely poorly.
From a “fit for purpose” perspective, these buildings rate very poorly as, in many cases, the buildings do not meet current community expectations, industry standards or needs in terms of issues such as disabled access, office spaces, play & storage requirements.
The Edithvale facility is planned to replace existing outdated facilities at Lochiel Avenue and Swanpool Avenue, which are old, costly to maintain and impractical to renovate from a compliance perspective.
The Terrigal Drive project will utilise a vacant former Maternal Child Health Centre building, which is in fair/poor condition (Maloney rating 6), together with an under-utilised meeting room for additional kinder places. This will provide an early opportunity to create additional capacity in the south of the City and bring back into use a vacant building asset, whilst addressing increasing service needs in the southern end of Kingston.
The proposed relocation of the Kallay Street kindergarten to Clayton South Primary school will create both additional kinder places and replace a facility that is in extremely poor condition and costly to maintain and upgrade. A new facility is also expected to assist in increasing participation rates in the area as a whole.
182
2.4.4 Funding
The Early Learning Facility Upgrade Grant programme is a competitive grant which provides an opportunity for Council to supplement its finite investment in children’s facilities. In securing these grants, however, Council is now required to confirm its commitment to provide the necessary match funding set out in Council's grant submissions. This requires Council to formally allocate resources from within the 2013/14 and 2014/15 capital programmes, as well as identifying further resources totalling $1.71 million from other sources, such as potential borrowing or potential assets sales. These matters are to be considered during the upcoming budget deliberations.
2.4.5 Service continuation
Service continuation is often a major consideration for any early years facility upgrade project. In order to maintain services to children/parents, the use of temporary facilities and/or complete service relocation is often required. The three projects submitted for funding under the Early Learning Facility Upgrade Programme in 2013 all involve work on facilities that do not require service relocations and, as such, can be implemented with minimal impact on existing services, which will physically relocate to these new facilities once available for occupation. This will avoid significant costs and timing delays associated with working on live sites and/or facilitating service relocations during construction works.
2.5 Options
There are two options in relation to this report. These are:-
(i) Option 1 - That Council notes the grant offers from State Government and decides to decline them.
The implications to Council of this option are:-
• loss of opportunity to address ageing infrastructure and to maximise external funding to assist in this process,
• failure to prepare for impending regulatory changes in kinder services,
• increased displacement of 3year old kinder places and, post 2016, 4 year old kinder places,
• inability of parents to access their kinder of choice,
• reputational/media issues for Council.
(ii) Option 2 - That Council accepts the grant offers from State Government and endorses the inclusion of the projects within the 2013/14 and 2014/15 capital programmes, subject to 2013 Budget and Financial Strategy deliberations.
The implications to Council of this option are:-
• Requires the allocation of capital resources from 2013/14 and 2014/15 capital Works Plan.
• Council will need to consider as part of the deliberations on the 2013/14 Budget how the current gap of $1.71million in capital funding will be met from other sources such as asset sales, etc.
183
• Council will be making strategic investments in areas of the City that are experiencing service pressures for early years services
3. Conclusion
In light of the above operational issues, and in order to maximise much needed investment into priority Council facilities, Officers request that Council:-
(i) Note the recent successful outcome of three Council bids for grant funding for projects at totalling $2.4 million submitted under the 2013 Early Learning Facility Upgrade Programme. Namely Edithvale Integrated Children’s Centre ($1.5 million),) Kallay Street, Clayton South Redevelopment ($600K) and Terrigal Drive, Patterson Lakes ($300K).
(ii) Refer the following funding proposed contributions for inclusion the 2013/14 Budget and Financial Strategy deliberations, as set out in the following table.
184
Funding Breakdown for Early Years Projects 2012/13 2013-2014 2014-2015 Total
Terrigal Drive Pre-school, Patterson Lakes Council Capital Programme Funds (NB - already approved as part of Council's 2012/13 Budget)
$ 375,000.00
$ 375,000.00
$ -
$ 750,000.00
DEECD Early Years Grant $ -
$ 300,000.00
$ -
$ 300,000.00
Estimated project costs for Terrigal Drive, Patterson Lakes
$ 375,000.00
$ 675,000.00
$ -
$ 1,050,000.00
Edithvale Integrated Children's Centre
DEECD Early Years Grant $ -
$ 1,500,000.00
$ -
$ 1,500,000.00
Council Capital Funding (NB - Notional Building Renewal Capital Funding recommended to be allocated from 2013/14 and 2014/15 allocations)
$ -
$ 2,000,000.00
$ 1,000,000.00
$ 3,000,000.00
Other funding required (e.g. borrowing, asset sales, etc)
$ -
$ 1,100,000.00
$ 1,100,000.00
Estimated project costs for Edithvale ICC $ -
$ 3,500,000.00
$ 2,100,000.00
$ 5,600,000.00
Kallay Street Redevelopment, Clayton South
DEECD Early Years Grant $ -
$ 600,000.00
$ -
$ 600,000.00
Council Capital Funding (NB - Notional Building Renewal Capital Funding recommended to be allocated from 2013/14 and 2014/15 allocations)
$ -
$ 600,000.00
$ 600,000.00
Other funding required (e.g. borrowing, asset sales, etc)
$ -
$ 610,000.00
$ 610,000.00
Estimated project costs for Kallay Street $ -
$ 1,200,000.00
$ 610,000.00
$ 1,810,000.00
3.1 Environmental Implications The proposed building renewal projects contained within this report have been designed in line with contemporary environmentally sustainable design (ESD) principles.
3.2 Social Implications Council has a major role to play in the implementation of the National Quality Framework (NQF) through the provision of children’s services facilities that meet community demand and are fit-for-purpose allowing community partners to deliver these much needed and highly valued services.
185
The draft Strategic Review of Community Buildings & Facilities has identified that there is significant and increasing demand pressure for early years’ services across the City. These proposed projects will assist in achieving improved early years infrastructure to meet current and future needs.
3.3 Legal / Risk Implications The main legal risk issue arising from this report relates to the proposed relocation of the Kallay Street kindergarten to Clayton South Primary School. This will involve Council entering into a standard peppercorn lease with the Department of Education & Early Childhood Development (DEECD) which Council will expect to be for a minimum of 50 years (30+20). This is similar to the arrangements being pursued for the Parkdale Hub and the school involved has already provided formal letter of support for the project as part of the grant submission process. As such, this risk is considered low to moderate and officers are confident that the access to the required leased site will be secured during early 2013.
Developing community facilities on land owned by the Minister for Education has a number of inherent challenges. Notably, the requirement to enter into leasing and joint use arrangements in order to secure access to the site can be a complex, costly and time consuming process. Council’s interest in the land is for a fixed and finite term and is ultimately at the discretion of the Minister. Importantly however, there are also a number of significant benefits to developing on school sites. Council has access to the relevant land at a nominal (peppercorn) rent, is not required to fund its own expensive land acquisition and does not need to reduce reserves of existing open space within the municipality in order to accommodate the development of facilities / expand service provision. The development of community facilities on school sites is strongly supported by both State and Federal governments who recognize the potential for positive synergies between early years education / community space and schools in instances where complimentary services are provided. Opportunities to attract State Government funding to assist with the development of community facilities (particularly Early Years facilities) exist where those facilities are proposed to be developed on school sites. Sharing sites ensures best value use of government resources, avoids duplication of investment and supports the principle of sustainability. It is important to note however, that sharing is not an end in itself but a means to a better use of land – it may not be appropriate for all types of facility and should be considered by Council on a case by case basis. Failure to undertake the proposed enhancements may impact as follows:-
(i) Loss of potential funding/resources to renew ageing infrastructure;
(ii) Constrained opportunities to provide appropriate levels of services to the local community; and
(iii) Reputational & public perception risks associated with failure to deliver universal access to 15 hours per week of high quality kindergarten in the year before school by 2013.
4. Appendices
Appendix A
Financial Breakdown of Proposed Project Funding
186
Appendix B
Concept Plans and Quantity Surveyor Cost Plan Stage A Estimates for:-
(i) Terrigal Drive Kindergarten Upgrade Project
(ii) Edithvale Integrated Children’s Centre Project
(iii) Clayton South Early Years Centre
Author/s: Steve Lewis, Manager Community Buildings Tim Bearup, Acting Manager Family, youth & Children’s Services
Reviewed and Approved By: Mauro Bolin, General Manager Community Sustainability
187
Appendix A : Financial Breakdown of Proposed Project Funding
Financial Breakdown of Proposed Project Funding 2012/13 2013-2014 2014-2015 Total
Early Years Projects
Edithvale Integrated Children's Centre $ -
$ 3,500,000.00
$ 2,100,000.00
$ 5,600,000.00
Kallay Street Redvelopment $ -
$ 1,200,000.00
$ 610,000.00
$ 1,810,000.00
Terrigal Drive, Patterson Lakes $ 375,000.00
$ 675,000.00
$ -
$ 1,050,000.00
Total Project Costs $ 375,000.00
$ 5,375,000.00
$ 2,710,000.00
$ 8,460,000.00
Proposed Funding Arrangements 2012/13 2013-2014 2014-2015 Total
DEECD Grant - Edithvale Integrated Children's Centre
$ -
$ 1,500,000.00
$ -
$ 1,500,000.00
DEECD Grant - Kallay Street Redvelopment
$ -
$ 600,000.00
$ -
$ 600,000.00
DEECD Grant - Terrigal Drive, Patterson Lakes
$ -
$ 300,000.00
$ -
$ 300,000.00
Terrigal Drive, Patterson Lakes - approved Council Capital Resources - 2012/13 and 2013/14 Programmes
$ 375,000.00
$ 375,000.00
$ -
$ 750,000.00
Edithvale Childrens Centre - Proposed allocation from Council Capital - Notional Building Renewal Allocation
$ -
$ 2,000,000.00
$ 1,000,000.00
$ 3,000,000.00
Kallay Street Redevelopment - Proposed allocation from Council Capital - Notional Building Renewal Allocation
$ -
$ 600,000.00
$ -
$ 600,000.00
Edithvale Childrens Centre - Other funding required (to be included in Council deliberations for 2013/14 Budget and Financial Strategy)
$ -
$ -
$ 1,100,000.00
$ 1,100,000.00
Kallay Street Redevelopment - Other funding required (to be included in Council deliberations for 2013/14 Budget and Financial Strategy)
$ -
$ -
$ 610,000.00
$ 610,000.00
Total Project Costs $ 375,000.00
$ 5,375,000.00
$ 2,710,000.00
$ 8,460,000.00
188
Appendix B : Concept Plans and Quantity Surveyor Cost Plan Stage A Estimates
(i) Terrigal Drive Kindergarten Upgrade, Patterson Lakes
• Concept Floor-plans • Quantity Surveyor Cost Plan A
189
190
191
192
(i) Edithvale Integrated Children’s Centre
• Artist Impression • Concept Floor-plans • Quantity Surveyor Cost Plan A
193
194
195
196
197
198
(ii) Clayton South Early Years Centre
• Concept Floor-plans • Quantity Surveyor Cost Plan A
199
200
201
202
Ordinary Council Meeting
17 December 2012 Agenda Item No: O 213 CCTV SYSTEMS FOR MOORABBIN AND ASPENDALE Contact Officer: Manager, Community & Aged Services, Rob Crispin
Purpose of Report This report seeks Council’s determination whether to submit a proposal to the Minister for Justice for funding CCTV cameras in Aspendale and Moorabbin in response to a State Government election commitment.
Disclosure of Officer / Contractor Direct or Indirect Interest No Council officer/s and/or contractor/s who have provided advice in relation to this report have declared a conflict of interest regarding the matter under consideration.
Recommendation Officers recommend that Council:
1. Submit CCTV funding proposals to deliver CCTV camera systems in Aspendale and Moorabbin and that these requests include total project funding for the purchase, installation, maintenance and other associated resources required over the five year life of the project.
2. Implement state funded CCTV projects only when the total costs of the projects are funded.
3. Executive Summary
Council continues to contribute through its Community Safety Strategy to a safer community through a range of activities and services that promote and provide a safer and more secure environment for the people who live, work and visit in Kingston. Funding of $350,000 has been offered by the Victorian Government to fulfill election commitments for CCTV cameras to be installed in Aspendale and Moorabbin. Council officers, with the advice from Victoria Police and with specialist technical advice from Council’s consultant, conducted an assessment to determine the optimal placement for CCTV in these locations and have developed proposals for the installation of CCTV systems at:
• the foreshore car park off Gnotuk Avenue, Aspendale (Attachment A); • the bus interchange off Station Street, Moorabbin (Attachment B); and • the exterior of the affordable housing complex at 999 Nepean Hwy, Moorabbin
(Attachment B). Acquiring funding for CCTV cameras to be installed in the above locations will demonstrate Council’s ongoing commitment to enhancing the safety and wellbeing of the Kingston community and will contribute to making Kingston a safer city. However, without complete State Government funding to implement CCTV, Council would need to allocate an additional budget of $32,000 per year for five years (totaling $160,000) to meet ongoing maintenance and staffing costs to effectively introduce and operate the camera system.
203
4. Background
This report has been prepared in response to $350,000 of funding offered by the State Government to install CCTV cameras at Moorabbin and Aspendale in Kingston through election commitments by the Victorian Government. Background to the funding has not been readily available during the development of the funding proposals, including:
• what components of the establishment and operation of CCTV will and will not be funded as part of the election commitment;
• why Aspendale and Moorabbin have been identified as the locations where the CCTV is to be installed;
• the particular areas or behaviours/crimes of concern in Aspendale and Moorabbin; and • why CCTV cameras would be the best response to these concerns.
CCTV System Locations Council has prepared funding proposals for CCTV to be installed in Aspendale and Moorabbin.Council officers with CCTV consultants and Police conducted an assessment of the best placement for CCTV in these locations and have developed proposals for the specific installation of CCTV systems at:
• the foreshore car park off Gnotuk Avenue, Aspendale (Attachment A); • the bus interchange off Station Street, Moorabbin (Attachment B); and • the exterior of the affordable housing complex at 999 Nepean Hwy, Moorabbin
(Attachment B). Council has planned infrastructure improvements such as lighting, footpaths, and aesthetic improvements etc. at all three of these sites. The installation of CCTV will complement these improvements.
Partnership with Victoria Police The funding proposals are for CCTV systems that will be owned and managed by Council with footage made available to police upon request. The footage will be of a quality that police can use as evidence in court. The local police are not supportive of a CCTV system that transmits live footage to a local police station, as their resources are more effectively used undertaking other policing activities. Further, local police are concerned about the unrealistic expectation that such a system may create in relation to police monitoring the footage and responding immediately. However, local police are supportive of Council’s operation of the CCTV system.
Aspendale CCTV System Gnotuk Avenue car park in Aspendale is the only designated beach car park between Mordialloc and Chelsea and is a popular location for beach goers. Its close proximity to the train station at Aspendale also encourages a high volume of pedestrian traffic during the summer months. Corresponding with the increased activity in the area is an increase in anti-social and criminal behaviour, which is disruptive and distressing for residents and visitors alike.
Council and police have been working together to address this issue since the summer of 2009/10, however some issues continue to arise each summer. It is proposed that Council improve on measures already undertaken to manage these issues by introducing four public surveillance cameras that have a field of view to cover the car park, and replacement of an existing inadequate camera currently monitoring the boom gate with two new cameras to capture the activity at the gate and the license plates of the vehicles passing through.
This project has the dual objectives of reducing the possibility for crime and anti-social behaviour to occur; and improving the perceptions of safety of people using the beaches along this part of the foreshore at Aspendale.
Moorabbin CCTV System A new affordable housing complex which accommodates 75 single and two bedroom apartments has been built at 999 Nepean Highway and this is considered a good site for the
204
proposed CCTV location in Moorabbin. A further 49 units have been built approximately 120 meters away; across the City of Kingston boundary, in the City of Glen Eira.
While the establishment of the two housing developments will no doubt bring with it many capable guardians to watch over the location, it is presumed that such a large increase in residents in such a small area may well cause an increase in crime at this location. Further, significant environmental and design issues identified by Council officers as well as Victoria Police contribute to public perceptions that this is an unsafe area.
A safety audit undertaken by Victoria Police and Council officers identified the potential for crime and anti-social behaviour to increase as the surrounding population increases. Walkways leading to and from underground car-parks are potential entrapment zones and present attractive conditions for loitering and anti-social behaviour. Lighting in this area is inadequate and has little effect on preventing anti-social behaviour.
With increased numbers of people living in this precinct, safe access to and from the train station and other forms of public transport is critical. The proposal includes the installation of CCTV cameras along the pathway that runs alongside the affordable housing complex to the train station; between the affordable housing complex and the underground car park of the Kingston Arts Centre; and at the Bus Interchange in Station Street.
CCTV in these locations will improve security for people in the area and encourage increased confidence of citizens to access public transport and move around the exterior of the housing complex.
5. Discussion
5.1. Council Plan Alignment Planned Outcome 1- Infrastructure for a Safe and Active Community. Strategy 1.5 - An urban environment that is safe and promotes a positive sense of security. Council’s Community Safety Strategy 2009-2012 was developed to enhance safety and security within the Kingston community by identifying priority areas for action and by working in partnership with key emergency services. The Strategy incorporates crime and injury prevention as well as broader quality of life and wellbeing issues. It covers the areas of home and personal safety and promotes peoples’ confidence to participate fully in the life of their community without fear of, or actual, harm or injury. The installation of CCTV cameras in conjunction with the infrastructure works planned for all three sites will enhance safety and give residents and visitors the confidence to utilise these public spaces.
5.2. Consultation/Internal Review Council officers consulted with Kingston’s Community Safety Reference Group, the Foreshore Behaviour Planning Forum and the Mordialloc Police Focus Group and were provided with in-principle support for the initiatives from these groups. The members were supportive of CCTV cameras being used as part of a broader response to local precincts, such as infrastructure works to improve safety and community building programs.
The Victoria Police Inspector of the Kingston Police Service Area supports the initiative (Attachment C). Consultations were also held specific to each of the proposed sites. Port Phillip Housing Association (Attachment D) and Metro Trains were consulted in relation to the proposed Moorabbin initiatives from these groups; and United Energy and the residents surrounding the Gnotuk Avenue foreshore car park were consulted in relation to the Aspendale initiative. Council officers have also worked with the Victoria Police Crime Prevention Officer in conducting community safety audits at the Aspendale and Moorabbin sites. Consultations have also taken place with key departments across Council (Strategic Planning, Local Laws, Parks and Gardens). All of these have endorsed the proposals for funding and the Port Phillip
205
Housing Association has indicated its agreement to establish a Memorandum of Understanding with Council in relation to the establishment of cameras on its building.
Local MP Endorsement
In principle support has also been provided by the Member for Bentleigh, Elizabeth Miller, at a meeting to discuss the Moorabbin proposal with Council officers. The Member for Carrum, Donna Bauer, has supported the Aspendale proposal.
Operation and Strategic Issues
5.2.1. Parameters of the funding The offer of election commitment funding through the Department of Justice was very brief in the description of how the funds were intended to be spent. Officers sought to identify whether the funding reserve could be used flexibly for community safety initiatives but the Department of Justice confirmed that the use of the funds are solely for CCTV in the nominated areas. Consequently, Council officers have prepared funding proposals that incorporate all items associated with the purchase, installation and maintenance of CCTV in the preferred locations for an operational life of five years.
Representatives from the Department of Justice have more recently indicated in a meeting held on 21 November 2012 that the funding is only available for the purchase and installation of CCTV cameras and not for the maintenance or resources required for the project to be completed. Should the Minister choose not to fund these aspects of the project, Council would have to contribute approximately $160,000 to deliver the project at the proposed locations over a five year period.
Should the cameras be installed, it is intended that a review of the effectiveness of the CCTV system be conducted at the end of the operational life of the project to enable Council to determine the merit of continuing to provide CCTV surveillance as its own undertaking in the selected locations.
5.2.2. Risk Management The Victorian Ombudsman has released a draft Closed Circuit Television in Public Places Guidelines. These guidelines recommend that Council develop a CCTV camera policy for any CCTV owned by Council. Further, it recommends Council develop standard operating procedures, a CCTV code of practice, audit and evaluation mechanisms, a complaint handling process and organise an operator training program. If funding is received for the project, these documents would be developed with resources applied for as part of the funding application. If Council does not receive funding for the project, these documents will have to be developed within existing resources to mitigate Council’s risk in the operation of the CCTV cameras it already owns. These include mobile cameras to detect rubbish dumping, fixed cameras at Gnotuk reserve and the Strand, Chelsea.
The use of the CCTV images will be strictly controlled by Council and will comply with the standards expected by the Department of Justice.
5.3. Options 5.3.1. Option 1
That Council submits the two CCTV funding proposals that request total project funding, including the purchase, installation, maintenance and resources required to deliver the project over a five year project life.
The benefit of this option is that the entire project costs are funded, including the development of the CCTV Policy and associated documents, which will manage Council’s risks in relation to owning and managing CCTV systems
206
and improve safety in these locations by complementing Council’s infrastructure works.
The risk of this option is that the proposals may not be fully funded.
5.3.2. Option 2 That Council submits funding proposals through the Department of Justice only for the purchase and installation of CCTV cameras in Aspendale and Moorabbin and commits to fund $160,000 out of Council’s budget for the maintenance and staff resource required to deliver the project over a five year period.
The benefit of this option is that the proposal is more likely to be funded and the perceptions of safety will be improved in the proposed locations.
The risk of this option is that Council will need to identify its funding source to meet the project cost shortfall.
5.3.3. Option 3 That Council does not submit the funding proposals.
The benefit of this option is that there will be no additional financial cost to Council.
The risk of this option is that the community will not have the added safety measure of CCTV cameras in the proposed locations. Council will also need to develop a CCTV Camera Policy and associated documents within existing resources.
6. Conclusion
Officers recommend that Council submit the funding proposals as a complete package, including the purchase, installation, maintenance and other resources required to deliver the project over five years. The funding amount sought of $324,593.50 which includes the maintenance and resources required to deliver the project over the life of the project is within the $350,000 available election commitment.
6.1. Environmental Implications All of the work has taken into account the impact on the environment. The work has been developed according to Crime Prevention through Environmental Design Principles and will contribute to a more pleasant physical environment for the Kingston community.
6.2. Social Implications The proposed infrastructure work will improve safety for the residents who live and work and use the amenities around the identified locations by providing police with an evidentiary tool to prosecute offenders that commit offences. The installation of CCTV cameras may also improve community perceptions of safety; however the community may also have privacy concerns regarding the use of CCTV. There is also the risk that the community will have unrealistic expectations of the effectiveness of CCTV systems.
207
6.3. Resource Implications $350,000 is available through the Department of Justice to install CCTV at these sites.
Purchase and installation of CCTV system at Aspendale $59,800 Purchase and installation of CCTV system at Moorabbin $68,400 Total cost of purchase and installation of CCTV system $128,200 Maintenance over 5 years $85,640 Resources required to implement the project $81,245 10% contingency and associated promotion activities $29,508.50 Total Project Cost $324,593.50
6.4. Legal / Risk Implications The Victorian Ombudsman has developed a Closed Circuit Television in Public Places Guidelines (Guidelines), which recommend Council develop a Policy around the use of CCTV if the Council owns CCTV systems. The Policy should outline the purpose; compliance with legislation; resources; collection of CCTV data; relationship with Victoria Police; requests for CCTV data; disclosure; data security; records; disposal; privacy; inappropriate use; breach of policy; and accountability, audit and evaluation. Further, the Guidelines also recommend Council develop standard operating procedures; a CCTV Code of Practice; audit and evaluation mechanisms; a complaint handling process; and organising an operator training program. A part time officer resource is Included as part of the proposal for funding to create these documents to ensure Council is responsibly managing risk in relation to its CCTV systems.
7. Attachments
7.1 Attachment A - Map overview of Aspendale location [TRIM 12/111298]
7.2 Attachment B - Map overview of Moorabbin location [TRIM 12/123889]
7.3 Attachment C - Letter of support Victoria Police Inspector for Kingston Police Service Area (PSA) [TRIM 12/111058]
7.4 Attachment D - Letter of support Port Phillip Housing Association (PPHA) [TRIM 12/112320]
Author: Gillian Turnbull, Community Wellbeing Officer Reviewed and Approved By: Mauro Bolin, General Manager, Community Sustainability
208
Attachment A
R O W Y
R O W Y
R O W Y
R O W Y
R O W Y
R O W Y
R O W Y
R O W Y
R O W Y
UNNAMED
UNNAMED
UNNAMED
UNNAMED
UNNAMED
UNNAMED
UNNAMED
UNNAMED
UNNAMED
142141
1/ 139
137
4
35
144
1413
5
2/
3/ 184
149-151
152
2/ 1
4
4
2
4/ 184
1/ 179
3/ 179A
2/ 179A
1/ 179A1804/ 179A
6/ 179A7/ 179A
179 179A
179
5/ 1782
2/ 177
3/ 18
13/ 165-166
167-168
172
174-175
1/ 173A
176
3/ 173A
4/ 174-175
1/ 1A176A
42
3
1
157-159
160
161-164
148
147
146
145
144
143
2/ 1432
6
6160-1791/ 4
5
3B3A
6/ 174-175
7/ 10
2/ 173
147
16/ 148
12
97
5
10A
6
4
1
142
35
7
2
4
3
6
2
8
5
7/ 4
Aspendale Train StationAspendale Train Station
Gnotuk Avenue
0 50 100
meters
MapXtreme 2008 ® SDK Developer License, © 2009 Pitney Bowes Sof tware Inc .
TITLE Sub-Title
Contains VicMap information © The State of Victoria, Department of Sustainability and Environment,
2010. Reproduced by permission of DSE. All reasonable effort is taken to keep the information presented by the on-line mapping system accurate and up-to-date, however NO WARRANTY is given that is free from error or omission. The information is
presented as a guide only. For Definitive information on Planning Scheme or properties please contact the City Of Kingston Customer Service Centre. 12 Dec. 12
209
RAIL
WAY
CR
ESRA
ILW
AY C
RES
RAIL
WAY
CR
ESRA
ILW
AY C
RES
RAIL
WAY
CR
ESRA
ILW
AY C
RES
RAIL
WAY
CR
ESRA
ILW
AY C
RES
RAIL
WAY
CR
ES
R O W R O W R O W R O W R O W R O W R O W R O W R O W
CENTRAL AVCENTRAL AVCENTRAL AVCENTRAL AVCENTRAL AVCENTRAL AVCENTRAL AVCENTRAL AVCENTRAL AV
STAT
ION
STR
EET
STAT
ION
STR
EET
STAT
ION
STR
EET
STAT
ION
STR
EET
STAT
ION
STR
EET
STAT
ION
STR
EET
STAT
ION
STR
EET
STAT
ION
STR
EET
STAT
ION
STR
EET
MAC
S L
ANE
MAC
S L
ANE
MAC
S L
ANE
MAC
S L
ANE
MAC
S L
ANE
MAC
S L
ANE
MAC
S L
ANE
MAC
S L
ANE
MAC
S L
ANE
RBIE STREET
RBIE STREET
RBIE STREET
RBIE STREET
RBIE STREET
RBIE STREET
RBIE STREET
RBIE STREET
RBIE STREET
BARR
Y S
TBA
RRY
ST
BARR
Y S
TBA
RRY
ST
BARR
Y S
TBA
RRY
ST
BARR
Y S
TBA
RRY
ST
BARR
Y S
T
LER STREETLER STREETLER STREETLER STREETLER STREETLER STREETLER STREETLER STREETLER STREET
ETTA
STR
EET
ETTA
STR
EET
ETTA
STR
EET
ETTA
STR
EET
ETTA
STR
EET
ETTA
STR
EET
ETTA
STR
EET
ETTA
STR
EET
ETTA
STR
EET
360A54
56
52504846
42
451
2A
3/ 2
4/ 2-
5/ 2-4
459455
2/ 437-441
6
2-4
4
1
2
509/ 358A
427 429
1/ 12/ 13/ 14/ 1
3
358
417
5/ 999
30-32
28
22
18-20
40
36
7-
4-6
7/ 88
4/ 8
6
1/ 82/ 83/ 8
11A7
10
12
2
2A
4
916
912
908
930-934
3/ 294/ 29
18-20 262/ 1614
922-924
920
1/ 292/ 29
1715A15
90214B
898
2/ 894
864
892
888-890
886884
880
874870
866
862
1
21
1/ 8
7/ 8
11A
18
12
14A
16
6A/ 854
1/ 844
973
0 25 50
meters
MapXtreme 2008 ® SDK Developer License, © 2009 Pitney Bowes Sof tware Inc .
TITLE Sub-Title
Contains VicMap information © The State of Victoria, Department of Sustainability and Environment,
2010. Reproduced by permission of DSE. All reasonable effort is taken to keep the information presented by the on-line mapping system accurate and up-to-date, however NO WARRANTY is given that is free from error or omission. The information is
presented as a guide only. For Definitive information on Planning Scheme or properties please contact the City Of Kingston Customer Service Centre. 12 Dec. 12
Site A
Site B
Attachment B
210
Kingston PSA No. 2 Division
Southern Metro Region
1011-1013 Nepean Hwy Moorabbin 3189
Victoria, Australia DX 212140
Telephone 9556 6186 Facsimile 95566500
Email [email protected] Community Wellbeing Co-ordinator City of Kingston 1230 Nepean Highway Cheltenham Vic 3194 14 October, 2012 My name is Tim Hansen and I am the Local Area Commander for the Kingston Police Service Area (PSA). I have been contacted by the Kingston City Council in relation to their funding application in support of CCTV camera installation at Moorabbin and Aspendale. The affordable housing complex near the corner of South Road and Nepean Hwy, Moorabbin has seen a significant increase in the number of residents living within that precinct in a high density environment. With an expansion of residents there has been an increase in activity in and around the nearby Moorabbin Public Transport Interchange. The public safety and crime activity that occurs around public transport hubs generally is also reflected at Moorabbin and this has assisted in the Police Service Area recording increases of 7.1% for public place assaults a 2.5% increase in property crime and a lowly 18% night time safety perception on public transport (NSCSP survey). In response the PSA has contributed increased police patrols around this area in an attempt to reduce crime and reassure residents. Gnotuck Ave, Aspendale has historically been a public order hot spot throughout the summer months. This beachside, public carpark can attract large numbers of young people on warmer nights who engage in hoon behaviour and other acts of anti social behaviour. The carpark is closed after 9pm and over summer months is subject to extensive police patrols, however there is evidence to suggest access is being gained to the carpark and criminal activity is occurring there outside of this time. I support the installation of CCTV cameras which should provide the following benefits to all stakeholders;
Compliment current Victoria Police operations at these two locations (Taskforce 27 & Operation Beachsafe)
Assist investigators in solving reported crime Reduce incidents of anti-social behaviour and crime Increase perceptions of public safety
Yours faithfully Tim Hansen Inspector, Kingston Local Area Commander
Attachment C
211
Dear Dominic Re: CCTV Moorabbin – new housing complex 358A South Road It was good to meet up with you at 358A South Road to discuss community safety in the area. There are 75 apartments and over the last 6 months there have been approximately 45,000 tenant entries into our building, this excludes visitors. The human activity in this area is high. As you know we have recently installed CCTV which covers PPHA internally. The reason for the increase in security is to make sure our tenants, visitors and staff can live and work in a safe and secure environment. Our tenants have welcomed the added security as they do feel safer and already we have assisted the police with an incident. Our security contractor (Omega) subsequently met with you on site to help design additional CCTV to further improve community safety. The extra coverage in this area will help with the following: reduction in tagging, anti-sociable behavior and vandalism, increase perception of safety, protection for commuters to and from the station and dumping of rubbish. PPHA would like to keep the two systems separate from each other for the following reason: you can maintain the system and data yourself and not be reliant on PPHA. The contractor has given us an option, please see the attached scope of works. PPHA can support you by allowing a secure location which you can access at any time and access to the building for the installation of your cables, cameras and internet connection etc. If you have any queries pls contact me on the details below. Yours Sincerely Alan Datt Asset Manager Port Phillip Housing Association Ltd Suite 6, 22-28 Fitzroy Street, St Kilda, 3182 W) 03 95367809 M) 0408536797 F) 03 95341944 E-mail: [email protected]
Attachment D
212
Ordinary Meeting of Council
17 December 2012 Agenda Item No: O 214 ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS RECORD Contact Officer: Phil DeLosa Trim: 12/130713 ______
Purpose of Report To provide copies of the Assembly of Councillors records in line with Section 80A of the Local Government Act to support openness and transparency of Governance processes.
Disclosure of Officer / Contractor Direct or Indirect Interest No Council officer/s and/or Contractor/s who have provided advice in relation to this report have declared a Conflict of Interest regarding the matter under consideration.
Recommendation That Council note the contents of this report for the public record.
1. Executive Summary
This report contains records for all meetings defined as an Assembly of Councillors under the Local Government Act 1989, Section 80A.
2. Background
The Local Government Act requires that Assembly of Councillors records are reported to the next possible Council Meeting. This seeks to promote openness and transparency of Council decision making and to place on public record any declarations of direct or indirect interests by Councillors and / or officers.
3. Discussion
3.1. Council Plan Alignment Strategy 5.3 – Sound governance and responsible financial leadership.
The reporting of Assembly of Councillors meets the requirements of the Local Government Act and is critical to Strategy 5.3.
3.2. Consultation/Internal Review Not applicable to this report.
3.3. Operation and Strategic Issues The Chief Executive Officer must ensure that a written record is kept of every Assembly of Councillors. These records must be reported to the next Ordinary Council Meeting.
213
The written record only needs to be a simple document that records: • The names of all Councillors and staff at the meeting, • A list of the matters considered, • Any conflict of interest disclosed by a Councillor; and • Whether a Councillor who disclosed a conflict left the room. A standard Assembly of Councillors form will generally be used as the record for the purposes of the Act. These form the attachment to the report. At times however to avoid duplication minutes of some meetings may be attached as the record of the Assembly if they include the required information, including disclosures. Section 80A of the Act requires a Councillor attending an assembly to disclose a conflict of interest and leave the room whilst the matter is being considered.
This requirement is explained in further detail in Practice Note No. 6 Assemblies of Councillors which was authored by Local Government Victoria. This Practice Note advises that unlike Council meetings, it is not necessary for a Councillor to disclose any details of the conflict of interest. It is sufficient to just disclose that the conflict of interest exists and this is all that should be recorded.
The rationale behind this limited requirement is to protect Councillors’ privacy. In Council or Special Committee meetings, Councillors have an option under the Act to disclose a conflict of interest in writing to the CEO, which allows for the nature and type of the conflict of interest to remain private. The Act does not provide this option in relation to Assemblies of Councillors and thus Councillors are only required to disclose the existence of a conflict of interest and not the nature and type of interest at an assembly.
3.4. Options (Use this section as required) Not applicable to this report
4. Conclusion
The report is provided in line with the Local Government Act Section 80A which requires that the record of an assembly must be reported to the next practical Ordinary Council Meeting and recorded in the minutes of that meeting. 4.1. Environmental Implications
Nil
4.2. Social Implications Nil
4.3. Resource Implications
Nil
4.4. Legal / Risk Implications Nil
5. Appendices
5.1. Appendix 1 – Assembly of Councillors records
Date of Assembly Reason of Assembly
22 November 2012 Councillors’ Welcome Meeting (3) 4 December 2012 Cheltenham Village Committee Meeting 4 December 2012 Mordialloc Village Committee Meeting
214
4 December 2012 Mentone/Parkdale Village Committee 5 December 2012 Patterson Lakes/Carrum Village Committee
Meeting 6 December 2012 Aspendale/Edithvale/Aspendale
Gardens/Waterways Village Committee Meeting 10 December 2012 Councillor Information Session
Author/s: Stephanie O’Gorman, Governance Officer Reviewed and Approved By: Elaine Sowerby, General Manager Organisational
Development and Governance
215
Assembly details: Date: 22/11/12 Time: 5.45pm Assembly Location: Oakleigh Room, 1230 Nepean Hwy,
Cheltenham Assembly Reason: Councillors Welcome Meeting (3) Attendees: Councillor/s: Cr Ron Brownlees OAM Cr Tamara Barth Cr Tamsin Bearsley Cr David Eden Cr Geoff Gledhill Cr Paul Peulich Cr Rosemary West OAM Officer/s: John Nevins Anthony Basford Mauro Bolin Paul Franklin Rachel Hornsby Phil DeLosa Angela Granter Apologies: Cr John Ronke Cr Steve Staikos Matter/s Discussed: Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Did senior officer present ask for disclosure of Conflicts of Interest? Yes Councillor Disclosures: (refer 2 over page). Record if a Councillor left the meeting during the discussion. Cr Brownlees declared an indirect conflict of in relation to Moorabbin Reserve, which is contained in the Issues Papers and left the meeting between 7.10pm and 7.18pm. Officer Disclosures: (refer 4 over page) Nil Completed by: Angela Granter Date: 26/11/12
216
Assembly of Councillors Record - Any record of an Assembly of Councillors is reported at next practicable Council meeting and recorded in the Minutes. Requirements and explanation: 1. Section 80A(1) and (2) Officer Requirements (re Written Record to be made of disclosure of
Conflicts of Interest):
Section 80A(1) and (2) of the Local Government Act 1989, stipulates: “1. At an assembly of Councillors, the Chief Executive Officer must ensure that a written record is kept of:
(a) the names of all Councillors and members of Council staff attending, (b) the matters considered,
(c) any conflict of interest disclosures made by a Councillor attending under subsection (3).”
“2. The Chief Executive Officer must ensure that the written record on an assembly of Councillors is: (a) kept for a period of 4 years after the date of the assembly; and (b) made available for public inspection at the Offices of the Council for a period of 12 months after the date of
the Assembly.” 2. Section 80A(3) and (4) Councillor Requirements (re Conflict of Interest):
Section 80A(3) and (4) of the Local Government Act 1989, stipulates:
“3. If a Councillor attending an assembly of Councillors knows that a matter being considered by the assembly is a matter that, were the matter to be considered and decided by Council, the Councillor would have to disclose a conflict of interest under section 79, the Councillor must, at the time set out in subsections (4), disclose to the assembly that he or she has a conflict of interest and leave the assembly whilst the matter is being considered by the assembly.
(4) A Councillor must disclose the conflict of interest either: (a) immediately before the matter in relation to which the Councillor has a conflict of interest is considered, or (b) if the Councillor realises that he or she has a conflict of interest after consideration of the matter has begun,
as soon as the Councillor becomes aware that he or she has a conflict of interest” 3. Section 76AA definition:
As amended in Section 8 Local Government & Planning Legislation Bill 2010 “Assembly of Councillors” (however titled) means a planned or scheduled meeting of at least 5 Councillors and one member of Council staff, or an advisory committee of the Council where one or more Councillors are present 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; or
but does not include a meeting of the Council , a Special Committee of the Council, a club, association, peak body, political party or other organisation.”
Brief Explanation:
Some examples of an Assembly of Councillors will include:-
- Meeting / briefing of five Ward Councillors; - Advisory committee or Village Committee Meeting where 1 or more Councillor is present - Other Councillor briefing sessions; - Budget discussions; - Workshops re key Council priorities; - Site inspections / preliminary planning conferences;
providing at least 5 Councillors and 1 Council Staff member is present and the matter/s considered are intended or likely to be subject of a future decision by the Council OR an officer decision under delegated authority.
As a matter of good practice, it would be considered exceptional not to deem any scheduled / planned meeting of five or more Councillors and an officer/s as an Assembly of Councillors. If you require further clarification, please call the Manager Governance and Performance Planning. 4. Section 80B Officer Requirements (re Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest):
As amended in Section 18 Local Government & Planning Legislation Bill 2010 A member of Council staff who has a conflict of interest in a matter in which they also have delegated power, duty or function must: - not exercise the power or discharge the duty or function; and - disclose the type of interest and the nature of the interest to the Chief Executive Officer,
in writing, as soon as he or she becomes aware of the conflict of interest in the matter, including those situations when the Officer is exercising a statutory power or duty of the CEO.
217
Assembly details: Cheltenham Village Committee Meeting Date: 4 December 2012 Time: 7.00pm Assembly Location: 1230 Nepean Highway, Cheltenham Assembly Reason: Village Committee Meeting Attendees: Councillor/s: Cr Geoff Gledhill Officer/s: Newton Gatoff, Team Leader Property Services Apologies: Simon Libbis, Cheltenham Village Committee Chairperson Matter/s Discussed: Public Health and Safety Consultation 10,000 Raingardens Initiative Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Did senior officer present ask for disclosure of Conflicts of Interest? Yes Councillor Disclosures: (refer 2 over page). Record if a Councillor left the meeting during the discussion. Officer Disclosures: (refer 4 over page) Completed by: Stephanie O’Gorman Date: 11 December 2012
218
Assembly of Councillors Record - Any record of an Assembly of Councillors is reported at next practicable Council meeting and recorded in the Minutes. Requirements and explanation: 1. Section 80A(1) and (2) Officer Requirements (re Written Record to be made of disclosure of
Conflicts of Interest):
Section 80A(1) and (2) of the Local Government Act 1989, stipulates: “(1) At an assembly of Councillors, the Chief Executive Officer must ensure that a written record is kept of:
(a) the names of all Councillors and members of Council staff attending, (b) the matters considered,
(c) any conflict of interest disclosures made by a Councillor attending under subsection (3), (d) whether a Councillor who has disclosed a conflict of interest as required by subsection (3) leaves the
assembly.”
(2) The Chief Executive Officer must ensure that the written record of an assembly of Councillors is, as soon as practicable-
(a) reported at an ordinary meeting of the Council; and (b) incorporated in the minutes of that Council meeting.”
2. Section 80A(3) and (4) Councillor Requirements (re Conflict of Interest):
Section 80A(3) and (4) of the Local Government Act 1989, stipulates:
“(3) If a Councillor attending an assembly of Councillors knows, or would reasonably be expected to know, that a matter being considered by the assembly is a matter that, were the matter to be considered and decided by Council, the Councillor would have to disclose a conflict of interest under section 79, the Councillor must, at the time set out in subsection (4), disclose to the assembly that he or she has a conflict of interest and leave the assembly whilst the matter is being considered by the assembly. Penalty: 120 penalty units.
(4) A Councillor must disclose the conflict of interest either- (a) immediately before the matter in relation to which the Councillor has a conflict of interest is considered; or (b) if the Councillor realises that he or she has a conflict of interest after consideration of the matter has begun,
as soon as the Councillor becomes aware that he or she has a conflict of interest.” 3. Section 76AA definition:
“Assembly of Councillors” (however titled) means a planned or scheduled meeting of at least five Councillors and one member of Council staff, or an advisory committee of the Council where one or more Councillors are present 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; or
but does not include a meeting of the Council , a Special Committee of the Council, a club, association, peak body, political party or other organisation.”
Brief Explanation:
Some examples of an Assembly of Councillors will include:-
- Meeting / briefing of five Ward Councillors; - Advisory committee or Village Committee Meeting where 1 or more Councillor is present - Other Councillor briefing sessions; - Budget discussions; - Workshops re key Council priorities; - Site inspections / preliminary planning conferences;
providing at least five Councillors and one Council Staff member is present and the matter/s considered are intended or likely to be subject of a future decision by the Council OR an officer decision under delegated authority.
As a matter of good practice, it would be considered exceptional not to deem any scheduled / planned meeting of five or more Councillors and an officer/s as an Assembly of Councillors. If you require further clarification, please call the Manager Governance and Performance Planning. 4. Section 80B Officer Requirements (re Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest):
A member of Council staff who has a conflict of interest in a matter in which they also have delegated power, duty or function must: - not exercise the power or discharge the duty or function; and
- disclose the type of interest and the nature of the interest to the Chief Executive Officer, in writing, as soon as he or she becomes aware of the conflict of interest in the matter, including those situations when the Officer is exercising a statutory power or duty of the Chief Executive Officer.
219
Assembly details: Mordialloc Village Committee Meeting Date: 4 December 2012 Time: 6.30pm Assembly Location: Mordialloc Neighbourhood House Assembly Reason: Village Committee Meeting Attendees: Mordialloc Village Committee Members Councillor/s: Cr Rosemary West Cr Geoff Gledhill Officer/s: Lin Dawes, Jonathan Guttmann, Manager City Strategy Apologies: Matter/s Discussed: Public Health & Safety Consultation Proposed District Playground at George Woods Reserve Mordialloc 10,000 Raingardens Initiative Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Did senior officer present ask for disclosure of Conflicts of Interest? Yes Councillor Disclosures: (refer 2 over page). Record if a Councillor left the meeting during the discussion. Officer Disclosures: (refer 4 over page) Completed by: Stephanie O’Gorman, Governance Officer Date: 11 December 2012
220
Assembly of Councillors Record - Any record of an Assembly of Councillors is reported at next practicable Council meeting and recorded in the Minutes. Requirements and explanation: 1. Section 80A(1) and (2) Officer Requirements (re Written Record to be made of disclosure of
Conflicts of Interest):
Section 80A(1) and (2) of the Local Government Act 1989, stipulates: “(1) At an assembly of Councillors, the Chief Executive Officer must ensure that a written record is kept of:
(a) the names of all Councillors and members of Council staff attending, (b) the matters considered,
(c) any conflict of interest disclosures made by a Councillor attending under subsection (3), (d) whether a Councillor who has disclosed a conflict of interest as required by subsection (3) leaves the
assembly.”
(2) The Chief Executive Officer must ensure that the written record of an assembly of Councillors is, as soon as practicable-
(a) reported at an ordinary meeting of the Council; and (b) incorporated in the minutes of that Council meeting.”
2. Section 80A(3) and (4) Councillor Requirements (re Conflict of Interest):
Section 80A(3) and (4) of the Local Government Act 1989, stipulates:
“(3) If a Councillor attending an assembly of Councillors knows, or would reasonably be expected to know, that a matter being considered by the assembly is a matter that, were the matter to be considered and decided by Council, the Councillor would have to disclose a conflict of interest under section 79, the Councillor must, at the time set out in subsection (4), disclose to the assembly that he or she has a conflict of interest and leave the assembly whilst the matter is being considered by the assembly. Penalty: 120 penalty units.
(4) A Councillor must disclose the conflict of interest either- (a) immediately before the matter in relation to which the Councillor has a conflict of interest is considered; or (b) if the Councillor realises that he or she has a conflict of interest after consideration of the matter has begun,
as soon as the Councillor becomes aware that he or she has a conflict of interest.” 3. Section 76AA definition:
“Assembly of Councillors” (however titled) means a planned or scheduled meeting of at least five Councillors and one member of Council staff, or an advisory committee of the Council where one or more Councillors are present 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; or
but does not include a meeting of the Council , a Special Committee of the Council, a club, association, peak body, political party or other organisation.”
Brief Explanation:
Some examples of an Assembly of Councillors will include:-
- Meeting / briefing of five Ward Councillors; - Advisory committee or Village Committee Meeting where 1 or more Councillor is present - Other Councillor briefing sessions; - Budget discussions; - Workshops re key Council priorities; - Site inspections / preliminary planning conferences;
providing at least five Councillors and one Council Staff member is present and the matter/s considered are intended or likely to be subject of a future decision by the Council OR an officer decision under delegated authority.
As a matter of good practice, it would be considered exceptional not to deem any scheduled / planned meeting of five or more Councillors and an officer/s as an Assembly of Councillors. If you require further clarification, please call the Manager Governance and Performance Planning. 4. Section 80B Officer Requirements (re Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest):
A member of Council staff who has a conflict of interest in a matter in which they also have delegated power, duty or function must: - not exercise the power or discharge the duty or function; and
- disclose the type of interest and the nature of the interest to the Chief Executive Officer, in writing, as soon as he or she becomes aware of the conflict of interest in the matter, including those situations when the Officer is exercising a statutory power or duty of the Chief Executive Officer.
221
Assembly details: Mentone/Parkdale Village Committee Date: 4 December 2012 Time: 6.00pm Assembly Location: Mentone Office Assembly Reason: Village Committee Meeting Attendees: Dorothy Booth, Vern Costelow, Peter Davis, Veronica Hahn, RegMarlow, Penny McGuire White, Robyn Nolan, Noelene Quinsey, Barbara Taylor, Gaye Townsend, Bernadette Tucker Councillor/s: Cr Rosemary West OAM Cr Geoff Gledhill Officer/s: Bernard Byrden, Manager Finance Morgan Henley, Administration Officer Communications & Public Affairs Apologies: Claire Houston Matter/s Discussed:
1. Apologies and Notes of Meeting of 4 September 2012
2. Declaration by Committee Members, Councillors or Officers of any Conflict of Interest
3. Items for Discussion
a)
b) Public Health & Safety Consultation – Nicole Malina & Susan
Heywood
c) 10,000 Raingardens Initiative – Advisory Officer
d) What has been done or can be done to remove the the very large amount of advertising on the glass windows of Genesis Gym and Mentone Bowling Club - Dorothy
222
e) What moves have been made to make the Nylex clock functional – Dorothy
f) Council collection of “used” Christmas trees – Barbara
g) Amendment C124 to Mentone Activity Centre. Could someone from
the Planning Department come and explain what this means. – Dorothy
h) Issues with the new toilets/change rooms at the Mentone Lifesaving
Club – Robyn
4. Verbal Reports from Delegates representing the Village Committee on other Committees/Projects
5. Review of Village Committee Action Items 6. Urgent Business 7. Highlight
Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Did senior officer present ask for disclosure of Conflicts of Interest? Yes Councillor Disclosures: (refer 2 over page). Record if a Councillor left the meeting during the discussion. Officer Disclosures: (refer 4 over page) Completed by: Stephanie O’Gorman, Governance Officer Date: 11 December 2012
223
Assembly of Councillors Record - Any record of an Assembly of Councillors is reported at next practicable Council meeting and recorded in the Minutes. Requirements and explanation: 1. Section 80A(1) and (2) Officer Requirements (re Written Record to be made of disclosure of
Conflicts of Interest):
Section 80A(1) and (2) of the Local Government Act 1989, stipulates: “(1) At an assembly of Councillors, the Chief Executive Officer must ensure that a written record is kept of:
(a) the names of all Councillors and members of Council staff attending, (b) the matters considered,
(c) any conflict of interest disclosures made by a Councillor attending under subsection (3), (d) whether a Councillor who has disclosed a conflict of interest as required by subsection (3) leaves the
assembly.”
(2) The Chief Executive Officer must ensure that the written record of an assembly of Councillors is, as soon as practicable-
(a) reported at an ordinary meeting of the Council; and (b) incorporated in the minutes of that Council meeting.”
2. Section 80A(3) and (4) Councillor Requirements (re Conflict of Interest):
Section 80A(3) and (4) of the Local Government Act 1989, stipulates:
“(3) If a Councillor attending an assembly of Councillors knows, or would reasonably be expected to know, that a matter being considered by the assembly is a matter that, were the matter to be considered and decided by Council, the Councillor would have to disclose a conflict of interest under section 79, the Councillor must, at the time set out in subsection (4), disclose to the assembly that he or she has a conflict of interest and leave the assembly whilst the matter is being considered by the assembly. Penalty: 120 penalty units.
(4) A Councillor must disclose the conflict of interest either- (a) immediately before the matter in relation to which the Councillor has a conflict of interest is considered; or (b) if the Councillor realises that he or she has a conflict of interest after consideration of the matter has begun,
as soon as the Councillor becomes aware that he or she has a conflict of interest.” 3. Section 76AA definition:
“Assembly of Councillors” (however titled) means a planned or scheduled meeting of at least five Councillors and one member of Council staff, or an advisory committee of the Council where one or more Councillors are present 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; or
but does not include a meeting of the Council , a Special Committee of the Council, a club, association, peak body, political party or other organisation.”
Brief Explanation:
Some examples of an Assembly of Councillors will include:-
- Meeting / briefing of five Ward Councillors; - Advisory committee or Village Committee Meeting where 1 or more Councillor is present - Other Councillor briefing sessions; - Budget discussions; - Workshops re key Council priorities; - Site inspections / preliminary planning conferences;
providing at least five Councillors and one Council Staff member is present and the matter/s considered are intended or likely to be subject of a future decision by the Council OR an officer decision under delegated authority.
As a matter of good practice, it would be considered exceptional not to deem any scheduled / planned meeting of five or more Councillors and an officer/s as an Assembly of Councillors. If you require further clarification, please call the Manager Governance and Performance Planning. 4. Section 80B Officer Requirements (re Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest):
A member of Council staff who has a conflict of interest in a matter in which they also have delegated power, duty or function must: - not exercise the power or discharge the duty or function; and
- disclose the type of interest and the nature of the interest to the Chief Executive Officer, in writing, as soon as he or she becomes aware of the conflict of interest in the matter, including those situations when the Officer is exercising a statutory power or duty of the Chief Executive Officer.
224
Assembly details: Patterson Lakes Village Committee Date: 5 December 2012 Time: 7.15pm Assembly Location: Patterson Lakes Community Centre Assembly Reason: Village Committee Meeting Attendees: Malcolm Dunkinson, Patrick King, Gwen Gilbert, Gail Ricato, Irma Shelton, Marie Chapman, Robyn McRae Councillor/s: Cr Tamsin Bearsley Officer/s: Trish Smyth, Manager Libraries and Education Adele Sheeran, Library Officer Apologies: Glen Baker and Judy Wilks Matter/s Discussed: Refer to Agenda Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Did senior officer present ask for disclosure of Conflicts of Interest? Yes Councillor Disclosures: (refer 2 over page). Nil. Record if a Councillor left the meeting during the discussion. NA Officer Disclosures: (refer 4 over page) Nil. Completed by: Stephanie O’Gorman Date: 12 December 2012
225
Assembly of Councillors Record - Any record of an Assembly of Councillors is reported at next practicable Council meeting and recorded in the Minutes. Requirements and explanation: 1. Section 80A(1) and (2) Officer Requirements (re Written Record to be made of disclosure of
Conflicts of Interest):
Section 80A(1) and (2) of the Local Government Act 1989, stipulates: “(1) At an assembly of Councillors, the Chief Executive Officer must ensure that a written record is kept of:
(a) the names of all Councillors and members of Council staff attending, (b) the matters considered,
(c) any conflict of interest disclosures made by a Councillor attending under subsection (3), (d) whether a Councillor who has disclosed a conflict of interest as required by subsection (3) leaves the
assembly.”
(2) The Chief Executive Officer must ensure that the written record of an assembly of Councillors is, as soon as practicable-
(a) reported at an ordinary meeting of the Council; and (b) incorporated in the minutes of that Council meeting.”
2. Section 80A(3) and (4) Councillor Requirements (re Conflict of Interest):
Section 80A(3) and (4) of the Local Government Act 1989, stipulates:
“(3) If a Councillor attending an assembly of Councillors knows, or would reasonably be expected to know, that a matter being considered by the assembly is a matter that, were the matter to be considered and decided by Council, the Councillor would have to disclose a conflict of interest under section 79, the Councillor must, at the time set out in subsection (4), disclose to the assembly that he or she has a conflict of interest and leave the assembly whilst the matter is being considered by the assembly. Penalty: 120 penalty units.
(4) A Councillor must disclose the conflict of interest either- (a) immediately before the matter in relation to which the Councillor has a conflict of interest is considered; or (b) if the Councillor realises that he or she has a conflict of interest after consideration of the matter has begun,
as soon as the Councillor becomes aware that he or she has a conflict of interest.” 3. Section 76AA definition:
“Assembly of Councillors” (however titled) means a planned or scheduled meeting of at least five Councillors and one member of Council staff, or an advisory committee of the Council where one or more Councillors are present 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; or
but does not include a meeting of the Council , a Special Committee of the Council, a club, association, peak body, political party or other organisation.”
Brief Explanation:
Some examples of an Assembly of Councillors will include:-
- Meeting / briefing of five Ward Councillors; - Advisory committee or Village Committee Meeting where 1 or more Councillor is present - Other Councillor briefing sessions; - Budget discussions; - Workshops re key Council priorities; - Site inspections / preliminary planning conferences;
providing at least five Councillors and one Council Staff member is present and the matter/s considered are intended or likely to be subject of a future decision by the Council OR an officer decision under delegated authority.
As a matter of good practice, it would be considered exceptional not to deem any scheduled / planned meeting of five or more Councillors and an officer/s as an Assembly of Councillors. If you require further clarification, please call the Manager Governance and Performance Planning. 4. Section 80B Officer Requirements (re Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest):
A member of Council staff who has a conflict of interest in a matter in which they also have delegated power, duty or function must: - not exercise the power or discharge the duty or function; and
- disclose the type of interest and the nature of the interest to the Chief Executive Officer, in writing, as soon as he or she becomes aware of the conflict of interest in the matter, including those situations when the Officer is exercising a statutory power or duty of the Chief Executive Officer.
226
Assembly details: Date: ……6…/…12…/…2012….… Time: ……7pm – 8.40pm……..p.m. Assembly Location: Aspendale Gardens Community Centre – Kearny Drive. Assembly Reason: Aspendale Village Committee Meeting Attendees: James Middleton Henry Corcoran Diana Donohue Kenneth Carney Jillian Campbell Ray Burgoyne Councillor/s: Cr Tamsin Bearsly Officer/s: Tim Bearup A/Manager Family Youth and Childrens Services, Paul Franklin General Manager Corporate Services Apologies: Matter/s Discussed: Refer to Trim 12/132158 Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Did senior officer present ask for disclosure of Conflicts of Interest? Yes Councillor Disclosures: (refer 2 over page). None Record if a Councillor left the meeting during the discussion. NA Officer Disclosures: (refer 4 over page) None Completed by: Tim Bearup Date: …6…/…12…/…2012.…
227
Assembly of Councillors Record - Any record of an Assembly of Councillors is reported at next practicable Council meeting and recorded in the Minutes. Requirements and explanation: 1. Section 80A(1) and (2) Officer Requirements (re Written Record to be made of disclosure of
Conflicts of Interest):
Section 80A(1) and (2) of the Local Government Act 1989, stipulates: “(1) At an assembly of Councillors, the Chief Executive Officer must ensure that a written record is kept of:
(a) the names of all Councillors and members of Council staff attending, (b) the matters considered,
(c) any conflict of interest disclosures made by a Councillor attending under subsection (3), (d) whether a Councillor who has disclosed a conflict of interest as required by subsection (3) leaves the
assembly.”
(2) The Chief Executive Officer must ensure that the written record of an assembly of Councillors is, as soon as practicable-
(a) reported at an ordinary meeting of the Council; and (b) incorporated in the minutes of that Council meeting.”
2. Section 80A(3) and (4) Councillor Requirements (re Conflict of Interest):
Section 80A(3) and (4) of the Local Government Act 1989, stipulates:
“(3) If a Councillor attending an assembly of Councillors knows, or would reasonably be expected to know, that a matter being considered by the assembly is a matter that, were the matter to be considered and decided by Council, the Councillor would have to disclose a conflict of interest under section 79, the Councillor must, at the time set out in subsection (4), disclose to the assembly that he or she has a conflict of interest and leave the assembly whilst the matter is being considered by the assembly. Penalty: 120 penalty units.
(4) A Councillor must disclose the conflict of interest either- (a) immediately before the matter in relation to which the Councillor has a conflict of interest is considered; or (b) if the Councillor realises that he or she has a conflict of interest after consideration of the matter has begun,
as soon as the Councillor becomes aware that he or she has a conflict of interest.” 3. Section 76AA definition:
“Assembly of Councillors” (however titled) means a planned or scheduled meeting of at least five Councillors and one member of Council staff, or an advisory committee of the Council where one or more Councillors are present 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; or
but does not include a meeting of the Council , a Special Committee of the Council, a club, association, peak body, political party or other organisation.”
Brief Explanation:
Some examples of an Assembly of Councillors will include:-
- Meeting / briefing of five Ward Councillors; - Advisory committee or Village Committee Meeting where 1 or more Councillor is present - Other Councillor briefing sessions; - Budget discussions; - Workshops re key Council priorities; - Site inspections / preliminary planning conferences;
providing at least five Councillors and one Council Staff member is present and the matter/s considered are intended or likely to be subject of a future decision by the Council OR an officer decision under delegated authority.
As a matter of good practice, it would be considered exceptional not to deem any scheduled / planned meeting of five or more Councillors and an officer/s as an Assembly of Councillors. If you require further clarification, please call the Manager Governance and Performance Planning. 4. Section 80B Officer Requirements (re Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest):
A member of Council staff who has a conflict of interest in a matter in which they also have delegated power, duty or function must: - not exercise the power or discharge the duty or function; and
- disclose the type of interest and the nature of the interest to the Chief Executive Officer, in writing, as soon as he or she becomes aware of the conflict of interest in the matter, including those situations when the Officer is exercising a statutory power or duty of the Chief Executive Officer.
228
Assembly details: Councillor Information Session Date: 10 December 2012 Time: 5.45pm Assembly Location: Oakleigh Room, 1230 Nepean Highway Cheltenham Assembly Reason: CIS Attendees: Councillor/s: Cr Ron Brownlees OAM Cr Tamara Barth Cr Tamsin Bearsley Cr David Eden Cr Geoff Gledhill Cr Paul Peulich (arrived at 8.09pm) Cr Steve Staikos Cr Rosemary West OAM
Officer/s: John Nevins, Chief Executive Officer Mauro Bolin, General Manager Community Sustainability Paul Franklin, General Manager Corporate Services Rachel Hornsby, General Manager Environmental Sustainability Anthony Basford, Acting General Manager Organisational Development & Governance Sarah Bishop, Manager Communications & Public Affairs Phil De Losa, Program Leader Governance Ian Nice, Manager City Development Hannah McBride Burgess, Team Leader Statutory Planning Nicole Worsley, Team Leader Statutory Planning Robyn Cochrane, Program Leader LivingKingston 2035 Peter Bain, Manager Infrastructure Steve Lewis, Manager Community Buildings Tim Bearup, Acting Manager Family, Youth & Children’s Services Steve Perumal, Coordinator Park Projects & Design Jared Megens, Foreshore Coordinator Tim Ford, Horticulture Supervisor
229
Apologies: Cr John Ronke Matter/s Discussed: As per CIS Agenda. Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Did senior officer present ask for disclosure of Conflicts of Interest? Yes Councillor Disclosures: (refer 2 over page). Cr Staikos disclosed a conflict of interest in Item 14. Briefing: The Cove Hotel Application for Additional Gaming Machines and left the room at 7.04pm before any discussion on the matter.
Record if a Councillor left the meeting during the discussion. Cr Staikos left the room before discussion of the above item. Officer Disclosures: (refer 4 over page) Nil. Completed by: Stephanie O’Gorman Date: 12 December 2012
230
Assembly of Councillors Record - Any record of an Assembly of Councillors is reported at next practicable Council meeting and recorded in the Minutes. Requirements and explanation: 1. Section 80A(1) and (2) Officer Requirements (re Written Record to be made of disclosure of
Conflicts of Interest):
Section 80A(1) and (2) of the Local Government Act 1989, stipulates: “(1) At an assembly of Councillors, the Chief Executive Officer must ensure that a written record is kept of:
(a) the names of all Councillors and members of Council staff attending, (b) the matters considered,
(c) any conflict of interest disclosures made by a Councillor attending under subsection (3), (d) whether a Councillor who has disclosed a conflict of interest as required by subsection (3) leaves the
assembly.”
(2) The Chief Executive Officer must ensure that the written record of an assembly of Councillors is, as soon as practicable-
(a) reported at an ordinary meeting of the Council; and (b) incorporated in the minutes of that Council meeting.”
2. Section 80A(3) and (4) Councillor Requirements (re Conflict of Interest):
Section 80A(3) and (4) of the Local Government Act 1989, stipulates:
“(3) If a Councillor attending an assembly of Councillors knows, or would reasonably be expected to know, that a matter being considered by the assembly is a matter that, were the matter to be considered and decided by Council, the Councillor would have to disclose a conflict of interest under section 79, the Councillor must, at the time set out in subsection (4), disclose to the assembly that he or she has a conflict of interest and leave the assembly whilst the matter is being considered by the assembly. Penalty: 120 penalty units.
(4) A Councillor must disclose the conflict of interest either- (a) immediately before the matter in relation to which the Councillor has a conflict of interest is considered; or (b) if the Councillor realises that he or she has a conflict of interest after consideration of the matter has begun,
as soon as the Councillor becomes aware that he or she has a conflict of interest.” 3. Section 76AA definition:
“Assembly of Councillors” (however titled) means a planned or scheduled meeting of at least five Councillors and one member of Council staff, or an advisory committee of the Council where one or more Councillors are present 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; or
but does not include a meeting of the Council , a Special Committee of the Council, a club, association, peak body, political party or other organisation.”
Brief Explanation:
Some examples of an Assembly of Councillors will include:-
- Meeting / briefing of five Ward Councillors; - Advisory committee or Village Committee Meeting where 1 or more Councillor is present - Other Councillor briefing sessions; - Budget discussions; - Workshops re key Council priorities; - Site inspections / preliminary planning conferences;
providing at least five Councillors and one Council Staff member is present and the matter/s considered are intended or likely to be subject of a future decision by the Council OR an officer decision under delegated authority.
As a matter of good practice, it would be considered exceptional not to deem any scheduled / planned meeting of five or more Councillors and an officer/s as an Assembly of Councillors. If you require further clarification, please call the Manager Governance and Performance Planning. 4. Section 80B Officer Requirements (re Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest):
A member of Council staff who has a conflict of interest in a matter in which they also have delegated power, duty or function must: - not exercise the power or discharge the duty or function; and
- disclose the type of interest and the nature of the interest to the Chief Executive Officer, in writing, as soon as he or she becomes aware of the conflict of interest in the matter, including those situations when the Officer is exercising a statutory power or duty of the Chief Executive Officer.
231
Ordinary Council Meeting
17 December 2012 Agenda Item No: O 215 EXPENDITURE OF WARD FUNDS SCHEDULE Contact Officer: Angela Granter Trim: 12/130720
Purpose of Report To seek Council approval of the expenditure of ward funds in accordance with Council’s approved ‘Expenditure of Ward Funds Policy’ and the Local Government Act 1989.
Disclosure of Officer / Contractor Direct or Indirect Interest No Council officer/s and/or Contractor/s who have provided advice in relation to this report have declared a Conflict of Interest regarding the matter under consideration.
Recommendation That Council:
1. Approve the expenditure of ward funds in accordance with the table of Councillor requests.
1. Executive Summary This report presents individual Councillor requests for the expenditure of ward funds and seeks approval of the ward fund expenditure requests for individual Councillors as required under Council’s ‘Expenditure of Ward Fund Policy’ (the Policy) and Sections 76E and 98 of the Local Government Act 1989. This is in line with the standard process.
2. Background The expenditure of Ward funds is regulated by the Council resolution on 23 March 2009 where Council adopted a revised Policy for the Expenditure of Ward Funds. Each financial year during a Council term, Kingston Councillors are allocated $6,000 in ward funds for utilisation in accordance with the adopted policy. Part 2 of the Policy, which outlines the limitations on the expenditure of ward funds, specifies that Councillors may propose that ward funds be allocated for initiatives that aim to: “a) assist a recognised community group (including sporting/recreational body,
arts/cultural group, charity, youth group, pre-school, playgroup, senior citizens club, historical society, friendship group, environmental group, trader organisation or toy library) which provides a service, program or activity used by or of benefit to Kingston residents;
b) assist an individual who is a resident of the City of Kingston to participate in a
sporting, recreational or cultural activity, or other pursuit of a personal development nature, or who is in necessitous circumstances;
232
c) Support an event or activity which will be of benefit or interest to residents of the City of Kingston;
d) Support the key external themes of enhancement of the physical environment
or the development of community well being, identified in the Council Plan.” It should be noted that the policy also enables a Ward Councillor to propose that his / her ward funds be expended outside of the Councillor’s specific ward, provided that the ward funds are expended for the benefit of the Kingston community, and that one or more of the criteria set out above are met. To be lawful under the Local Government Act 1989 and in accordance with Council’s Policy, all expenditure of Ward Funds must be approved by Council decision. Council has two types of carryover – between financial years and between Councils.
3. Discussion
3.1. Council Plan Alignment Planned Outcome 5 – Community Inspired Leaders Strategy 5.3 – Sound governance and responsible financial leadership The reporting of Ward Fund Grants meets the requirements of the Local Government Act.
3.2. Consultation/Internal Review Not applicable to this report.
3.3. Allocation of Ward Funds
In accordance with Council’s ‘Expenditure of Ward Funds Policy’ unexpended funds the previous Council have been carried over to the new Council. Each Councillor has also been allocated two thirds of the 2012/13 allocations due to the Council Elections in October 2012. Councillors have therefore been allocated $4,000 for the remainder of 2012/13 financial year. This is reflected in the opening balance figure in the attached table.
4. Conclusion The table below lists the Councillor requests for the expenditure of ward funds received since the last Ordinary Meeting of Council.
233
Author/s: Angela Granter, Governance Officer Reviewed and Approved By: Elaine Sowerby, General Manager Organisational
Development & Governance
North Ward Central Ward South Ward Org/ Person & Purpose
Cr T
amar
a B
arth
Cr P
aul P
eulic
h
Cr S
teve
Sta
ikos
Cr R
on B
row
nlee
s O
AM
Cr G
eoff
Gle
dhill
Cr
Ros
emar
y W
est O
AM
Cr T
amsi
n B
ears
ley
Cr D
avid
Ede
n
Cr J
ohn
Ron
ke
Opening Balance $4,232.75 $4,232.82 $4,314.86 $7,398.00 $4,000.00 $4,240.00 $4,605.44 $4,605.44 $4,463.11
Bentmoor Community Men’s Shed
$600.00
St Joseph’s Catholic Parish Springvale – Children of Zambia Project
$100.00
Kundi la Nguvu Mamas (KNM) – Strong Mothers Group
$200.00
Moorabbin Snooker Club
$1000.00
St Louis de Montfort’s School
$150.00
Total from months allocations
- $1000.00 $300.00 $600.00 - - $150.00 - -
Balance Ward Funds Available
$4,232.75 $3,232.82 $4,014.86 $6,798.00 $4,000.00 $4,240.00. $4,455.44 $4,605.44 $4,463.11
234
Ordinary Meeting of Council
17 December 2012 Agenda Item No: O 216 MAYORAL AND COUNCILLOR ALLOWANCES Contact Officer: Angela Granter
Purpose of Report The purpose of this report is to commence the formal review process of Mayoral and Councillor allowances as required in accordance with section 74 of the Local Government Act 1989.
Disclosure of Officer / Contractor Direct or Indirect Interest No Council officer/s who have provided advice in relation to this report have declared a Conflict of Interest regarding the matter under consideration.
Recommendation Officers recommend that Council:
1. Review and determine pursuant to section 74 of the Local Government Act 1989, that the Mayoral Allowance be proposed at $80,489.13 and the Councillors Allowance be proposed at $26,829.71, within the Category 3 Council range, plus an amount equivalent to the superannuation guarantee contribution (9%);
2. Proceed with the process for submissions to be made, pursuant to section 223 of the Local Government Act 1989, as detailed in section 3.3 of the report; and
3. Establish a committee, pursuant to section 223 of the Local Government Act 1989, comprising of three Councillors to hear any submissions received in relation to the proposed Mayoral and Councillor Allowances, at a meeting on 27 February 2013, commencing at 6.00pm;
1. Executive Summary
Following a general election, Council must review and determine the level of Mayoral and Councillor allowances by the next 30 June at the latest (in this case 30 June 2013). A person has a right to make a submission under section 223 of the Local Government Act 1989 (the Act) to this review. Council therefore needs to allocate sufficient time to ensure all steps in this process are undertaken so a final determination on allowances is made by the legislative deadline. It has been Council’s practice that the annual Mayoral Allowance is three times the annual Councillor Allowance. Also Council has historically established a committee comprising of three Councillors to hear submissions and report to Council. This report recommends that this convention continues with the committee meeting on 27 February 2013 and Council’s final determination occurring at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 25 March 2013.
235
2. Background
Section 74 of the Act requires that:
(1) A Council must review and determine the level of the Councillor allowance and the Mayoral allowance within the period of 6 months after a general election or by the next 30 June, whichever is later.
….. (4) A person has a right to make a submission under section 223 in respect of a review
of allowances. Section 223 of the Act sets the framework which applies when a person is given a right to make a submission to a Council proposal. This ensures that people who may be affected by a proposal have a guaranteed right to participate in Council’s decision making process. If Council does not correctly follow the process set out in section 223, its decision may be challenged in the courts1. Councils are classified as either Category 1, 2 or 3 for the purposes of determining the allowance range and limit. Kingston City Council is a Category 3 Council. Council currently pays a Mayoral allowance of $80,489.13 per annum plus the amount equivalent to the superannuation guarantee under the Commonwealth taxation legislation (currently 9%). Councillors are currently paid an allowance of $26,829.71 per annum plus the amount equivalent to the superannuation guarantee under the Commonwealth laxation legislation (currently 9%). Mayoral and Councillor allowances are subject to the addition of the equivalent of the superannuation guarantee (9%). Councillors receiving this equivalent amount can decide to put the 9% into superannuation or not. The above figures are within the range prescribed pursuant to the Order in Council dated 3 July 2012 which took effect from 27 October 2012 (refer to Appendix 1).
3. Discussion
3.1. Council Plan Alignment Goal 5 – Efficient and Innovative Stewardship of the Organisation and Resources Strategy 5.2 – An organisation with transparent, innovative and robust business and
financial processes facilitating strong accountability to the community.
The public disclosure of the Mayoral and Councillor Allowances including the public submission process provides open and transparent decision making.
3.2. Set the Mayoral and Councillor Allowances Councillors requested at the Governance Workshop held on 15-16 November 2012
that they be provided with a list of allowances paid by comparable Councils (Category 3) (refer to Appendix 2).
The following range limits are currently applicable to all Category 3 Councils: Mayor: A maximum of $85,741 per annum Councillors: Range of $11,204 - $26,843 per annum At Kingston City Council, traditionally the Mayoral Allowance equates to three times
the Councillor allowance ($26,829.71 x 3 =$80,489.13).
1 Local Government Victoria Governance Practice Note No.4 Submissions from the Public
236
3.3. Section 223 submission process and proposed timelines Section 74(4) of the Act requires that prior to Council adopting the Mayoral and
Councillor Allowances, Council must call for and consider public submissions pursuant to section 223 of the Act. This requires Council to publish a public notice in a newspaper generally circulating in the municipality and on the Council website, setting out:
• sufficient information about the proposal; • the date by which submissions are to be submitted; • that a person making a submission is entitled to be heard either in person or
represented by a person specified in the submission, at a meeting to be heard in support of the submission; and
• how submissions (including submitters’ names and addresses) will be treated2.
Council’s practice has been to establish a committee comprising of three Councillors to:
• consider all submissions made; • if a person has requested to be heard in support of their submission, provide
the person with the opportunity to be heard in accordance with their request; and
• provide a report to Council on its proceedings pursuant to section 223(1)(c) of the Act.
Council would then make the final decision at an either an Ordinary or Special Meeting of Council. It would
• consider all submissions received; • consider the report made pursuant to section 223 (1)(c); • notify in writing each person who made a separate submission and in the
case of a submission made on behalf of a number of people, one of them; and
• include reasons for the decision in the above notification.
Proposed timeline Sufficient time needs to be planned to ensure all steps in the section 223 process are undertaken so a final determination on allowances is made by the legislated deadline. 17 December 2012 At the Ordinary Meeting of Council, Council determines the level
of Mayoral and Councillor Allowances 21 January 2013 Public Notice in the Leader newspapers and on Council’s website
(28 day submission period) 18 February 2013 Closure of submission period 27 February 2013 Committee meeting to hear submissions on the Mayoral and
Councillor allowances 25 March 2013 Ordinary Meeting of Council – Council considers report from the
Committee meeting and resolves the allowances Note: The process needs to be completed by 30 June 2013 (being the later of within
the period of 6 months after a general election (27 April 2013) or by the next 30 June).
The above timeline defers the submission period to the new year and in taking
into account the Christmas / New Year holiday season, provides greater opportunity for residents to make a submission.
2 Made available at the Council or Committee Meeting at which the proposal will be considered and available for public inspection for a period of 12 months (Regulation 11(k)
237
3.4. Options 3.4.1 Establish a committee to hear submissions and report to full Council (current
practice and preferred option) Advantages:
• Established process • Less intimidating for submitters (speak before three Councillors not full
Council in an open meeting) • Shorter time frame in arriving at decision as a Special Meeting could be
held prior to March 2013 Ordinary Meeting of Council at which the final determination would be made
Disadvantages:
• As historically few submissions are received (one in 2009), asking three Councillors to meet outside of the normal meeting cycle could be considered over-complicating a straightforward process
3.4.2 Full Council undertakes the section 223 process
Advantages:
• Efficient process – no additional meeting is required or committee to be formed. Submissions could be heard at the February 2013 Ordinary Meeting of Council and a decision adopted at the March 2013 Ordinary Meeting of Council
Disadvantages: • Additional time needed as all deliberations are undertaken by Council at
Ordinary Meetings
4. Conclusion
Option 3.4.1 above is the preferred option. Establishing a committee to hear submissions is the customary process for Council to deal with submissions pursuant to a section 233 process plus is considered less intimidating for submitters.
4.1. Environmental Implications Not applicable
4.2. Social Implications Not applicable
4.3. Resource Implications Mayoral and Councillor Allowances are included in the adopted 2012/13 budget at the current rates ($80,489 and $26,830 respectively) and any increase in these allowances would result in an immaterial unfavourable variance.
4.4. Legal / Risk Implications Section 74(1) of the Act requires that Councils must review and determine the level of Mayoral and Councillor allowances within the period of six months after a general election or by next 30 June, whichever is the later. Under section 74(4) of the Act a person has a right to make a submission under section 223 to this review. Councils therefore need to allocate sufficient time to ensure all steps in this process are undertaken so a final determine on allowances is made by the legislated deadline. There is no automatic right of review of a Council’s decision made under section 223, however, if Council does not correctly follow the legislated process, it risks the decision being challenged in court.
238
5. Appendices
5.1. Appendix 1 Department of Planning and Community Development Circular 39/2012 dated 26 October 2012
5.2. Appendix 2 Category 3 Mayoral and Councillor Allowances as at 5 December 2012
Author/s: Angela Granter Reviewed and Approved By: Phil De Losa Program Leader Governance Anthony Basford, Acting General Manager, Organisational
Development and Governance
239
240
241
Council Mayoral Allowance Range Councillor Allowance Range
Boroondara City Council $85,741 $26,843
Brimbank City Council1 Not applicable Not applicable
Casey City Council $85,741 $26,843
Darebin City Council $85,741 $26,843
Glen Eira City Council $85,741 $26,843
Frankston City Council Requested – awaiting data
Greater Bendigo City Council $85,741 $26,843
Greater Dandenong City Council $85,741 $26,843
Greater Geelong City Council2 Not applicable $26,843
Hume City Council $79,233 $24,805
Kingston City Council $80,489 $26,830
Knox City Council $85,741 $26,843
Melton Shire Council $85,741 $26,843
Monash City Council $85,741 $26,843
Moreland City Council $85,741 $26,843
Moonee Valley City Council $85,741 $26,843
Mornington $85,741 $26,843
Port Phillip City Council $85,741 $26,843
Stonnington City Council $85,741 $26,843
Whitehorse City Council $85,741 $26,843
Whittlesea City Council $85,741 $26,843
Wyndham City Council $85,741 $26,843
Yarra Ranges Shire Council $85,741 $26,843
1 Brimbank City Council has appointed administrators until March 2015 2 The allowance for the Mayor of Greater City of Geelong is subject to review by the Minister, at least once every year pursuant to City of Greater Geelong Amendment Act 2012
242
Ordinary Council Meeting
17 December 2012 Agenda Item No: O 217 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 36/2012 – CR BEARSLEY I move that Council provide an opportunity for private landowners in the Green Wedge (or their representatives) and relevant Council officers to meet and obtain the private landowners’ feedback to the adopted Green Wedge Plan and Officers are to report back to Councillors. A component of this consultation process is to include a meeting between landowners (or their representatives) with Robert Peken about the Farmland Trust. Cr Tamsin Bearsley 10 December 2012
243