22 March 2016 Council Meeting Agenda without confidential · Tuesday, 22 March, 2016 at 7:00pm Cr: Cr James Long BM JP Councillors: Cr Alex del Porto Cr Bruce Lowe Cr Laurence Evans

Council Meeting Agenda

Agenda Paper

for the

Ordinary Meeting of Council

To be held at the Council Chambers, Civic Centre, Boxshall Street Brighton

on

Tuesday, 22 March, 2016 at 7:00pm

Cr: Cr James Long BM JP Councillors: Cr Alex del Porto

Cr Bruce Lowe Cr Laurence Evans Cr Heather Stewart Cr Michael Heffernan Cr Felicity Frederico

Bayside City Council Ordinary Council Meeting - 22 March 2016

Page 2 of 211

Members of the Gallery Your attention is drawn to Section 92 of Council’s Governance Local Law No 1. Section 92 The Chair’s Duties and Discretions In addition to other duties and discretions provided in this Local Law, the Chair – (a) must not accept any motion, question or statement which is derogatory, or

defamatory of any Councillor, member of Council staff, or member of the community. (b) may demand retraction of any inappropriate statement or unsubstantiated allegation; (c) must ensure silence is preserved in the public gallery during any meeting (d) must call to order any member of the public who approaches the Council or

Committee table during the meeting, unless invited by the Chair to do so; and (e) must call to order any person who is disruptive or unruly during any meeting. An Authorised Officer must, if directed to do so by the Chairman, remove from a meeting any Councillor or other person who has committed such an offence. Your cooperation is appreciated Chairperson of Council


Page 3 of 211

Order of Business

1. Prayer

2. Acknowledgement of Original Inhabitants

3. Apologies

4. Disclosure of any Conflict of Interest of any Councillor

5. Adoption and Confirmation of the minutes of previous meeting

6. Public Question Time

7. Petitions to Council

7.1 Petition: War Memorial Site - Green Point Brighton ............................. 7

7.2 Petition: Beach Access Via Gordon Crescent Black Rock ................... 9

8. Minutes of Advisory Committees

8.1 Assembly of Councillors Record ......................................................... 11

8.2 Minutes of the Audit Committee Meeting held on 11 February 2016 ................................................................................................... 19

9. Reports by Special Committees

Nil

10. Reports by the Organisation

10.1 Stadium Facilities - Outcomes of Feasibility Studies .......................... 29

10.2 Amendment C126 - Small Activity Centres ........................................ 39

10.3 Managing Residential Zones Standing Advisory Committee Submission ......................................................................................... 43

10.4 Martin Street Structure Plan ............................................................... 47

10.5 Hanby Street Reserve Playground Signage and Fencing .................. 73

10.6 Proposed lease of the former Brighton Court House Update ............. 77

10.7 Level Crossing Removal Update ........................................................ 83

10.8 Standard Planning Permit Conditions ................................................. 87

10.9 Electronic Vote Counting for the 2016 Council Elections ................. 121

10.10 Election Period Policy ....................................................................... 123

10.11 Review of the Position Statement for the role of Mayor at Bayside City Council ...................................................................................... 151


Page 4 of 211

10.12 Municipal Association of Victoria - State Council - Call for Motions ............................................................................................. 157

10.13 CON/15/60 Brighton Golf Course Car Park Renewal Works ............ 163

10.14 CON/16/11 Construction of Five Playgrounds in the City of Bayside ............................................................................................ 167

10.15 January 2016 Financial Report ......................................................... 171

10.16 Council Action Awaiting Report ........................................................ 187

10.17 VCAT Decisions ............................................................................... 201

11. Reports by Delegates

12. Urgent Business

13. Notices of Motion

13.1 Notice of Motion 244 - Feasibility Study into a Syringe Collection and Disposal Centre ......................................................................... 210

14. Confidential Business

14.1 Confidential Attachment: CON/15/60 Brighton Golf Course Car Park Renewal Works; CON/16/11 Construction of Five Playgrounds in the City of Bayside; Audit Committee Minutes 11 February 2016 .................................................................................. 211


Page 5 of 211

1. Prayer

O God Bless this City, Bayside, Give us courage, strength and wisdom, So that our deliberations, May be for the good of all, Amen

2. Acknowledgement of Original Inhabitants

We acknowledge that the original inhabitants of this land that we call Bayside were the Boon wurrung people of the Kulin nation. They loved this land, they cared for it and considered themselves to be part of it. We acknowledge that we have a responsibility to nurture the land, and sustain it for future generations.

3. Apologies

4. Disclosure of any Conflict of Interest of any Co uncillor

5. Adoption and Confirmation of the minutes of prev ious meeting

5.1 Confirmation of the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of Bayside City Council held on 23 February 2016.

6. Public Question Time


Item 7.1 – Petitions to Council Page 7 of 211

7. Petitions to Council

7.1 PETITION: WAR MEMORIAL SITE - GREEN POINT BRIGH TON

Corporate Services - Governance & Performance Reporting File No: PSF/15/8758 – Doc No: DOC/16/38880

Petition requesting a 30 metre zone be established around the war memorial site at Green Point. (27 signatures)

“We the undersigned residents of the City of Bayside hereby petition Bayside City Council (The Council) to consider those on the Roll of honor who are remembered at the Cenotaph at Green Point Brighton and others who have made the supreme sacrifice, their respect by establishing a 30 metre zone about the Memorial prohibiting commercial activity within the zone, and install signage that reminds the public to show respect to our fallen military personnel to which it is dedicated.”

Petition Requirements The attached petition meets the required format of a petition in accordance with Council’s Governance Local Law Clause 65.

It should be noted that the petitioners’ name, address and signature have been suppressed in accordance with the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014.

Recommendation

That the petition be received and a report be submitted to the May 2016 meeting cycle for consideration.

Support Attachments

Nil


Item 7.2 – Petitions to Council Page 9 of 211

7.2 PETITION: BEACH ACCESS VIA GORDON CRESCENT BLAC K ROCK


Petition requesting beach access via Gordon Crescent Black Rock be maintained by Council (237 signatures)

“We the undersigned hereby petition the Bayside City Council to ensure public access to the beach via Gordon Crescent, Black Rock is maintained in the future by Bayside Council”

Petition Requirements The attached petition meets the required format of a petition in accordance with Council’s Governance Local Law Clause 65.

It should be noted that the petitioners’ name, address and signature have been suppressed in accordance with the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014.

Officer Comments

It is noted that a joint letter containing 380 signatures was received in relation to this item.

Recommendation

That the petition be considered at the May 2016 Ordinary Meeting of Council in conjunction with the Black Rock Foreshore Masterplan.

Support Attachments

Nil


Item 8.1 – Minutes of Advisory Committees Page 11 of 211

8. Minutes of Advisory Committees

8.1 ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS RECORD


Executive summary

Purpose and background

To formally report to Council on the Assembly of Councillors records in accordance with the Local Government Act 1989.

Key issues

This report fulfils the requirements of reporting an assembly of Councillors to the next practical Ordinary Meeting of the Council in accordance with the Local Government and Planning Legislation Amendment Act 2010.

Recommendation

That Council notes the Assembly of Councillor records submitted as required by the Local Government Act.

Date Name

16 February 2016 Strategic Issues Discussion

1 March 2016 CEO and Councillor Only Briefing

1 March 2016 Councillor Briefing Session

10 March 2016 Budget Briefing

15 March 2016 Strategic Issues Discussion

15 March 2016 Budget Briefing

Support Attachments

1. 16 February 2016 Strategic Issues Discussion 2. 1 March 2016 CEO and Councillor Only Briefing 3. 1 March 2016 Councillor Briefing Session 4. 10 March 2016 Budget Briefing Assembly of Councillors 5. 15 March 2016 Strategic Issues Discussion 6. 15 March 2016 Budget Briefing



Considerations and implications of recommendation

Liveable community

Social There are no social implications associated with this report.

Natural Environment There are no environmental impacts associated with this report.

Built Environment There are no environmental impacts associated with this report.

Customer Service and Community Engagement

There are no Customer Service and Community Engagement impacts associated with this report.

Human Rights

There are no human rights implications associated with this report.

Legal

There are no legal implications associated with this report.

Finance

There are no financial implications associated with this report.

Links to Council policy and strategy

There are no policy implications associated with this report.

Bayside City Council Ordinary Council Meeting - 22 March 2016 Attachment 1














8.2 MINUTES OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 11 FEBRUARY 2016

Corporate Services - Governance File No: PSF/15/8758 – Doc No: DOC/16/35317

The minutes of the Audit Committee meeting held on 11 February 2016 which forms an attachment are presented in camera in accordance wi th the Local Government Act 1989 – Section 89(2)(h) – any other matter which th e Council or a Special Committee considers would prejudice the Council or any person .

Should Councillors wish to discuss the content of t he minutes it would be appropriate that Council resolves to consider the matter in-cam era.

Executive summary


To advise Council of the business transacted at the Audit Committee held on 11 February 2016.

The Audit Committee is an independent Advisory Committee to Council appointed by Council pursuant to Section 139 of the Local Government Act 1989. The primary objective of the Audit Committee is to assist Council to fulfil its corporate governance responsibilities through the effective conduct of its responsibilities for accounting and financial reporting practices, management of risk, maintaining a reliable system of internal controls, operation of good governance and facilitating sound organisational ethics. The Audit Committee does not have executive powers or authority to implement actions in areas over which management has responsibility and does not have any delegated financial responsibilities. The Audit Committee does not have any management function and is therefore independent of management. As part of Council’s governance obligations to its community, The Audit Committee was established to provide the Council with guidance on:

• Internal and external financial reporting; • Management of financial and other risks; • Effectiveness of the internal and external audit function; • Provision of an effective means of communication between the external auditor,

internal auditor, management and Council; and • Advice and recommendations on various matters within the charter in order to

facilitate decision making by council in relation to the discharge of its responsibilities. The internal, external auditors and other assurance providers support the Audit Committee by providing independent and objective assurance on internal corporate governance, risk management, internal control and compliance.



Key issues

The matters discussed at the meeting on 11 February included:

Chief Executive Officer’s update

A self-assessment was undertaken against a number of parliamentary reports presented by the Victorian Ombudsman, VAGO and IBAC. Whilst the majority of reports tabled had little impact on the local government sector, a self-assessment will be undertaken on the following eight key parliamentary reports.

• VAGO Report Financial Systems Controls Report: Information Technology

• VAGO Report Delivering Services to Citizens and Consumers via Devices of Personal Choice

• VAGO Report – Local Government 2014-15 Audit Snapshot

• VAGO Report – Auditor General’s Report on the Annual Financial Report of the State of Victoria 2014-15

• VAGO Report – Water Entities 2014-15 Audit Snapshot

• VAGO Report – Access to Public Sector Information

• VAGO Report – Implementing the Gift, Benefits and Hospitality Framework

• Victorian Ombudsman Report – Investigation of a protected disclosure complaint regarding allegations of improper conduct by councillors associated with political donations.

The delivery of the 2015/16 Internal Audit Plan is well underway. The internal Audit Review on Incoming and Outgoing Grants has been completed and is the subject to separate reports on this agenda. Field work has been completed on the Statutory Building audit and Food Act compliance audit.

A status report based on the 2nd Quarter of the LGPRF performance report was tabled at the meeting. The CEO also advised the Committee of Council’s own public value web page on Council’s website to provide further information to residents on our results within the Know Your Council website.

The Chief Executive Officer provided a verbal update on the Defined Benefits Superannuation scheme.

The organisation is currently negotiating with Civica for the provision of a service contract relating to software support, service standards and performance guarantees.

Over the past three months the organisation has undertaken comprehensive e-learning training on Fraud Prevention and Awareness, Human Rights and Information Privacy along with other Occupational Health and Safety compliance programs.

The Chief Executive Officer advised the Committee that the Social Media Policy is an adopted organisational policy. Whilst Council has adopted Media Policy it is suggested that social media be referenced and included in a review of the Council Media policy in the coming months.



VAGO Audit Strategy for financial year 3 June 2016

The External Auditor VAGO tabled the draft Audit Strategy for year ending 30 June 2016, and highlighted the key components of the Audit Strategy.

Effectiveness of the Internal Control Environment

The Manager Finance tabled a report of the effectiveness on the internal control environment within the organisation. The internal control environment includes:

• Preparation of accurate financial records and other supporting information; • Timely and reliable external and internal reporting; • Safeguarding of public assets; and • Prevention or detection of fraud, errors and other irregularities.

Internal Audit Review – Grants (Outging and in coming)

The Internal Auditor presented the audit review report on Grants (Outgoing and Incoming).

The objective of the review was twofold:

Outgoing Community Grants

To assess the governance, probity and management of Council’s Community (outgoing) Grants Program and involved:

1. Assessment of adequacy of policy and procedural framework; 2. Assessment of grant allocation process, including: 3. Adequacy of advertising/public awareness program; 4. Clarity of evaluation criteria; 5. Evaluation panel process; 6. Management of conflict of interest; 7. Approval process; 8. Acquittal process.

This review also considered the outcomes of the broader review of grants administration in Local Government that was undertaken by the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office.

Incoming Grants

The review considered the adequacy and effectiveness of the management processes in place for the attainment of Government sector (incoming) grants, including:

• Identification of grants being offered and made available to Council; • Assessment and selection of those beneficial to the organisation; • Tracking and consideration of the work effort involved; • Policy, management, acquittal, overheads, translation into an ongoing obligation

for Council. This part of the review excluded grants of a recurrent nature and focused on non-recurring grants.

Overall, the audit found that the current controls in place over Outgoing community grants are adequate, however controls over Incoming grants need to be strengthened.



The audit identified a range of controls that should be implemented in order to reduce the current level of weaknesses and exposures.

As a result of the review 9 findings were identified, 4 with a moderate risk rating and 5 with a low risk rating.

The detailed recommendations and management’s responses were outlined in the final report.

Risk Management

At the request of the Audit Committee the Action Director Community Services presented the strategic risks applicable to her area of management and discussed the mitigation strategies that have been identified and implemented.

The Director Corporate Services presented a summary of the risk management report and highlighting the organisation’s 15 strategic risks which were reviewed by the Audit Committee and recommended that Council notes the strategic risks including the likelihood and consequence ratings. The following table outlines the strategic risks of the organisation:

Risk Name Risk Description

Inhe

rent

A

sses

smen

t Li

kelih

ood

Inhe

rent

A

sses

smen

t C

onse

quen

ce

Inhe

rent

R

isk

Rat

ing

Res

idua

l A

sses

smen

t Li

kelih

ood

Res

idua

l A

sses

smen

t C

onse

quen

ce

Res

idua

l R

isk

Rat

ing

Financial Instability

Council's service levels cannot be maintained because of poor financial strategy and monitoring

Possible Severe High Very Rare Major Low

Inadequate business continuity preparedness

Services unable to be sustained during an emergency or crisis because of shortfall in business continuity planning.

Possible Severe High Possible Severe Medium

Inadequate contractor procurement

Council service and integrity compromised because contractor not engaged in accordance with procurement procedure.

Almost Certain

Severe Very High

Possible Severe High



Non Compliant Procurement

Council expenditure and reputation compromised because goods and services being purchased outside of purchasing procedure

Almost Certain

Severe Very High

Possible Severe High

Poor Council governance

Council's reputation is compromised because Councillor's performance does not satisfy the required Code of Conduct.

Likely Major High Likely Major Low

Inadequate Municipal recovery management

Council residents and reputation compromised by a community emergency event because of inadequate community recovery preparedness.

Rare Severe Medium Rare Severe Low

Ineffective communication with community and stakeholders

Community satisfaction is diminished because Council fails to effectively inform the community and stakeholders due to a lack of effective communication processes and channels

Almost Certain

Severe Very High

Rare Major Low

Poor customer service

Council reputation compromised because of community dissatisfaction with organisational customer service

Almost Certain

Severe Very High

Rare Major Medium

Poor staff performance

Council service delivery and staff welfare is deficient because of failure to effectively manage the performance of staff

Almost Certain

Moderate

High Possible Moderate

Low



Unsafe workplace

Health & safety of staff is jeopardised because of an inadequate Safety Management System within the workplace

Possible Severe Very High

Very Rare Major Low

Corporate Fraud

Failure of Council fraud prevention framework and internal controls

Likely Severe High Possible Severe Medium

Poor Community Infrastructure To Meet the Needs of the Community

Council reputation is compromised/diminished because it fails to engage with the community to ensure it provides community infrastructure that meets community needs.

Possible Severe High Possible Severe High

Incapacity of coastal infrastructure to withstand extreme weather events

Coastal infrastructure is unable to withstand the impacts of extreme weather events because of inadequate design and development.

Almost Certain

Severe Very High

Rare Severe Medium

Inadequate deployment of centralised framework in decentralised organisational deployment model

Council reputation and service delivery compromised due to highly decentralised approach to deployment of cross organisational policy, systems and procedures that does not effectively deliver business objectives

Almost Certain

Severe Very High

Possible Severe Medium

Failure of integrity systems & behaviours

Council reputation is compromised due to misuse of power or deceptive behaviours by staff

Likely Severe Very High

Rare Severe Low

Results of the IBAC Integrity Framework Survey

The Director Corporate Services tabled the results of the IBAC Integrity Framework survey undertaken by the organisation and the comparison against the results of the 6 councils participating in the IBAC Integrity Framework Survey.



Project management on major projects

The Audit Committee considered a document on how major projects are governed through the project lifecycle.

Recommendation

That Council:

1. notes the minutes of the Audit Committee meeting held on 11 February 2016 and endorses the actions of the Audit Committee; and

2. adopts the following recommendations of the Audit Committee 11 February 2016:

8.1 Chief Executive Officer’s Report

That the Audit Committee:

1. notes the Chief Executive Officer’s report for the period November 2015 to February 2016;

2. recommends to Council that the Audit Committee Charter as amended be adopted with the inclusion of The Mayor of the Day as a Councillor substitute representative; and

3. further considers the Charter at the next meeting in accordance with the Workplan.

9.7.1. Risk Management Update

That the Audit Committee:

1. notes the risk management update report for the period November 2015 to February 2016;

2. receives a report at the May meeting on the risks associated with the transition of Aged and Disability Services from State to Commonwealth responsibilities.

3. for the purpose of Section 12, Schedule 1 of the Local Government (Planning and Reporting) Regulations 2014, the Audit Committee notes the review of the 15 Strategic Risks and recommends to Council that the 15 Strategic Risks including likelihood and consequences be received and noted.

Support Attachments

1. Minutes of Audit Committee meeting on 11 February 2016 (separately enclosed)




Liveable community


Natural Environment There are no natural environment implications associated with this report.

Built Environment There are no built environment implications associated with this report.


There are customer service or community engagement implications associated with this report.

Human Rights

The implications of this report have been assessed and are not considered likely to breach or infringe upon the human rights contained in the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006. In fact the proposed policy enforces equal accessibility to information.

Legal

It is a requirement of the Local Government Planning and Reporting Regulations that Council must consider the Strategic Risks of the organisation. For this purpose that Audit Committee as an Advisory Committee of Council has considered the Strategic Risks and recommends to Council that the Strategic Risks be noted.

Finance

There are no financial or resource implications associated with this report.


There are no policy implications associated with this report. However the minutes of the Audit Committee aligns with Goal 7 of the Council Plan in terms of providing open and transparent governance.


Page 27 of 211

9. Reports by Special Committees

Nil


Item 10.1 – Reports by the Organisation Page 29 of 211

10. Reports by the Organisation

10.1 STADIUM FACILITIES - OUTCOMES OF FEASIBILITY S TUDIES

Corporate Services - Recreation, Events & Community Partnerships File No: PSF/15/8751 – Doc No: DOC/16/23627

Executive summary


The purpose of this report is to inform Council of the outcomes of feasibility studies into stadium facilities at Sandringham Family Leisure Centre, Sandringham and Thomas Street, Hampton.

A Stadium Needs Assessment was presented to the 24 June 2014 Council meeting. To meet the expected basketball and netball demand over the next 20 years, the Needs Assessment recommended that four additional indoor basketball courts and three additional netball courts (one indoor and two outdoor) are required to meet basketball and netball activity, respectively. The Sandringham Family Leisure Centre (SFLC) and Thomas Street Netball Centre were assessed as preferred sites to accommodate the needs for basketball and netball. At this meeting Council resolved (see Attachment A) to undertake feasibility studies for basketball at SFLC and netball facilities at Thomas Street Netball Centre.

Key issues

Feasibility studies for the SFLC and Thomas Street Netball Centre were undertaken in 2015 to determine:

• The appropriateness of the site including environmental considerations;

• Cost implications including life cycle costs and a proposed funding model;

• Governance and operational considerations; and

• A concept design (including cost estimates) for each site.

Stadium Facilities - Basketball

The Needs Assessment identified that basketball participation rates are consistent with Australian and Victorian averages however the supply of courts is lower within Bayside and the surrounding region (including Kingston, Port Phillip and Glen Eira) in comparison to other areas of metropolitan Melbourne. The Needs Assessment highlights that this undersupply results in unmet demand and identifies an additional 4 to 5 indoor courts are required to meet forecast basketball participation requirements through to 2031.

A concept plan (see Attachment B) was prepared to provide:

• Four additional indoor courts to meet community needs; • Reconfiguration of existing 4 courts to ensure court run-offs meet with relevant

standards; • Viewing areas; • Administration area, storage, kiosk and change areas; • Minimal vegetation removal and retention of the existing pondage; and • Minor additions with car parking and revised line marking.



A cost estimate (prepared by Quantity Surveyors) to undertake the works within the concept plan totals $13.9M.

The Southern Basketball Association (SBA) has advised Council that their priority is the construction of the additional four courts and believe other elements such as the reconfiguration of existing courts, administration and viewing areas should form part of stage 2 developments to be undertaken at a later date.

An early estimate indicates total costs of approximately $8 million to construct the four additional indoor basketball courts. Detailed design of the additional courts is estimated at $400,000 and if completed would support future grant applications to a variety of possible funding programs including a submission to the Major Grants category of the State Government’s Community Sport Infrastructure Fund.

SBA has sought independent financial advice identifying its capacity to contribute $5,000,000 through a 15 year loan (proposed to be guaranteed by Council) towards the project costs. The SBA indicates that the contribution of $5,000,000 does not over extend its forecast financial capacity and it will remain able to maintain and extend its basketball programming. Should Council support future court development, further analysis of the SBA’s financial capacity to contribute towards the proposed works is required.

Stadium Facilities - Netball

The Needs Assessment identified that netball participation rates are consistent with Australian and Victorian averages however the supply of netball courts is lower within Bayside and the surrounding region (including Kingston and Glen Eira) in comparison to other areas of metropolitan Melbourne. The Needs Assessment identifies the need for 3 additional courts represented as a total provision of 2 indoor and 8 outdoor courts to meet forecast netball participation requirements through to 2031.

Feasibility investigations have identified that the Thomas Street Netball Centre is unable to accommodate 2 indoor courts and 8 outdoor courts. Given the location of a significant drain (South East Water asset) and telecommunication tower, future facility development at the site is limited.

Investigations and costings to relocate the drain and telecommunication tower have identified that they are cost prohibitive (approximately $2.5 million) and will have a dramatic impact upon the site e.g. render the netball and adjoining athletics facility inoperable whilst 12-18 month drain redirection works are undertaken. Approval from relevant authorities to undertake the works is not guaranteed.

Given the issues associated with the Thomas Street Netball Centre site an alternative has been identified to accommodate improved netball facilities. It is recommended to extend the scope of the feasibility study to investigate the feasibility of the entire Thomas Street site incorporating the current Scout Hall, Netball Centre and Athletics Centre areas (see Attachment C). The study should also include examining the feasibility of relocating the current athletics track to another suitable location.

The Sandringham Athletics Club supports in-principle the notion to relocate the existing synthetic facility to accommodate the future development of netball facilities at this site.



Recommendation

That Council:

1. endorses the concept plan for the development of four additional basketball courts at the Sandringham Family Leisure Centre and works with key stakeholders including Sandringham Basketball Association to develop a funding model for the proposed project;

2. refers an allocation of $400,000 towards the detailed design of four additional indoor basketball courts at the Sandringham Family Leisure Centre to Council’s 2016/17 Budget process; and

3. receives a report at its December 2016 meeting on the feasibility of constructing a netball centre on the entire Thomas Street site incorporating the current Scout Hall, Netball Centre and Athletics Centre areas (see Attachment C) and the feasibility of relocating the current athletics track to another suitable location.

Support Attachments

1. Attachment A - Council Resolution - 24 June 2014 2. Attachment B - SFLC Basketball Extension Concept Plan 3. Attachment C - Netball Feasibility Study Area




Liveable community

Social The development of improved basketball and netball facilities will provide positive benefits for young people and adults through their participation and engagement in sport and recreation activities.

Natural Environment The concept site layout of additional basketball facilities at Tulip Street was designed to minimise vegetation removal and ensure the retention of two significant trees at the site. The proposed development presents opportunities to enhance landscaping and vegetation around the existing pondage area.

A whole of site approach to the provision of netball facilities at the Thomas Street site will enable Council to minimise vegetation removal and may present opportunities to revegetate some areas.

Built Environment The concept design of basketball facilities at SFLC is fully accessible and includes a number of design elements befitting such a high profile facility. It is intended to use these principles to guide design of netball and athletics facilities.


Council has collaborated with the Southern Basketball Association and Sandringham District Netball Association to complete the Needs Assessment and subsequent feasibility studies. The feasibility studies have also been informed by discussions and feedback provided by State and local sporting associations, Sport and Recreation Victoria, other government authorities and schools.

Localised engagement will be undertaken with the community and other relevant stakeholders, as part of the proposed extended feasibility study into the provision of netball and athletics facilities.

Human Rights

The Bayside ‘Active by the Bay’ Recreation Strategy adopted by Council includes an objective to provide suitable recreation facilities in convenient and accessible locations particularly in facility specific stadium sports such as basketball and netball with high participation rates across the municipality.

Legal




Finance

Development costs for netball and basketball facilities are significant. Costs for the development of four indoor basketball courts at the Sandringham Family Leisure Centre site have been estimated at $8 million. Funding for this project is not currently identified in Council’ long Term Financial Plan.

The feasibility study into the relocation of athletics to Dendy Park and a whole of site approach to netball facilities at the Thomas Street site will identify development costs for any proposed works. The Long Term Financial Plan includes funding towards the development of netball facilities at the Thomas Street site.


Improvement to sport and recreation facilities is supported by a number of key strategy and policy documents including the Council Plan 2013-2017, Bayside 2020 Community Plan, Open Space Strategy 2012, Recreation Strategy 2013, and Wellbeing for All Ages and Abilities Strategy 2013 - 2017.











10.2 AMENDMENT C126 - SMALL ACTIVITY CENTRES

City Planning and Amenity - Urban Strategy File No: PSF/15/8752 – Doc No: DOC/16/14193

Executive summary


To present Council with proposed changes to the amendment documents for Amendment C126, which implements the Bayside Small Activity Centres Strategy.

The Bayside Small Activity Centres Strategy (the Strategy) provides recommendations for appropriate planning controls and policies to better manage use and development across the small activity centres within Bayside.

Council adopted the Strategy at its Ordinary Meeting of 24 June 2014 and resolved to seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit Amendment C126 to the Bayside Planning Scheme to implement the Strategy. A revised and updated Strategy was later adopted at the Ordinary Meeting of 28 April 2015 and Council reaffirmed its position to seek authorisation to prepare and exhibit Amendment C126.

In reviewing the amendment documentation prior to seeking authorisation to prepare and exhibit Amendment C126, four specific matters were identified that require further consideration by Council as they are beyond the scope of an editorial change.

Key issues

1. There are nine Small Commercial Activity Centres for which the Small Activity Centres Strategy does not recommend further residential growth. These centres have residential interfaces and it is proposed to create a consistent mandatory building height between the commercial and nearby residential areas through the use of Design and Development Overlay schedules. The Small Commercial Activity Centres which are affected by the DDO2 (preferred height control of 9 metres/two storeys) and DDO3 (preferred height control of 8 metres/2 storeys) are proposed to be affected by the DDO13 which provides a mandatory height control of two storeys/9 metres. One Small Commercial Activity Centre is currently within the DDO1 (existing mandatory height control), and it is proposed to also apply the DDO17 to introduce additional design guidelines. DDO1 will continue to control the height of development in this centre.

2. The Bayside Planning Scheme states that electronic gaming machines should not be located in Neighbourhood Activity Centres, consistent with the State policy to limit gaming in convenience shopping centres. The Schedule to Clause 52.28-4 lists 26 shopping precincts in Bayside where gaming machines are prohibited as they are within a Commercial Zone and fit the definition of a ‘strip shopping centre’.

There are three centres (Bluff Road and Love Street, Black Rock; Balcombe Park, Beaumaris and Keys Street Shopping Centre, Beaumaris) which are zoned Mixed Use and as such are not currently included within the Schedule to Clause 52.28-4. C126 proposes to rezone these centres to Commercial 1 Zone. As a result of this proposed rezoning, and their proposed classification as Small Neighbourhood Activity Centres, these centres will meet the definition of a ‘strip shopping centre’. As such, it is proposed to include them in the Schedule to Clause 52.28-4.



It is also proposed to remove the New Street & Martin Street, Brighton centre from the Schedule to Clause 52.28-4. The centre will still be classified as a Small Commercial Activity Centre – Mixed Use however as the centre does not contain any convenience retailing and is not located directly adjacent to fixed rail public transport, it does not comply with the policy requirements to be included in the Schedule to Clause 52.28-4. If a future application is received which proposes electronic gaming machines within this centre, the application will still be required to obtain a planning permit and be subject to consideration by Council.

3. The Small Commercial Activity Centre – Mixed Use located at Bluff Road and Arranmore Avenue, Black Rock includes a chocolate shop at 81 Bluff Road that is currently zoned Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 3 (NRZ3) and is also affected by the DDO1. The site is separated from the main part of the centre however was included (along with 44A and B Arkaringa Crescent) in the Small Activity Centre Strategy. The Strategy did not propose to rezone the properties and given that the use of a ‘shop’ is permitted under the NRZ3 with the mandatory height provided by the DDO1, it is proposed to remove these properties from the boundary of the centre. These sites would retain their existing planning controls.

4. The Small Commercial Activity Centre at Hampton Street and Durrant Street, Brighton, includes a medical centre (Bayside Dermatology) that is currently zoned NRZ3 and is affected by the DDO3. The site is separated from the main part of the centre by Durrant Street and the current use is permitted within the NRZ3 and must comply with the mandatory height limit of the NRZ3 (8 metres). No rezoning of the site is recommended in the Small Activity Centres Strategy or planning scheme amendment documentation. It is recommended that the medical centre be removed from the boundary of the centre and retains its existing planning controls.

In addition to these changes, editorial changes have been made to the proposed amendment documents. These changes have not modified the intent of the proposed policies and controls, but rather how they are implemented in the Planning Scheme.

The most substantial of these changes was to move the content of proposed Clause 22.02 into the relevant Schedules to the Design and Development Overlay. Where possible, the use of schedules to overlays is preferred over the use of local policy to express local policy objectives. As the content in proposed Clause 22.02 was all design related, it was considered more appropriate to locate it within a Schedule to the Design and Development Overlay.

Recommendation

That Council:

1. reaffirms its position formed on 28 April 2015 to seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning under Section 8(A)(3) of the Planning & Environment Act 1987 to prepare and exhibit Amendment C126 to the Bayside Planning Scheme, in the form of Attachment 3 to this report, which reflect the modifications discussed in this report.

2. authorises the Director City Planning & Amenity to make any necessary editorial changes to Amendment C126 documentation.

Support Attachments

1. Proposed additions to the Schedule to the Design and Development Overlay (separately enclosed)



2. Proposed changes to boundaries (separately enclosed) 3. C126 Proposed Amendment Documentation (separately enclosed) 4. Proposed Heights for Small Activity Centres - Amendment C126 (separately enclosed)


Liveable community

Social The proposed amendment will have positive social impacts because it proposes to introduce policy into the Bayside Planning Scheme that encourages community interaction through the provision of local services and cafes, active ground floor frontages and shop-top housing.

Natural Environment The proposed amendment encourages environmentally sustainable building design as well as sustainable transport by supporting walking and cycling to and from accessible small activity centres located close to residents.

Built Environment The proposed amendment will introduce new policies and controls to guide future built form in the small activity centres in Bayside. This will provide certainty for both developers and residents.


Community consultation was undertaken on the Small Activity Centres Strategy including notification to affected land owners and businesses, public drop in sessions and meetings and advertisements in the Leader and Let’s Talk Bayside newsletter.

Amendment C126 will follow a standard exhibition process including direct mail to all affected property owners and occupiers, notices in the Bayside Leader and Council website.

Human Rights

The implications of this report have been assessed and are not considered likely to breach or infringe upon the human rights contained in the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

Legal

The statutory process for amendments as set out in the Planning and Environment Act 1987 will be followed. This includes application to the Minister for Planning for authorisation to prepare the amendment, public exhibition/notification, considerations of submissions (potentially by an independent Planning Panel) and final Council adoption with or without modifications for submission to the Minister for Planning for approval.

Finance

Funding necessary to support the Planning Scheme Amendment process has been provided for in the 2015/16 Budget.




The State Planning Policy Framework and the Municipal Strategic Statement of the Bayside Planning Scheme currently provide limited guidance in relation to small activity centres in Bayside. This amendment will rectify this.

The Bayside Housing Strategy 2012 identifies Small Neighbourhood Activity Centres as locations for future residential development. It is therefore important that there is a clear policy framework that identifies expected built form outcomes for these centres, particularly considering their size and residential context.

Relevant goals in the Council Plan 2013-2017 include:

• Goal 3: A Liveable City, Strategy 3.1.1: Develop planning strategies and policies with our community that enhance Bayside’s liveability along with its natural and built environment.

• Goal 6: A Thriving Local Economy, Strategic Objective 6.1: Supporting creation of a strong, creative and innovative local economy.

The proposed amendment will enhance Bayside’s liveability and economic viability of Small Activity Centres by appropriately managing growth while promoting commercial uses with a strong sense of street activity to create vibrant centres serving local community needs.



10.3 MANAGING RESIDENTIAL ZONES STANDING ADVISORY C OMMITTEE SUBMISSION


Executive summary


To advise Council of the State Government’s intention to review the current application of the Residential Zones and present a draft submission (Attachment 4) to be provided to the Managing Residential Development Advisory Committee (MRDAC) in response to its current consultation process.

• An Advisory Committee has been appointed by the Minister for Planning pursuant to section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, to report on the application of the zones that provide for residential development across Melbourne and the four regional cities of Bendigo, Ballarat, Geelong and Latrobe. The MRDAC is governed by the Terms of Reference, provided in Attachment 1.

• On 4 February 2016, the Managing Residential Development Taskforce (the Taskforce) released the Residential Zones State of Play Reports and a List of Suggested Improvements to the Residential Zones. These documents are intended to inform the basis of the consultation process outlined in Clause 13 of the Terms of Reference and inform submissions. The stated intention of the Reports is to assist the community, the development industry and the Committee to review the implementation of the new residential zones on metropolitan Melbourne.

• The closing date for Submissions has been extended to 14 March 2016 in response to the delayed release of the reports.

• The Residential Zones State of Play reports, refer to Attachment 2, provide a current snap shot of each Metropolitan area and subregion in relation to housing demand, demographic trends and land use zoning. While the information provided in the reports is not controversial, there is concern with the information provided in the List of Suggested Improvements to the Residential Zones provided in attachment 3. It is unclear what the intention for the release of a list of suggested improvements is. There is no justification or supporting information to validate the suggested improvements, and more importantly none of the suggested changes are endorsed by the MRDAC or the Taskforce. The suggested improvements present potential damaging implications to the liveability of Bayside.

Key issues

The following section provides a summary of the key issues that have informed Council’s submission, provided in Attachment 4.

Terms of Reference

• The Terms of Reference have not been adhered to:

o Timeframes for the release of material to inform the submission process have not been met.



o Notification about the release of the reports to facilitate community consultation and engagement has occurred late in the process minimising opportunities for the community participation.

Limited timeframe for submissions

• Given the tight timeframes allowed for comment, Council is also restricted in facilitating some form of engagement with the community to inform the process.

• The limited timeframe is particularly problematic in light of the significant impact of the potential changes that may occur in as a result of the MRDAC review.

Information presented in The State of Play reports

• The reports provide inaccurate information in relation to the application of the new residential zones. Specifically, the information in relation to the process and options provided to Councils for the implementation of the new zones could be expanded to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the different processes, outcomes and implications for each municipality.

• The information provided in the reports is based on a desktop analysis that seeks to provide a snapshot in relation to housing demand, demographic trends and land use zoning. The local character and the strategic planning framework have not been taken into consideration in the assessment provided.

• The purpose of the overall review is premature, the Overarching report presents no identifiable impacts on aggregate housing supply in Victoria or Metropolitan Melbourne as a result of the zones. Instead it highlights that for the 2014-2015 financial year, Victoria and Melbourne experienced record residential building approvals including substantial increases in approvals for medium and high density dwellings.

List of Suggested Improvements to the Residential Zones

• There is no link between the information provided in the Residential Zones State of Play reports and the List of Suggested Improvements.

• The List of Suggested Improvements has the potential to undermine the Strategic Planning Framework that Council has developed to respond to the liveability expectations of the Bayside community.

• An assessment and response to all the suggested improvements is provided in Council’s submission, provided in Attachment 1.

Overall issues

• The reports do not demonstrate an understanding of the local conditions, including the Bayside’s Strategic Planning Framework and neighbourhood character.

• It is pleasing to see that forecasts, modelling and trends to inform the justification of the

implementation of the New Residential Zones in Bayside aligns with the State of Play Report findings, which demonstrate no impact on housing supply for the subregion and Bayside.

• It is unclear what the intention for the release of a list of suggested improvements is. There is no justification or supporting information to validate the suggested improvements, and more importantly none of the suggested changes are endorsed by the MRDAC or the Taskforce.



• Implementation of the suggested list of improvements pose potential negative implications to the Bayside’s Strategic Planning Framework and community liveability expectations.

• The review of the residential zones is premature, no detrimental impact on housing supply has been identified to date.

Recommendation

That Council:

1. adopts the draft submission at Attachment 4 as its position in response to the State Government Managing Residential Development Advisory Committee (MRDAC) current consultation process;

2. authorises the Director City Planning and Amenity to make any necessary editorial changes to the submission;

3. lodges the submission with the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP); and

4. advocates to the State Government to provide further opportunities as part of an extensive engagement process, including an opportunity for council’s to comment on a complete and justified set of proposed improvements, along with an Implementation Plan, tools and provisions as a result of any recommended changes by the Managing Residential Advisory Committee (MRDAC).

Support Attachments

1. Terms of Reference-Managing Residential Development Advisory Committee (separately enclosed)

2. Residential Zones State of Play Southern Subregion Report (separately enclosed) 3. List of Suggested Improvements to the Residential Zones (separately enclosed) 4. Submission to the Managing Residential Zones Standing Advisory Committee March

2016 (separately enclosed)




Liveable community

Social The List of Suggested Improvements to the Residential Zones could compromises the ability of Council to respond to the liveability expectations of the Bayside community.

Natural Environment

There are no immediate environmental impacts as a result of this report. Changes to the application of the zones as a result of this process can result in impacts to the natural environment.

Built Environment The List of Suggested Changes to the Residential Zones could undermine Council’s ability to deliver its Strategic Planning Framework to manage growth.


Major concerns that the timelines to make a submission will not allow for community engagement on this review which potentially could have significant impacts. Human Rights

Legal

There are no immediate legal or statutory requirements relevant to this report. The application of the zones that provide for residential development are being reviewed and changes to the application of the zones can result as an outcome of this process.

Finance

There are not immediate financial implications for Council as a result of the Managing Residential Development Advisory Committee process.


The State Planning Policy Framework and The Municipal Strategic Planning Statement of the Bayside Planning Scheme provide guidance to ensure that residential growth is managed effectively.

The Housing Strategy establishes the preferred locations for different types of residential development to meet the changing needs of the Bayside community. A key aspect of the Strategy is identifying preferred locations for growth.



10.4 MARTIN STREET STRUCTURE PLAN


Executive summary


The purpose of this report is to present the final Martin Street Structure Plan for adoption in order to commence the planning scheme amendment process.

Council adopted the draft Martin Street Structure Plan for the purpose of community consultation at its 22 September 2015 Ordinary Meeting. The community consultation has been completed and a final Structure Plan having regard to the consultation outcomes has been prepared for Council adoption along with the draft planning scheme amendment documentation.

Key issues

Consultation and Engagement

The draft Martin Street Structure Plan was presented to the community for comment during November and December 2015. Approximately 27 people attended a drop-in session, with additional comments made on Council’s website and contact with Council staff. 25 written submissions were received as a result of this process, 21 of which supported the objectives of the Structure Plan, with 10 of the 21 recommending minor adjustments. Four submissions were not supportive of the Structure Plan. Varied comments were received regarding appropriate height controls, parking considerations and installation of public urban design features (landscaping, public art, seating, etc).

Final Martin Street Structure Plan

No significant changes are proposed to the final Structure Plan as a result of the feedback received during consultation. There were varied opinions on a range of issues, particularly building heights, however it is proposed to change the height of only one area within the Structure Plan.

The proposed changes to the draft Structure Plan following consultation are:

• Providing an additional objective within the Structure Plan to ensure signage is appropriate for the activity centre; and

• A reduction to the proposed height control for the commercial buildings at 170 Martin Street from 5 storeys to 3 storeys.

These changes are presented in the final Structure Plan included as an Attachment to this report.



Planning Scheme Amendment C152

The first step in implementing the Martin Street Structure Plan is to ensure the provisions of the Bayside Planning Scheme guide development in accordance with the vision for this area. It is proposed to apply a new Design and Development Overlay Schedule 18 (DDO18) which will apply to the entire Structure Plan area, as this is the most effective way of implementing the Built Form, Access and Movement and Landscape and Environment objectives of the Structure Plan. In order to implement the Land Use objectives, modifications to the zones within the Structure Plan area are proposed. Residential areas within the Structure Plan boundary are proposed to be rezoned from a Neighbourhood Residential Zone to a General Residential Zone in order to achieve the Structure Plan objectives, with the Commercial 1 Zone remaining on the commercial core. More specifically the design objectives of the draft DDO18 proposes objectives and controls which relate to building heights, setbacks, access and signage. In addition to providing guidance on building design, the objectives also seek to improve the use of laneways for vehicle access, improve the appearance and safety of the public realm and road network adjacent to the Nepean Highway and to improve safety and accessibility for pedestrians in the railway line environs.

Draft planning scheme amendment documentation that implements the Structure Plan has been prepared for consideration, which will be subject to further community consultation once the Minister for Planning authorises Amendment C152.

Recommendation

That Council:

1. adopts the Final Martin Street Structure Plan in the form of Attachment 2 to this report;

2. seeks authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare Amendment C152 to the Bayside Planning Scheme in the form of the Martin Street Structure Plan at Attachment 2 of this report and Amendment documentation in the form of Attachment 3 of this report;

3. exhibits Amendment C152 in accordance with the Planning and Environment Act 1987; and

4. authorises the Director City Planning and Amenity to make any necessary editorial changes.

Support Attachments

1. Attachment 1 - Response to Submissions Summary 2. Attachment 2 - Final Structure Plan (separately enclosed) 3. Attachment 3 - Draft Planning Scheme Amendment Documentation (separately

enclosed)



Considerations and implications of proposition

Liveable community

Social The Martin Street Structure Plan addresses the creation of new public space within the activity centre as well as strategies for providing a mixture of housing types to increase housing choice and diversity in an area well serviced by shops and transport.

Natural Environment There are a range of landscape and environment objectives within the Structure Plan which will assist in creating an attractive landscape character and ensuring consistency with broader landscape objectives.

Built Environment The Structure Plan encourages housing close to transport and employment services and provides guidelines for the future built form developing in the activity centre, including building height and setback controls.


Three rounds of community consultation have occurred since the Structure Plan inception in 2013. The Structure Plan has been amended to have regard to the outcomes from the final round of consultation. Public notification of the planning scheme amendment will occur in accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Human Rights


Legal

There are no immediate legal implications associated with the Martin Street Structure Plan. If adopted, the Planning Scheme Amendment Process will be carried out in according with the Planning and Environment Act 1987 including public exhibition.

Finance

Council has allocated resources within the 2015/16 Budget to proceed with the planning scheme amendment to implement the Structure Plan.


Bayside City Council Plan 2013-2013

The development of the Martin Street Structure Plan is consistent with the following Council Plan strategies:

Strategy 3.1.1: Developing planning strategies and policies with our community that enhance Bayside’s liveability along with its natural and built environment.



Strategy 3.1.2: Engaging with our community to ensure we develop planning controls for Bayside.

The adoption of a Structure Plan will ensure that the Martin Street Activity Centre has a suitable planning framework in place to guide future development, having regard to the aspirations of the community.

Plan Melbourne

Plan Melbourne is the Victorian Government’s metropolitan planning strategy that will guide the City’s growth to 2050. Activity Centres such as Martin Street are to be the focus for housing, employment, transport, retail, open space, entertainment, community and other services. These centres are ideally placed to accommodate future housing and economic growth and change.

Bayside Planning Scheme

The Bayside Planning Scheme encourages medium housing development to be directed into areas close to employment and transport, such as the Martin Street activity centre. The Municipal Strategic Statement at Clause 21.03-1 identifies the objective to direct new housing into activity centres and areas close to transport, such as the Martin Street activity centre.

Bayside Housing Strategy 2012

The Bayside Housing Strategy 2012 provides a framework for how residential development will be managed by identifying the location and type of residential development required in order to meet the changing housing needs of the Bayside community.



Options considered

Option 1

Summary Adopt the Martin Street Structure Plan and request authorisation for the planning scheme amendment.

Benefits Adopting the structure plan and requesting authorisation for the planning scheme amendment to implement the Plan will provide certainty for the community regarding the future vision for the area.

Issues There are a small number of submitters who are not supportive of particular directions within the Structure Plan. A response to the matters raised has been provided as an attachment to this report.

Option 2

Summary Not adopt the Martin Street Structure Plan and do not request authorisation for the planning scheme amendment.

Benefits There are no major benefits in not adopting the Structure Plan and commencing the planning scheme amendment.

Issues Not adopting the Structure Plan and not commencing the planning scheme amendment may create uncertainty about the process and the work undertaken to date. The area will have an outdated strategic vision to guide development as the existing Martin Street Outline Development Plan was prepared in 1991.











































10.5 HANBY STREET RESERVE PLAYGROUND SIGNAGE AND FE NCING

Corporate Services - Recreation, Events & Community Partnerships File No: PSF/15/8751 – Doc No: DOC/16/38646

Executive summary


This Report responds to a petition presented to Council on 15 December 2015 from residents surrounding the Hanby Street Reserve, Brighton

The petition stated:

‘We the undersigned hereby petition Bayside City Council to erect a fence across the Hanby Street Reserve or erect a fence around the perimeter of the playground to provide a safe environment for children utilising the very popular playground whilst traffic is speeding along Hanby Street Brighton. Please help keep our children safe and erect a fence around the playground together with street signage indicating a “children’s playground drive slowly.”

The Playground Improvement Plan (the Plan) classifies the Hanby Street Reserve playground as a local level playground, small in area and servicing a local catchment. The Plan schedules Hanby Street Reserve playground for upgrade in 2021/22 and deems fencing a negotiable rather than requirement for local level playgrounds.

Key issues

Community members have expressed concern for children running from Hanby Street Reserve playground onto the adjacent Hanby Street and being injured by speeding vehicles and have requested Council to install a fence around the playground. Following receipt of the petition these concerns were discussed with a variety of internal stakeholders including the Recreation and Events, Traffic Management and Open Space teams.

While the risk of a child under adequate adult supervision running onto the road is thought to be minimal a number of treatments including the proposed fencing were considered. The fencing of playgrounds may be appropriate where a playground is adjacent to a busy road, body of water or popular dog off leash area. Hanby Street Reserve playground does not meet any of these criteria and therefore fencing is not considered necessary at the site

Council’s Traffic Management team recommended and subsequently installed advanced warning signs on Hanby Street indicating the adjacent playground to encourage drivers to slow down and be aware of the likelihood of young children in the area.

Council’s Open Space team has recommended dense low level landscape planting in place of a traditional fence to address any potential issue of children running onto the road. The planting will present a natural barrier to children and provide parents and carers with those vital seconds to call out to or run after a wandering child before they get to the road kerb.

These treatments coupled with adequate parent/carer supervision are considered to be a satisfactory response to what is a minimal risk for playground users.



Recommendation

That Council:

1. establishes dense low level landscape planting between the Hanby Street Reserve playground and Hanby Street to act as a natural barrier for children running from the playground onto the adjacent road; and

2. notifies the lead petitioner of the outcomes of this Report.

Support Attachments

Nil




Liveable community

Social Safe and suitable playgrounds provide an opportunity for children to develop key cognitive and fine motor skills and act as a meeting space for children, parents and carers to connect with other members of their local community.

Natural Environment The low level landscaping will create an aesthetically pleasing natural barrier between the playground and Hanby Street.

Built Environment The Playground Improvement Plan schedules the Hanby Street Reserve playground for renewal and upgrade in 2021/22.


The recommendations from this report will be communicated to the lead petitioner.

Human Rights

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states that children have the right to relax, play and join in a wide range of leisure activities. Council plays a key role in the provision of safe and accessible playgrounds that allow children a place to play.

Legal

Advanced warning signs have been installed on Hanby Street in accordance with relevant Australian Standards and Road Acts.

Finance

The cost of installing road signage on Hanby Street was $250 while the landscaping is estimated to cost $1,000. Both cost items can be covered within the current operating budgets.

The cost of the proposed fencing around the playground at Hanby Street Reserve is approximately $15,000.


The Playground Improvement Plan 2015 – 25 commits Council to providing playgrounds that are well maintained and minimise potential risks and hazards and deems fencing a negotiable rather than requirement for local level playgrounds.



10.6 PROPOSED LEASE OF THE FORMER BRIGHTON COURT HO USE UPDATE

Corporate Services - Commercial Services File No: PSF/15/8762 – Doc No: DOC/16/23788

Executive summary


The purpose of this report is to advise on the outcomes of the expression of interest campaign to lease and operate the former Brighton Court House (Premises) and address the short term future use of the site.

In May 2015 Council carried out an expression of interest campaign (EOI), which asked for expressions of interest from parties to lease and operate the former Brighton Court House (Premises).

Key issues

Café Proposal

The preferred proponent’s proposal to lease and operate a café from the Premises included the construction of an external pavilion immediately behind the Court House building to be potentially operated throughout the year, with an 80 seat capacity.

In accordance with the Bayside Planning Scheme, the proposal would require 32 dedicated car parking spaces. There is currently no dedicated site parking spaces for the Premises.

Subject to planning controls, the proposal would be supported with a reasonable parking balance based on the availability of on-street parking along the site frontage. This area equates to a support of approximate 25 seats.

The proponent has advised that the proposal is not viable below 50 seats due to the significant infrastructure costs associated with a commercial kitchen.

Given the necessity to provide significant parking waivers to allow the proposal to proceed and the lack of capacity to provide additional parking, there is no commercial viability of a café at the Premises. It is recommended that foreseeable alternative uses for the Premises be identified for any community or other Council purpose.

Council’s Youth Services team has vacated the Premises. The Brighton Benevolent Society occupied part of the Court House until the end of February 2016.

It is proposed that the Victorian Electoral Commission occupies the Premises as an electoral office for the 2016 Council Elections, from August to November 2016. This will provide substantial savings to the electoral process.



Future Use

Alternative uses for the site have been explored and it has been identified that the Premises would suit the Bayside University of the Third Age (Bayside U3A) needs.

Bayside U3A is one of the largest U3As in Victoria and has grown rapidly since it was founded with the support of Council in 2012. Since this time it has amassed more than 770 members and developed a diverse course offering. As a learning exchange tailored to the needs of retired and semi-retired adults who want to continue learning in an informal environment as well as joining in social activities, Bayside U3A occupies an important place in Bayside community. Students are able to choose from over 70 courses and enrol in a broad subjects including languages, music, history, computers and technology.

Classes are held at various centres across the municipality but Bayside U3A requires additional venues with larger space to meet their member’s needs. Bayside U3A’s Strategic Plan 2014-2018 identifies membership growth to 1000 members by 2018 and its first objective is to provide good quality, fit for purpose, facilities and premises at a moderate cost for the next 4 years. The Premises fulfil this objective and will be used by Bayside U3A for a variety of classes, up to 7 days a week and a small office which would enable some administration to take place.

Recommendation

That:

1. Council advises the successful proponent of the expression of interest to lease campaign that the Premises cannot accommodate a 50 to 80 seat café and that Council will not proceed with the proposal to lease the Premises as a café;

2. the former Brighton Court House is used by the Victorian Electoral Commission for electoral purposes from August to November 2016;

3. Council authorises the Director Corporate Services to enter into a lease of the former Brighton Court House with Bayside U3A University of the Third Age for a term of 9 years at a commencing rental of $322 (GST inclusive) per annum with annual increases of 5% or CPI whichever is the higher at the time of review.

Support Attachments

Nil




Liveable community

Social There is no dedicated parking associated with the Premises. Council recently installed parking restrictions in Boxshall and Carpenter Streets and investigation is underway in relation to requests to further extend these restrictions in surrounding streets. Any car parking waiver would need to be considered in accordance with Bayside Planning Scheme Clause 52:06 (impact on local amenity, need to create safe parking, accessibility to public transport).

Bayside U3A’s occupation of the Premises would enable it to continue to be a leading provider of affordable educational, recreational and social programmes for everyone aged 50 and over in Bayside and surrounding areas.

Natural Environment The surrounding grounds are open to the public and well utilised.

Built Environment The exterior of the Premises is protected under Council’s Planning Scheme, and subject to the relevant heritage controls.

A review of parking and opportunities to create further onstreet parking has been carried out. Given street widths a change to angle parking would create at most 3 additional spaces.

Bayside U3A would be responsible for general repairs and maintenance of the building.


Council has been in ongoing negotiations with the successful proponent of the EOI in relation to the proposal.

Council officers have had many discussions with Bayside U3A’s Committee of Management in relation to the proposed lease of the Premises.

In April 2015 community consultation was carried out to better understand the level of community support for the proposed café. Over 80% of respondents were supporting of the proposal. Council’s decision in relation to the café proposal and future lease of the Premises to Bayside U3A will need to be communicated to the community.

Human Rights

The implications of this report have been assessed and are not considered likely to breach or infringe upon, the human rights contained in the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

Legal

Bayside U3A would be required to enter into a community lease with Council on terms and conditions in accordance with Council’s Leasing Policy.

Finance

The proposal of a 25 seat café is not viable for the proponent to proceed.



The occupancy of the Premises by the Victorian Electoral Commission as an election office will enable a savings of $45,000 from the cost for the conduct of the elections.

The community lease to Bayside U3A would generate $322 per annum plus 5% increases.


This report is presented in line with Council’s Property Strategy 2014, Leasing Policy 2008 and the Library Arts and Culture Strategy 2012-2017 Action Plan.



Options considered

Option 1 Further car parking assessment is carried out

Summary Detailed car parking assessment is carried out to determine if any additional car parking spaces can be accommodated in surrounding Boxshall Street and Carpenter Street.

Benefits Supports a car parking waiver if additional car parking can be provided in surrounding streets.

Issues A desktop review has identified only 3 spaces which could be added through angle parking. 90 degree parking in local streets would support additional parking, however, this would not be achievable without significant works.

Local community may not support 90 degree parking in local streets and it would be subject to addressing tree issues, drainage, power pole relocations, consultations, road widening and impact on cycling connectivity.

Unbudgeted and would entail significant costs to reconfigure the streetscape to accommodate parking for a café.

Council may be seen to be supporting car park waiver on its own proposal and does not support waivers for other developments.

Any car parking waiver needs to be considered in accordance with Bayside Planning Scheme Clause 52:06.

Option 2 Council carries out expression of interest to lease

Summary Council carries out an expression of interest campaign with the broader community to lease the Court House with no restriction of use.

Benefits An expression of interest process will allow the property to be competitively tested and obtain a range of offers from the public.

All community and commercial organisations are given the opportunity to express an interest to lease the building.

Open and transparent.

Issues Based on experience with Council’s other historic buildings it is not certain that a successful offer would be achievable through a competitive process.

Potential for less rental for the site as any future rental is subject to market determination at the time.

Council may be liable for maintenance and renewal requirements for the building as it is unlikely that a community group will take on operating costs of the building.

There may not be alternative groups/organisations that wish to occupy the site.



Option 3 Council hires the Premises on a casual/reg ular booking basis

Summary The Premises is included in Council’s venues to hire

Benefits There is a demand for casual/regular hire of Council facilities.

All community and commercial organisations are given the opportunity to hire the Premises.

Open and transparent.

Council has control over the facility.

General additional income (currently hire rates range from $23 per hour to $985 for night hire of the Town Hall)

Issues Increase administration burden in managing the venue hire.

Council will be liable for maintenance and renewal requirements for the building



10.7 LEVEL CROSSING REMOVAL UPDATE

Environment and Infrastructure - Environment & Infrastructure File No: PSF/15/8756 – Doc No: DOC/16/39194

Executive summary


In 2015 the State government announced that the removal of 50 dangerous and congested level crossings will transform the way people live, work and travel across metropolitan Melbourne and improve safety for drivers and pedestrians. A Level Crossing Removal Authority (LXRA) has been established to deliver this commitment.

The 50 nominated level crossings are planned to be removed in the current and next State government term, with at least 20 level crossings to be completed by 2018.

This report is to provide Council with information on the level crossing removal at Charman Road, including implications for Park Road and identifies an advocacy approach to the State government and notes Council’s previous resolution seeking to include Highett Road in the level crossing removal program.

Key issues

• The Charman Road level crossing removal is planned for the next term of State government.

• The timing of the removal provides an opportunity for the LXRA to effectively engage with the community on the options available to remove the Charman Road crossing.

• The community engagement process should precede the awarding of any construction contracts for the crossing removal work. The LXRA has advised that procurement activities are planned for 2017.

• Given the proximity of Park Road to Charman Road, there is an opportunity to remove this crossing to provide a benefit to the Bayside community. Removal of the Charman Road crossing in isolation would limit the future ability to remove the Park Road crossing.

• Council has previously resolved to seek a reconsideration of the crossing removal program so that Highett Road is included.

Recommendation

That Council:

1. writes to the relevant Ministers and Level Crossing Removal Authority to request that a responsible community engagement process be completed for the Charman Road level crossing prior to any construction contracts being awarded; and

2. writes to the relevant Ministers seeking the inclusion of Park Road in the level crossing removal program.

Support Attachments

Nil




Liveable community

Social The level crossing removal program is a State government initiative to improve the reliability of trains and to remove safety risks and traffic delays associated with railway level crossings.

Natural Environment There are no direct implications on the natural environment however, the design of any crossing removal should not erode the natural environment and should seek to make improvements in this area.

Built Environment The crossing removal features will be a significant impact on the built environment and the designs should be informed by the community.

The Park Road level crossing is in close proximity to the Charman Road crossing and given the extensive works and disruption required to remove the Charman Road crossing, the opportunity to remove the Park Road crossing should be considered. If removal of the Park Road crossing is not included, the rail and road conditions at Park Road will impose a significant design constraint on the opportunities available at Charman Road.

In January 2016, Council resolved to advocate for the urgent development of a business case to accelerate the inclusion of the Highett Road level crossing as part of the State government’s Level Crossing Removal Project. No response from the relevant Minister has been received to date.


To ensure the ongoing success and community support for the level crossing removal project the LXRA must undertake extensive community engagement prior to developing the proposed grade separation treatments. This must include fully informing the community of site constraints and opportunities in order to minimise misinformation and ensure a transparent process. Two community drop-in sessions have been organised by the LXRA in March 2016 at Cheltenham Library and Community centres to enable the community to provide input for the level crossing removal project at Charman Road.

Human Rights


Legal

The LXRA is a State government authority. There are no known legal implications at this time.



Finance

The level crossing removal program is a State government project so there are no direct costs to Council. Depending on the community engagement proposed by the LXRA, Council may choose to conduct some independent engagement activities to determine the views of the Bayside community.


Council’s Community Engagement Policy outlines Council’s processes for seeking community input. The LXRA should adopt a similar approach.

The proposition will demonstrate the following strategic objectives in the Bayside Council Plan 2013 - 2017:

1.1 Ensuring decisions are informed by community input; and

3.2 Providing infrastructure and promote transport options that meet current and expected needs of the Bayside community.

Options considered

Option 1

Summary Advocate for responsible community engagement for the Charman Road level crossing removal and advocate for Park Road and Highett Road to be included in the level crossing removal project.

Benefits A responsible community engagement approach by the LXRA will ensure the community’s views are understood and addressed.

The Park Road level crossing is in close proximity to Charman Road and would improve access and reduce traffic congestion in Park Road.

Future options at the Highett Road level crossing may be constrained by the Southland railway station development. The Highett Activity Centre is an Urban Renewal Precinct and is subject to residential and commercial growth that will further add to the current levels of congestion.

Issues The level of community engagement to be employed by the LXRA is not well understood and the Park Road and Highett Road crossings are not part of the current level crossing removal project.

Option 2 Summary Maintain a wait and see position to the LXRA proposals regarding Charman

Road level crossing removal.

Benefits There are no benefits relating to this option.

Issues An opportunity to advocate on behalf of the Bayside community for responsible community engagement on a significant State government project would be lost.

An opportunity to advocate for improvements to the State government’s Level Crossing Removal Project, in the form of including the Park Road and Highett Road level crossings, would be lost.



10.8 STANDARD PLANNING PERMIT CONDITIONS

City Planning and Amenity - Statutory Planning File No: PSF/15/8755 – Doc No: DOC/16/41881

Executive summary


To present to Council a revised set of Standard Planning Permit Conditions for adoption. The conditions are grouped into headings of ‘like’ conditions related to the purpose or issue in respect of which the conditions should be applied. In general terms the nature and effect of conditions are the same as those previously adopted by Council, but updated and refined for application in today’s planning environment.

Key issues

A review of the existing adopted conditions, has been conducted having regard to conditions currently used by Council and VCAT and the standard conditions suggested by the State Government. The ‘Standard Planning Permit Conditions’ are intended to be utilised as the base conditions applied to permits issued by Council (applied according to relevance to the permission). However there may exist circumstances where a standard condition needs to be modified to reflect a particular circumstance or outcome sought for the permission. Further, there will from time to time be circumstances where additional or specialised conditions are required to achieve a particular restriction or outcome on a permit. In this regard the conditions form a ‘base document’ but not a ‘stricture’ for construction of permits, and the delegate (or Council committee) will retain discretion to decide the actual conditions applied to permits.

The conditions themselves, and how they can be applied are limited by case law determined by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) and Supreme Court over time. Amongst the limitations which apply are that conditions must serve a ‘planning purpose’, and have a clear nexus to the reason why a planning permit is required.

Duplication of obligations under alternative legislation should also be avoided. For example, conditions which deal with matters such as asbestos removal and management of noise from air conditioning units are not appropriate, as they would duplicate controls under separate legislation.

Recommendation

That Council adopts the ‘Standard Planning Permit Conditions’ document.

Support Attachments

1. Attachment 1 - Standard Planning Permit Conditions - 2016




Liveable community

Social The revised Standard Planning Permit conditions document contains conditions which, when appropriately applied to relevant planning permits, will assist in managing the effects of land use or development.

Natural Environment The revised Standard Planning Permit conditions document contains conditions which, when appropriately applied to relevant planning permits, will assist in managing effects of land use and development on the natural environment, or improving the natural environment.

Built Environment The revised Standard Planning Permit conditions document contains conditions which, when appropriately applied to relevant planning permits, will assist in managing land use and the development in the urban environment.


The revised Standard Planning Permit conditions document has been developed in a manner which will reduce duplication and make obligations under planning permits easier to understand for members of the community.

Human Rights

Pursuant to the Planning and Environment Act (1987), Council in its role as Responsible Authority is empowered to apply conditions to planning permits. The appropriate application of conditions are not considered likely to breach or infringe upon Human Rights as set out in the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities.

Legal

The revised Standard Planning Permit conditions document has been developed to guide the issuance of permits pursuant to the Planning and Environment Act (1987). The ability to apply conditions is created by that Act, however in practice constrained and guided by case law.

Finance

The revised Standard Planning Permit conditions document itself does not create material financial issues for Council. Some conditions contained in the document are utilised to ensure payment of compensation for removal of Council assets or to ensure Council assets are not damaged. Conditions also seek to reduce public risk and safety issues.


The application of standard planning permit conditions will assist in improving service provision in respect of Statutory Planning permits, and accordingly make Bayside a Better Place.



Options considered

Option 1

Summary Do not amend or update current Conditions document.

Benefits Nil.

Issues Some conditions in the document are not current and/or utilised. If non-current conditions were applied then outcomes may not be acceptable, or may be sub-optimal.

Option 2

Summary Adopt a revised set of standard conditions

Benefits Provide a well-constructed set of standard conditions that will be applied consistently. Enable all stakeholders the opportunity to understand the nature and type of conditions that will be applied by Council.

Issues Nil.

































































10.9 ELECTRONIC VOTE COUNTING FOR THE 2016 COUNCIL ELECTIONS


Executive summary


The purpose of this report it to authorise the Returning Officer for the 2016 Council Elections to designate a location outside the municipality for the purposes of a computer count should the need arise.

The 2016 Council Elections will be held on Saturday 23 October 2016. Given the voting system for this election will be based on proportional representation, the counting of the individual votes will be undertaken by a computer count. This is the same process used for the 2012 Council Elections.

The counting of votes in 2012 Council Elections was undertaken at Sandringham College.

The Victorian Electoral Commission (VEC) has traditionally used local schools, secondary colleges, TAFE colleges and university campuses as these locations have established computer infrastructure and updated operating systems, and have a suitable layout that facilitates access for scrutineers, and are equipped for the Occupational Health and Safety requirements for extended periods of data entry.

Key issues

Given the trend away from the traditional ‘computer labs’ in secondary colleges and tertiary institutions, such facilities may not necessarily be available at various locations within Bayside. The VEC also considers that given the timing of the election, existing facilities may still be in use for academic activities and therefore not available for a count.

Should the VEC exhaust all avenues to find a suitable location within Bayside municipality to conduct the computer count, it may be necessary to finds a location outside the municipality to conduct the computer count.

The VEC has well-developed procedures in place to ensure the security of the ballot papers at each stage of the process, and the software to provide for an efficient and accurate count of votes. An electronic counting of votes, as compared to a manual count, will provide for a more efficient and accurate count, and it is proposed that the poll would be declared on Sunday 24 October 2016.

It is a requirement of the Local Government (Electoral) Regulations 2005 for Council to formally pass a resolution allowing the Returning Officer conducting the election to designate a vote counting venue outside the municipality, should it be required.

Recommendation

That Council authorises the Returning Officer for the 2016 Bayside General Elections to designate a venue outside the municipality of Bayside for the purposes of conducting the computer count of ballot papers for the 2016 Council Elections, should the need arise to conduct the count outside the municipality.



Support Attachments

Nil


Liveable community





The location of the proposed counting venue will be communicated with all candidates and scrutineers for the 2016 Council Elections.

Human Rights


Legal

The Local Government (Electoral) Regulations 2005 Regulation 93(2) provides that the returning officer may designate a place outside the municipal district of the Council to be counting place if the Council passes a resolution allowing the Returning Officer to designate that place as a counting place before the entitlement day for an election.

As a result of this legislative requirement, this proposed resolution will only be put in place if a suitable location cannot be found within Bayside.

Finance

The cost for an electronic count will be far lower than for a count conducted manually, due to a reduction in labour costs and will be incorporated into the overall costs for the conduct of the 2016 Council Elections.


The conduct of the 2016 General Elections undertaken by the VAC is consistent with Goal 7 of the Council Plan specifically relating to ensuring open and transparent decision making and strong accountability to the community.

Bayside City Council Ordinary Counc il Meeting - 22 March 2016


10.10 ELECTION PERIOD POLICY


Executive summary


The purpose of this report is to present the Election Period policy for Council adoption in accordance with the recent legislative amendment to the Local Government Act 1989 (the Act).

Council currently has a policy titled Pre-Election Caretaker Policy which was adopted by Council in 2012 in preparation for the 2012 Council Elections.

However, as a result of the legislative changes arising from the Local Government Amendment (Improved Governance) Act, it is a requirement under Section 93B of the Local Government Act 1989 for Council to prepare, adopt and maintain an Election period policy by 31 March 2016.

The Act also specifies that the policy must include the following:

• Procedures intended to prevent the Council from making inappropriate decisions or using resources inappropriately during the election period before a general election;

• Limits on public consultation and the scheduling of Council events; and

• Procedures to ensure that access to information held by Council is made equally available and accessible to candidates during the election.

Key issues

Council’s current Pre-election Caretaker policy was reviewed in 2012 prior to the legislative amendments. The proposed Election Period policy as attached incorporates the new legislative changes and builds on the existing requirement to enhance the understanding of the policy.

The proposed Election Period policy includes the following key components which will assist the Council and organisation in dealing with matters during the election period commencing the last day of the receipt of nominations until 23 October 2016 at 6.00pm a period of 32 days:

• Responsibilities of Councillors; • Role of the Chief Executive Officer; • Enhanced definition of Major Policy Decisions, Inappropriate Decisions and Significant

Decisions; • Limitations on public consultation through the Election Period; • Limitations of conducting Council events during the Election Period; • Council publications and certification process by the Chief Executive Officer; • Implications with the Council’s online presence through the website and social media; • Publicity; • Media advice, media releases and spokesperson during the Election Period; • Council resources;



• Information made available to Councillors and to all candidates; • Implementation of an Information Request Register; and • Information publicly available on Council’s website which is the subject of a successful

request for information from a candidate/s.

A further requirement of the legislation is that a copy of the Election Period policy must be given to each Councillor as soon as practicable after it is adopted; be available for inspection at the Corporate centre; and published on Council’s internet website.

Recommendation

That Council:

1. rescinds the Pre-Election Caretaker policy dated August 2012;

2. adopts the Election Period policy dated March 2016;

3. provides a copy of the adopted Election Period policy to all Councillors; and

4. publishes the Election Period policy on Council’s website.

Support Attachments

1. Election Period Policy - 22 March 2016 Council Report


Liveable community





Officers have undertaken benchmarking against corresponding policies with a number of councils within the sector.

Human Rights

The implications of this report have been assessed and are not considered likely to breach or infringe upon the human rights contained in the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006. In fact the proposed policy enforces equal accessibility to information.



Legal

The proposed Election Period policy complies with the legislative requirements of the Local Government Act 1989 specifically relating to section 93B of the Act.

Finance



This proposed policy supports Goal 7 of the Council Plan – Financial responsibility and good governance and ensures Council is well governed during the election period and is compliant with the Local Government Act 1989 and supports open and transparent decision making during an election period.





















































10.11 REVIEW OF THE POSITION STATEMENT FOR THE ROLE OF MAYOR AT BAYSIDE CITY COUNCIL


Executive summary


To review the position statement for the role and duties associated with the office of Mayor at Bayside City council.

Council currently has an adopted position statement for the role of Mayor, however recent legislative changes arising the Local Government Amendment (Improved Governance) Act 2915 provides the opportunity to review the role statement to include additional functions of the Mayor as prescribed in Section 73AA of the Local Government Act 1989.

Key issues

The position statement is used as a great guide to the incumbent in the role of Mayor, and particularly to the newly elected Council following the General Elections.

The position statement attached provides a clear direction and expectation of a newly elected Mayor of the City.

Recommendation

That Council adopts the attached position statement dated March 2016 for the role and duties of the Mayor for Bayside City Council.

Support Attachments

1. Position statement for the role of Mayor


Liveable community







There are no customer service and community engagement implications associated with this report.

Human Rights


Legal

The Local Government Act 1989 provides for the functions of the Mayor, however this position statement provides greater guidance on some of the duties and expectations of the Mayor.

Finance



This position statement for the role of the Mayor provides greater clarity for the incumbents to the role of Mayor providing improved governance process. This is aligned with Goal 7 of the Council Plan.









10.12 MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATION OF VICTORIA - STATE COU NCIL - CALL FOR MOTIONS


Executive summary


To advise Council of the State Council Meeting of the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) and to propose motions to be put forward to the State Council Meeting.

The MAV will be convening its State Council Meeting on Friday 13 May 2016. The State Council is the body consisting of all the representatives of Councils which are financial members of the MAV, and the role of the State Council is to set high-level strategic directions for the MAV.

The State Council enables member Councils to put forward motions for consideration by its members, therefore enabling the MAV to make representation to various bodies on behalf of the local government sector.

Only Council’s appointed representative is able to vote on behalf of Bayside at the State Council. Council’s MAV representative is Cr Felicity Frederico.

Key issues

It is proposed that the following two motions be put forward to the State Council meeting:

MAV Governance

That in response to the unprecedented challenges facing the local government sector:

1. This MAV State Council directs that the MAV Board initiates an independent review of the MAV’s objectives, purposes, strategy and performance. This Review is to assess the MAV’s capacity and performance against expectations befitting a modern, membership-driven peak body that is able to serve its constituency’s diverse requirements, while delivering high levels of membership satisfaction.

2. The Review is to be overseen by a guidance or reference committee comprised of 2

Councillors (1 each x metropolitan and rural/regional), 2 current CEOs (1 each x metropolitan and rural/regional each) and 2 independent persons with recognised governance expertise. The review’s recommendations are to be presented to MAV State Council at the earliest opportunity, but no later than the first State Council of 2017.

3. Further, this review must include: • A comprehensive survey of membership satisfaction with and future expectations of

the MAV. • A clear statement of expected performance against which the MAV can demonstrate

its effectiveness over time. • Proposals for effective governance structures and processes, including consultation

with the sector including the structure and process for election of Board membership.



• Examination of limited tenure for all Board positions and the Presidency. • Strong processes for the development of sector policy and advocacy strategies, and

MAV organisational policies and strategies. • Reference to the Municipal Association Act Review and the MAV Rules so as to

ensure the MAV’s purpose, objectives, strategy and governance are effectively integrated

• An examination of how MAV programs and initiatives, be they commercial or otherwise, are evaluated for performance and outcomes.

Rationale

An independent review that enables transparent and objective oversight of the MAV’s role, strategy and performance is essential if such a review is to have the necessary credibility with all stakeholders. The motion proposes a means of doing that and also requires that the outcomes and recommendations need to be presented to State Council rather than the Board of the MAV. This again will ensure transparency and accountability to the sector.

These factors include:

A) State government control over the major revenue sources for local government in the form of rate revenue (rate capping) and statutory fees determined by the State.

B) State government ambiguity about whether local governments are to be accountable to their local communities or the Minister for Local Government;

C) A declining local government share of National taxation revenue; D) Requirements to expand services for growing populations; and E) A damaging VAGO review outcome regarding the MAV and ongoing concerns for

improved MAV capability and performance.

To properly and comprehensively address the matters that have been raised it is important that the MAV undertakes a fundamental once in a generation review

A review of the Municipal Association’s Act is being undertaken by the State government. This is not and should not be the complete answer to the MAV’s role, its strategy and performance. The opportunity should now be taken to determine what the sector needs from the MAV and how the MAV structure and processes can best support performance

An independent review that enables transparent and objective oversight of the MAV’s role, strategy and performance is essential if such a review is to have the necessary credibility with all stakeholders. The motion proposes a means of doing that and also requires that the outcomes and recommendations need to be presented to State Council rather than the Board of the MAV. This again will ensure transparency and accountability to the sector



Food Safety Policy

That the MAV advocates the State Government to develop the statewide Food Safety Policy / Risk Management Strategy template as a matter of urgency.

Rationale

Currently there is no state wide Food Safety policy/risk management strategy covering inspections and enforcement of food regulation in Victoria.

The Department of Human Services indicated in 2008 in response to a Victorian Competition and Efficiency Commission (VCEC) inquiry into food regulation in Victoria that they would take a leadership role by developing a food safety policy/ risk management strategy template that will be available to all local governments.

The template was to emphasise the importance of each council’s role in providing information and advice to food businesses, address surveillance strategies and broad circumstances in which the various enforcement mechanisms will be used to encourage compliance.

Delivering this initiative will enable all Victorian Council’s to deliver a fair, consistent and transparent food safety service to the community.

To date this has not occurred and we seek MAV support in advocating to the State Government to implement this initiative as a matter of urgency.

Recommendation

That Council submits the following two motions to the MAV State Council meeting to be held on 13 May 2016:

1. MAV Governance

That in response to the unprecedented challenges facing the local government sector:

1. This MAV State Council directs that the MAV Board initiates an independent review of the MAV’s objectives, purposes, strategy and performance. This Review is to assess the MAV’s capacity and performance against expectations befitting a modern, membership-driven peak body that is able to serve its constituency’s diverse requirements, while delivering high levels of membership satisfaction.

2. The Review is to be overseen by a guidance or reference committee comprised of 2

Councillors (1 each x metropolitan and rural/regional), 2 current CEOs (1 each x metropolitan and rural/regional each) and 2 independent persons with recognised governance expertise.

The review’s recommendations are to be presented to MAV State Council at the earliest opportunity, but no later than the first State Council of 2017.



3. Further, this review must include: • A comprehensive survey of membership satisfaction with and future expectations of

the MAV. • A clear statement of expected performance against which the MAV can demonstrate

its effectiveness over time. • Proposals for effective governance structures and processes, including consultation

with the sector including the structure and process for election of Board membership. • Examination of limited tenure for all Board positions and the Presidency. • Strong processes for the development of sector policy and advocacy strategies, and

MAV organisational policies and strategies. • Reference to the Municipal Association Act Review and the MAV Rules so as to

ensure the MAV’s purpose, objectives, strategy and governance are effectively integrated

• An examination of how MAV programs and initiatives, be they commercial or otherwise, are evaluated for performance and outcomes.

2. Food Safety Policy

That the MAV advocates the State Government to develop the statewide Food Safety Policy / Risk Management Strategy template as a matter of urgency.

Support Attachments

Nil


Liveable community

Social As aspect of this report relates to the introduction of a model Food Safety Policy across the local government sector for consistency. The introduction of a Food Safety Policy will assist in improving health and wellbeing across the Victoria.






It is intended that the proposed motions will be circulated amongst all member Councils prior to the State Council Meeting, and Bayside will seek support from neighbouring Councils to support the proposed motions.

Councillors will be advised of the adopted motions following the MAV meeting.

Human Rights


Legal


Finance



The proposed motion concerning the Food Safety has a direct link to the Council Plan through a number of Goals and it is important that Council strongly advocates these matters within the sector to ensure improved health and wellbeing for the community at large and improved governance transparency of the MAV.



10.13 CON/15/60 BRIGHTON GOLF COURSE CAR PARK RENEW AL WORKS

Environment and Infrastructure - City Works File No: PSF/15/8763 – Doc No: DOC/16/35287

Executive summary


The purpose of this report is to recommend the appointment of a contractor to undertake the Brighton Golf Course Car Park Renewal Works at 210 Dendy Street, Brighton East, under Contract CON/15/60.

The works include:

• Asphalt overlay, pavement and kerb and channel reconstruction including linemarking and signs; and

• Drainage and landscaping works including a granitic sand path and water sensitive urban design elements.

The extent of the work is contained within the existing car parking area as shown in Attachment 1.

Key issues

A public tender was advertised in The Age and released through TenderSearch on Saturday 16 January 2016. The Request for Tender closed Wednesday 10 February 2016 with the following submissions:

• Bitu-Mill (Civil) Pty Ltd

• Evergreen Civil Pty Ltd

• GP Bluestone Pty Ltd

• Paper Street Pty Ltd t/a Metroplant & Civil

• Vcrete Concrete Contractors Pty Ltd

• WM Loud Australia Pty Ltd

This Request for Tender was undertaken in accordance with the Bayside City Council’s Quotation and Tendering Procedure and section 186 of the Local Government Act 1989. The result of the analysis can be found in Confidential Attachment 2: Evaluation Matrix.

From the initial evaluation Vcrete Contractors was shortlisted and invited to interview.

At interview Vcrete Contractors demonstrated a good understanding of the project and are committed to complete the work within the required timeframe.

The tender evaluation panel concluded that Vcrete Contractors offered the best value for money.

Vcrete Contractors has been operating for 12 years and has successfully completed similar projects for Banyule City Council, Kingston City Council and Bayside City Council.



Recommendation

That Council:

1. awards contract CON/15/60 Brighton Golf Course Car Park Renewal Works at 210 Dendy Street, Brighton East to V.Crete Concrete Contractors Pty Ltd t/a Vcrete Contractors (ABN: 40 055 492 683) for the lump sum price of $281,952.99 exclusive of GST and $310,148.29 inclusive GST;

2. authorises the Chief Executive Officer to sign all necessary documentation related to CON1560 Brighton Golf Course Car Park Renewal Works at 210 Dendy Street, Brighton East; and

3. advises the unsuccessful tenderers accordingly.

Support Attachments

1. Attachment 1 - Brighton Golf Course Car Park Renewal Work Schematics (separately enclosed)

2. Attachment 2 - Evaluation Matrix for CON/15/60 Brighton Golf Course Car Park Renewal Works at 210 Dendy Street, Brighton East (separately enclosed) (confidential)


Liveable community

Social These works are aimed at improving amenities for users of the car park at Brighton Golf Course.

Natural Environment The works under this contract include Water Sensitive Urban Design to manage storm water flow from the car park.

Built Environment The car park has been redesigned so that the works under this contract will increase the number of parking bays to meet increased demand. It will also improve safety of the carpark by providing better access.


Together with the contractor, Council will provide further advice prior to commencement of the work and will maintain contact with key stakeholders during the construction period.

Human Rights




Legal

There are no legal issues relevant to this report.

Finance

The Capital Works Budget for 2015/16 has an allocation of $418,294(ex GST) for Council Car Park Renewal Program. The following table summarises the program budget.

Consultant costs for designing various car parks $30,000

Completed works (CON1517 and CON1520) $64,563

This contract cost CON/15/60 $281,953

Contingencies & Project Management Costs $41,778

Projected car park renewal Cost (ex GST) $418,294


This project is consistent with the 2013/2017 Council Plan as identified under Strategy 3.2.1: Ensuring community assets and infrastructure meet current and expected needs.

Options considered

Not applicable to this report.



10.14 CON/16/11 CONSTRUCTION OF FIVE PLAYGROUNDS IN THE CITY OF BAYSIDE

Environment and Infrastructure - City Works File No: PSF/15/8763 – Doc No: DOC/16/35360

Executive summary


The purpose of this report is to recommend the appointment of a contractor to undertake the Construction of Five Playgrounds in the City of Bayside under Contract CON/16/11.

The works include the following five sites:

• Tibrockney Reserve Playground

• Highland Avenue Park Playground

• Tulip Grove Playground

• Lyle Anderson Reserve Playground

• Hurlingham Park Playground

Plans for the playgrounds are shown in Attachment 1.

Key issues

A public tender was advertised in The Age and released through TenderSearch on Saturday 23 January 2016. The Request for Tender closed Wednesday 17 February 2016 with the following submissions:

• Eden Landscape

• Red Centre Nominees Pty Ltd t/a Exterior Concept Landscapes

This Request for Tender was undertaken in accordance with the Bayside City Council’s Quotation and Tendering Procedure and section 186 of the Local Government Act 1989. The result of the analysis can be found in Confidential Attachment 2 : Evaluation Matrix.

From the initial evaluation Exterior Concept Landscapes was shortlisted and invited to interview.

Exterior Concept Landscapes has been operating for 17 years specialising in playground construction and redevelopment, as well as asphalt works, soft and hard landscaping works. Exterior Concept Landscapes has successfully completed similar projects for City of Melbourne, City of Casey, Brimbank City Council and Bayside City Council.

At interview Exterior Concept Landscapes demonstrated a good understanding of the project and are committed to complete the work within the required timeframe.

The tender evaluation panel concluded that Exterior Concept Landscapes offered the best value for money.



Recommendation

That Council:

1. awards contract CON/16/11 Construction of Five Playgrounds in the City of Bayside to Red Centre Nominees Pty Ltd t/a Exterior Concept Landscapes (ABN: 55 084 274 411) for the lump sum price of $589,285.00 exclusive of GST and $648,213.50 inclusive GST;

2. authorises the Chief Executive Officer to sign all necessary documentation related to CON/16/11 Construction of Five Playgrounds in the City of Bayside; and

3. advises the unsuccessful tenderers accordingly.

Support Attachments

1. Attachment 1 - Playground Schematics (separately enclosed) 2. Attachment 2 - Evaluation Matrix for CON/16/11 Construction of Five Playgrounds in the

City of Bayside (separately enclosed) (confidential)


Social These works are aimed at improving play experience and encouraging families to frequent the playground, as well as the use of nearby park amenities and open spaces.

Natural Environment The works under this contract include the protection of existing vegetation, as well as the addition of more trees to provide natural shades.

Built Environment The work under this contract will enhance and improve the landscape features at the park including paths, furniture and provide accessibility to the playground.


Together with the contractor, Council will provide further advice prior to commencement of the work and will maintain contact with key stakeholders during the construction period.

Human Rights


Legal

There are no legal issues relevant to this report.



Finance

The Capital Works Budget for 2015/16 has an allocation of $725,000 (ex GST) for this project. The following table summarises the project budget. Note prices are excluding GST.

Contract cost $589,285.00

Consultant costs $50,000.00

Contingencies & Project Management Costs $30,000.00

Project Cost (ex GST) $669,285.00 The expected project cost based on the original scope of works is $669,285 (ex GST). The surplus will be used to fund other capital projects that have been forecast to exceed the allocated budget amount.


This project is consistent with the 2013/2017 Council Plan as identified under Strategy 3.2.1: Ensuring community assets and infrastructure meet current and expected needs.

Options considered




10.15 JANUARY 2016 FINANCIAL REPORT

Corporate Services - Finance File No: PSF/15/8759 – Doc No: DOC/16/31501

Executive summary


This report provides a summary and analysis of Council’s financial performance for seven months to 31 January 2016.

The report is designed to analyse actual results against the 2015/16 adopted budget to ensure consistency and compliance with the Adopted Budget, and to measure Council’s overall financial performance.

Please refer to the Detailed Financial Report attached for full analysis.

Key issues

2015/16 Year to date operating Result

The January year to date result is a surplus of $16.8M which is $7.9M favourable to Budget.

2015/16 Forecast operating result

The current forecast for the year represents a surplus of $20.2M which is $2.7M favourable to Budget.

The underlying forecast operating result is favourable to budget by $1M and excludes the following one off or timing items:

• ($1.3M) – 50% Grants Commission funding received in 2014/15 • ($1.4M) – Forecast Capital funding lower than budget • $1.2M – Net proceeds from the sale of Sandringham Child Care Centre. • $0.6M – Refund from Transpacific regarding the carbon tax paid on the waste

disposal contract. • $1.75M – Increase in resort & recreation levy to be transferred to reserves • $.16M – 2 bathing boxes sold in 2015/16. All net proceeds to be quarantined in

reserves for future Dendy Beach Precinct works. • $0.3M – Interest income from term deposits forecast to increase due to favourable

operating cash position • $0.4M – Supplementary Rates • $0.1M – Reduction in WorkCover premium

Cash and Investments

The cash position of $64.9M has increased by $8.2M from $56.7M due to a $7.7M greater opening cash balance than budgeted, unbudgeted net cash proceeds from the sale of Sandringham CC $3.43 million, and favourable operating and capital results YTD.

Victorian Auditor General’s Office (VAGO) Indicators

Current forecasts indicate that Council will achieve VAGO indicator targets.

Local Government Performance Reporting Framework (LGPRF) Indicators

Current forecasts indicate that Council will achieve LGPRF indicator targets.



Capital Result

The forecasts indicate a carry forward of capital projects worth $4.0M (net of capital funding $2.0M) to 2016/17 mainly due to the timing of the Banksia Reserve Pavilion Redevelopment. Including carried forwards, the forecast capital result is favourable by $88k.

Recommendation

That Council notes the operating and capital financial report for the seven months to 31 January 2016.

Support Attachments

1. Attachment - January 2016 Financial Report v2


Liveable community

Social There are no social impacts associated with this report.

Natural Environment There are no natural environmental impacts associated with this report.

Built Environment There are no built environmental impacts associated with this report.


There are no impacts to customer service.

There are no impacts to community engagement.

Human Rights


Legal

Section 138 of the Local Government Act 1989 prescribes that, at least every three months, a financial report of revenue and expenditure be presented to Council.

Finance

The year-end forecast is a surplus of $20.2M which is $2.7M favourable to budget.

The capital result forecast including the anticipated rollover of projects to 2016/17 is $88k favourable to budget.




The monthly financial report is identified within Goal 7 in the Council Plan 2013-2017 Strategic Objective 7.2.2- Reporting regularly to our community on Council’s performance.





























10.16 COUNCIL ACTION AWAITING REPORT


Executive summary


This report presents to Council a schedule of actions pending for the period to 29 February 2016.

Key issues

This report contains resolutions of Council that require a further report to Council.

Recommendation

That Council notes the Council Action Awaiting Report.

Support Attachments

1. Council Action Awaiting report March 2016




Liveable community

Social Not applicable to this report.

Natural Environment Not applicable to this report.

Built Environment Not applicable to this report.



Human Rights


Legal


Finance




























10.17 VCAT DECISIONS

City Planning and Amenity - Statutory Planning File No: PSF/15/8755 – Doc No: DOC/16/10860

Executive summary


To inform Council of VCAT determinations received in the month of February 2016.

Summary details for the decisions handed down during the month are attached.

Month Year

Cou

ncil

Uph

eld

Cou

ncil

Ove

r-tu

rned

Del

egat

e U

phel

d

Del

egat

e O

ver-

turn

ed

Oth

er (

e.g.

Var

ied,

by

Con

sent

or

Sec

87A

With

draw

n

Total

LGPRF* Outcome

Set

Asi

de

Affi

rmed

July 2015 1 4 1 3 0 1 10 8 1

August 2015 0 0 1 1 2 0 4 1 3

September 2015 0 2 0 2 3 0 7 4 3

October 2015 0 0 2 2 2 2 8 2 4

November 2015 0 2 1 4 0 0 7 6 1

December 2015 1 0 1 6 3 0 11 5 6

January 2016 0 0 1 0 3 2 6 0 4

February 2016 0 0 2 5 1 1 9 5 2

TOTAL: 2 8 9 23 14 6 62 31 24

*Local Government Performance Reporting Framework (Data to be reported to State Government)

Key issues

Not applicable

Recommendation

That the report on the VCAT decisions on the planning applications handed down during the month of February 2016 be received and noted.

Support Attachments

1. Attachment VCAT Report - 22 March 2016




Liveable community

Social Not applicable

Natural Environment Not applicable

Built Environment Not applicable


Not applicable

Human Rights

Not applicable

Legal

Not applicable

Finance

Not applicable


Not applicable

Bayside City Council Ordinary Council Meeting - 22 March 2016Attachment 1


Subject Site: 166 South Road, Brighton East

Application No. 5/2013/503/1

VCAT Reference No. P2222/2015

Applicant: Peter Watt

Before: Michael Deidun, Member

Date of hearing: 2 February 2016

Date of order: 2 February 2016

Proposal:

Amendment of Plans Under Secondary Consent: Partial demolition, building and works to a dwelling and outbuilding; demolition of an outbuilding (garage) in a Heritage Overlay (HO652)

Officer recommendation: Secondary Consent Refusal

Council determination: N/A

Appeal type: Refusal

Plans substituted prior to hearing? No

VCAT determination: Amended Plans to be Endorsed

LGPRF outcome: Set Aside Subject Site: 14 Haywood Street, Beaumaris



Applicant: Michael John McMahon & Erika Lee Thretheway

Respondent: Grove Architecture

Before: E. Bensz, Member Date of hearing: 3 February 2016 Date of order: 3 February 2016 Proposal: The construction of two double storey dwellings

Officer recommendation: Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit


Appeal type: Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit

Plans substituted prior to hearing? Yes

VCAT determination: Permit to be issued

LGPRF outcome: Affirmed



Subject Site: 172 Beach Road, Sandringham



Applicant: Shenfield Property Construction

Before: Jeanette G Rickards, Senior Member Date of hearing: No Hearing Date of order: 3 February 2016

Proposal:

Construct a two storey building comprising two dwellings with basement parking and roof decks in a Neighbourhood Residential Zone 3 and Design & Development Overlay 1 and alteration to vehicle access to a Road Zone Category 1

Officer recommendation: Not Support


Appeal type: Failure To Grant


VCAT determination: Appeal withdrawn

LGPRF outcome: N/A Subject Site: 56-62 Abbott Street, Sandringham



Applicant: Goal Number 6 Pty Ltd

Before: E A Bensz, Member Date of hearing: 05 February 2016 Date of order: 05 February 2016

Proposal:

Construction of a double storey town house development consisting of sixteen (16) dwellings and the lopping of vegetation in a Heritage Overlay (HO700) and waiver of one visitor car parking space in accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the following conditions



Appeal type: Amendment of Permit (Sec87A)


VCAT determination: Amended Permit to be issued

LGPRF outcome: N/A



Subject Site: 19 June Street, Highett



Applicant: George Francis Stooke

Before: Graeme David, Member Date of hearing: 3 February 2016 Date of order: 10 February 2016

Proposal: Construction of two double-storey dwellings in a Special Building Overlay

Officer recommendation: Permit Refused





LGPRF outcome: Set Aside

Subject Site: 56 Cochrane Street, Brighton



Applicant: Liu Family Trust

Respondents: Alex Gillon, Sophie and Matthew Mullins, Andrew Beck, Jodie and Stuart Johnson

Before: Jeanette G Rickards, Senior Member

Date of hearing: 21 January 2016


Proposal:

Construction of a three storey building comprising five dwellings and basement car parking and a front fence exceeding a height of 1.2 metres



Appeal type: Failure to Grant






Subject Site: 439 Bay Street, Brighton



Applicant: Meleuge Developments Pty Ltd

Respondents: K Clark, J Maxwell, H & B Ireland, S Gledhill

Before: M. Carew, Member Date of hearing: 3 and 4 February 2016 Date of order: 10 February 2016

Proposal:

Use and development of a four storey building (plus basement car park) containing a retail premises and 22 dwellings, a reduction in the required car parking rate and a waiver of the loading and unloading of vehicles requirement

Officer recommendation: Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit

Council determination: Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit

Appeal type: Conditions



LGPRF outcome: Affirmed

Subject Site: 13 George Street, Sandringham



Applicant: Mondland Projects Pty Ltd

Before: Susan Whitney, Member Date of hearing: 15 February 2016 Date of order: 18 February 2016

Proposal:

Extension of Time: Construction of a three storey apartment building comprising 17 apartments and a front fence exceeding 1.2 metres in height in accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the following conditions.

Officer recommendation: Refusal to grant an extension of time



Plans substituted prior to hearing? N/A

VCAT determination: Extension of time granted




Subject Site: 29 Anita Street, Beaumaris



Applicant: M & C Matulick

Respondents: Beaumaris Conservation Society Inc.

Before: Christina Fong, Member

Date of hearing: 17 February 2016


Proposal: The development of two double storey dwellings

Officer recommendation: Permit Refused







Item 13.1 – Notices of Motion Page 209 of 211

11. Reports by Delegates

1. Association of Bayside Municipalities – Cr Frederico

2. MAV Environment Committee – Director Environment & Infrastructure

3. Metropolitan Transport Forum – Director Environment & Infrastructure

4. Municipal Association of Victoria – Cr Frederico

5. Inner South Metropolitan Mayors’ Forum – Cr Long

6. Metro Waste & Resource Recovery Group – Cr Stewart

12. Urgent Business


Item 13.1 – Notices of Motion Page 210 of 211

13. Notices of Motion

13.1 NOTICE OF MOTION 244 - FEASIBILITY STUDY INTO A SYRINGE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL CENTRE


I, Cr Alex del Porto hereby give notice that I inte nd to move at the Ordinary Council Meeting to be held on 22 March 2016 at 7:00pm at th e Council Chambers, Civic Centre, Boxshall Street, Brighton the following Notice of M otion:

‘That a report be presented to Council at the May 2016 Ordinary Meeting on the feasibility of introducing a syringe container collection and disposal location at a Council facility in Brighton.’

Motion

That a report be presented to Council at the May 2016 Ordinary Meeting on the feasibility of introducing a syringe container collection and disposal location at a Council facility in Brighton.

Cr Alex del Porto

Support Attachments

Nil


Page 211 of 211

14. Confidential Business

That pursuant to Section 89(2) of the Local Government Act 1989, the Council resolves that so much of this meeting be closed to members of the public, as it involves Council consideration of matters coming within some or all of the following categories listed in Section 89(2) of such Act.

(a) Personnel matters; (b) The personal hardship of any resident or ratepayers; (c) Industrial matters; (d) Contractual matters; (e) Proposed developments; (f) Legal advice; (g) Matters affecting the security of Council property; (h) Any other matter which the Council or Special Committee considers would

prejudice the Council or any person; (i) A resolution to close the meeting to members of the public.

14.1 CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENT: CON/15/60 BRIGHTON GO LF COURSE CAR PARK RENEWAL WORKS; CON/16/11 CONSTRUCTION OF F IVE PLAYGROUNDS IN THE CITY OF BAYSIDE; AUDIT COMMITTEE MINUTES 11 FEBRUARY 2016 (LGA 1989 Section 89(2)(d) contractual matters.)

As Chief Executive Officer, I hereby declare that the contents of this agenda relating to the closed meeting of the ordinary meeting of Council are deemed confidential and accordingly members of Council are reminded that the contents of the agenda are not to be disclosed to any other party.

Adrian Robb

Chief Executive Officer

Documents

22 March 2016 Council Meeting Agenda without confidential · Tuesday, 22 March, 2016 at 7:00pm Cr: Cr James Long BM JP Councillors: Cr Alex del Porto Cr Bruce Lowe Cr Laurence Evans