Agenda of Council Meeting - 19 March 2018 · Web viewThe Report of the Panel for Amendment C154 (dated 17 July 2012) acknowledged the need for a modal shift to be addressed in a

NOTICE PAPERMonday 19 March 2018 at 7pm

Council Chamber, Malvern Town Hall,(enter off Glenferrie Road, Malvern)

Page 2

RECONCILIATION STATEMENT

We acknowledge that we are meeting on the traditional land of the Boonwurrung and Wurundjeri people and offer our respects to the elders past and present. We recognise and respect the cultural heritage of this land.

PRAYER

Almighty God, we humbly beseech you, to grant your blessing on this Council, direct and prosper its deliberations to the advancement of your glory, and the true welfare of the people of the City of Stonnington. Amen.

NOTESCouncil business is conducted in accordance with Part 4 Division 3 of the Meeting Procedure section of Council’s General Local Law 2008 (No 1). Some copies are available with the agenda or you can find a copy on Council’s website www.stonnington.vic.gov.au under local laws.

This meeting is being live-streamed.

Members of the gallery will not be filmed however the recordings will capture any audio which will be transmitted and held on Council’s website.

Members of the gallery are not permitted to film or record the meeting on their own devices.

Page 3

http://www.stonnington.vic.gov.au/

Council MeetingNotice Paper

Monday 19 March 2018Order of Business and Index

a) Reading of the Reconciliation Statement and Prayerb) Apologies c) Adoption and confirmation of minutes of previous meeting(s) in accordance with Section 63

of the Act and Clause 423 of General Local Law 2008 (No 1)1. MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 5 MARCH 2018........................................................

d) Disclosure by Councillors of any conflicts of interest in accordance with Section 79 of the Act1

e) Questions to Council from Members of the Public (Clause 424 of General Local Law 2008 (No 1)

f) Correspondence – (only if related to council business)g) Questions to Council Officers from Councillorsh) Tabling of Petitions and Joint Lettersi) Notices of Motion j) Reports of Special and Other Committees; - Assembly of Councillors k) Reports by Delegates l) General Business

1. PLANNING APPLICATION 0878/08 – 2 - 14 LUXTON ROAD, SOUTH YARRA VIC 3141- SECTION 72 AMENDMENT TO PERMIT PREAMBLE AND THE APPROVED PLANS COMPRISING THE INCLUSION OF A RESTAURANT AND CAFÉ LIQUOR LICENCE AND A REDLINE PLAN...............................

2. PLANNING APPLICATION 1054/17- KOOYONG LAWN TENNIS CLUB, 489 GLENFERRIE ROAD, TOORAK VIC 3142- PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF THE STADIUM, SUBSEQUENT BUILDINGS AND WORKS AND TO ALTER ACCESS TO A ROAD ZONE CATEGORY ONE, IN THE SPECIAL USE ZONE, HERITAGE OVERLAY, INCORPORATED PLAN OVERLAY AND LAND SUBJECT TO INUNDATION OVERLAY..................................................................................................................

3. PLANNING APPLICATION 1336/17- CHADSTONE SHOPPING CENTRE, 1341 DANDENONG ROAD, MALVERN EAST VIC 3145 – RECONFIGURATION AND EXTENSION OF THE GROUND FLOOR CAR PARK ON THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE SHOPPING CENTRE.............................................

4. C223 - GLENFERRIE RD AND HIGH ST ACTIVITY CENTRE PLANNING CONTROLS - ADOPTION..........5. AMENDMENT C266 - OPEN SPACE REZONING - CONSIDERING SUBMISSIONS..................................6. DONALD STREET, PRAHRAN - PROPOSED REMOVAL OF PARKING RESTRICTIONS TO ALLOW

FOR STREET SWEEPING................................................................................................................7. DRAFT POSITIVE AGEING STRATEGY 2018-2021...........................................................................8. FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE PERIOD JULY 2017 TO DECEMBER 2017...........................................9. PRAHRAN MARKET OPERATING REPORT TO COUNCIL FOR THE QUARTER ENDED 31

DECEMBER 2017......................................................................................................................

m) Other General Business

1 Note that s.79(1)(a) of the Act requires Councillors to disclose the nature of a conflict of interest immediately before the relevant consideration or discussion.

Page 4

n) Urgent Businesso) Confidential Business

1. PRAHRAN MARKET FINANCIAL REPORT TO COUNCIL FOR THE QUARTER ENDED 31 DECEMBER 2017.........................................................................................................................

Page 5

ADOPTION AND CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS

19 MARCH 2018

RECOMMENDATION

That the Council confirms the Minutes of the Council Meeting of the Stonnington City Council held on 5 March 2018 and Minutes of the Confidential Meeting of the Stonnington City Council held on 5 March 2018 as an accurate record of the proceedings.

Page 7

GENERAL BUSINESS19 MARCH 2018

l) General Business

1. PLANNING APPLICATION 0878/08 – 2 - 14 LUXTON ROAD, SOUTH YARRA VIC 3141- SECTION 72 AMENDMENT TO PERMIT PREAMBLE AND THE APPROVED PLANS COMPRISING THE INCLUSION OF A RESTAURANT AND CAFÉ LIQUOR LICENCE AND A REDLINE PLAN

Manager Statutory Planning: Alexandra Kastaniotis General Manager Planning & Amenity: Stuart Draffin

PURPOSE

For Council to consider a Section 72 amendment to an existing planning permit for an existing food and drink premises (café) at 14 Luxton Road, South Yarra.

Executive Summary

Applicant: Arkiteco DesignWard: NorthZone: Neighbourhood Residential Zone (Schedule 3) Overlay: Heritage Overlay (HO137)Neighbourhood Precinct: Inner Urban Date lodged: 17 October 2017Statutory days: (as at council meeting date)

94

Trigger for referral to Council:

More than 7 Objections

Patron Numbers: 26, including 6 on the footpath and 20 inside the premises Number of objections: 10 objections from 9 properties and 12 letters of supportConsultative Meeting: Yes, 13 December 2017Officer Recommendation: Notice of Decision to Grant an Amended Planning Permit

BACKGROUND

The Proposal

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by Arkiteco Design and are outlined below:

Advertised materialPlan Ref Council date stampedPlanning Assessment Report 17 October 2017TP001 Site Context 1 22 September 2017TP002 Site Context 2 22 September 2017TP102 Existing Conditions 22 September 2017 TP103 Neighbourhood Plan 22 September 2017TP104 Site Plan 22 September 2017TP105 Ground Level Plan 22 September 2017 TP106 Street Elevation 22 September 2017TP107 Street Views 22 September 2017

Page 9


Key features of the advertised plans consist of:

Permit preamble, amended to include a café and restaurant liquor licence. Permit conditions, amended to include the operation hours of liquor supply and

consumption being between 11:00am and 9:00pm from Monday to Saturday (inclusive).

No liquor supply and consumption is proposed on Sunday. No changes to the maximum number of patrons are proposed, being 34 including 20

on the footpath and 14 inside the premises. No changes to the hours of operation are proposed, being between 7:30am and

9:00pm from Monday to Saturday (inclusive).

Revised plans

Due to the number of objections, a consultative meeting was held on the 13 December 2017. Following the meeting, the applicant voluntarily made amendments to the advertised plans and formally declared the changes pursuant to Section 57A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

The revised plans were prepared by Arkiteco Design and are outlined below:Plan Ref Council date stampedTP001 Site Context 1 15 December 2017TP002 Site Context 2 15 December 2017TP102 Existing Conditions 15 December 2017TP103 Neighbourhood Plan 15 December 2017TP104 Site Plan 15 December 2017TP105 Ground Level Plan 15 December 2017TP106 Street Elevation 15 December 2017TP107 Street Views 15 December 2017

The revised plans were communicated to all objectors via email. Resultantly, one of the objectors unconditionally withdrew the objection and the total number of the affected properties therefore is reduced to nine (9) and the total no. of objections is reduced to 10.

Upon review of the advertised plans and the revised plans, the changes are as follows:

The hours of liquor supply and consumption amended to: Monday to Wednesday (inclusive): 11.00am – 3.00pm Thursday to Saturday (inclusive): 11.00am – 9.00pm

No liquor supply and consumption is proposed on Sunday. The maximum number of patrons reduced to 32, including 12 in the footpath and 20

inside the premises. The hours of the liquor supply and consumption on the footpath to be ceased by

8:00pm from Thursday to Saturday and 3.00pm from Monday to Wednesday.

Site and Surrounds

The site is located on the southern side of Luxton Road, approximately 130 metres west of the intersection with Williams Road and 64.3 metres east of the intersection with Barnsbury Road.

The site has the following significant characteristics:

Page 10


The site is irregular in size and has a total site area of approximately 230 square metres.

The site provides the frontage of 4.9 metres to Luxton Road. The site is occupied by a double storey A2 graded Edwardian retail shop. The subject building forms part of four identical purpose built buildings. All ground

floor levels are occupied by commercial premises. The first floor of the subject site and the rear of the subject site at ground floor level is used as a dwelling.

Properties surrounding the four commercial buildings are residential. The bins for the subject site and adjoining premises are stored at the rear of the site.

The rubbish bin collection location is at the front of No. 16 Luxton Road. The rear of the subject site is accessed via a flat concrete laneway. The laneway is

located between the properties at No. 15 and 16 Luxton Road.

The site has four interfaces, which are summarised below:

To the immediate north of the subject site is Luxton Road. On the opposite side of the subject site is Hawksburn Railway Station.

To the immediate south of the subject site is 33 Motherwell Street South Yarra. The site at 33 Motherwell Street is occupied by a B-graded Edwardian villa.

To the immediate east of the subject site is No. 15 Luxton Road. The site at No. 15 Luxton Road is occupied by an A2 graded building.

To the immediate west of the subject site is No. 13 Luxton Road. The site at No. 13 Luxton Road is occupied by an A2 graded building.

Previous Planning Application(s)

A search of Council records indicates the following relevant planning applications:

Planning Permit No. 878/08 was issued on 25 November 2008 under delegation. The permit allowed for ‘use of premises as a food and drink premises (café)’. The original permit allowed for hours of operation between 7:30am and 4:30pm. The permitted maximum number of patrons are 34.

A S72 Amendment Approval to the above Permit was issued on 28 January 2015 under delegation. The amended permit allowed the hours of operation extended to 9pm with the permit preamble remaining unchanged.

The Title

The site is described on Certificate of Title Volume 10843 Folio 732 / Lot 3 on Title Plan 530720H. There is no restrictive covenant on the title of land and the applicant has signed a declaration to this effect. There are a number of carriageway easements listed on title that are located at the rear of the subject site and at the rear of the dwellings of no. 12,13 and 14 Luxton Road.

Planning Controls

The following controls/permit triggers are considerations for this application:

ZoneClause 32.09 – Neighbourhood Residential Zone

Page 11


Pursuant to Clause 32.09-1, a planning permit is required to use the land for a food and drink premises. The use of the site as a food and drink premises has existing approval and the hours for the food and drink premises are not changing as part of the amendment application.

OverlayClause 43.01 – Heritage Overlay Pursuant to Clause 43.01, a planning permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works. A planning permit is not required for the proposal under the heritage overlay as there are no buildings and works proposed.

Particular ProvisionsClause 52.06 – Car Parking Pursuant to Clause 52.06-5, a planning permit is required to reduce the number of car parking spaces required under Clause 52.06-5.

The number of patrons is not proposed to be increased, consequently a planning permit is not required to reduce the number of car parking spaces required.

Clause 52.27 – Licensed Premises Pursuant to Clause 52.27, a planning permit is required to use land to sell or consume liquor for a restaurant and café liquor licence.

Relevant Planning Policies

17 Economic Development 21.04 Economic Development 21.09 Reference Documents22.10 Licensed Premises Policy32.09 Neighbourhood Residential Zone 43.01 Heritage Overlay52.27 Licensed Premises 65 Decision Guidelines

Advertising

The application has been advertised pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 by sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining land and by placing two signs on the site. The public notification of the application has been completed satisfactorily.

A Consultative Meeting was held on 13 December 2017. The meeting was attended by Councillors Matthew Koce and Marcia Griffin, representatives of the applicant, objectors and a Council planning officer. The meeting resulted in some changes to the advertised plans.

Key changes between the advertised and the revised plans are specifically outlined in the proposal section of the report and briefly outlined below:

Changes to the maximum number of patrons Changes to the hours of alcohol supply and consumption

Key aspects of the objections are summarised below:

Page 12


Noise impact Nuisance as a result of liquor consumption Increased street litter Increased street traffic

Referrals

Local Laws Unit

Councils Local Laws unit advised that the footpath trading is to be reduced from 12 patrons to 6 patrons.

Planners comment: As a result of the above comments from Councils Local Laws Department, the footpath trading will be reduced from the 12 patrons proposed to 6 patrons. The number of patrons proposed internally will remain the same.

KEY ISSUES

Background

The application was originally for the use as a food and drink premises (café), which was permitted on 25 November 2008 under delegation. The current application proposes to include a restaurant and café liquor licence and its associated hours of liquor supply and consumption, variations to the seating arrangement and the inclusion of a redline plan (i.e. licensed area).

As reiterated above, the proposed components are comprised of:

The inclusion of a restaurant and café liquor licence to an existing food and drink premises (café)

The proposed hours of liquor supply and consumption: Monday to Wednesday (inclusive): 11.00am – 3.00pm Thursday to Saturday (inclusive): 11.00am – 9.00pm

No liquor supply and consumption is proposed on Sunday. The variations to the maximum number of patrons reduced to 26 (in lieu of 34),

including 6 in the footpath and 20 inside the premises The liquor supply and consumption on the footpath to be ceased by 8:00pm from

Thursday to Saturday and ceased by 3:00pm Monday to Wednesday.

Having regard to the above key changes and in conjunction with the issues identified by the applicant, the objectors and the relevant provisions and policies contained within the Scheme, the key issue in this matter is whether the proposal represents an outcome supported by the planning scheme’s policies having regard to the resultant impacts on amenity of the surrounding area.

Strategic Justification

State Planning PolicyState Policy at Clause 17 (Economic Development) aims to use ‘planning to contribute to the economic well-being of communities and the State as a whole by supporting and fostering economic growth and development by providing land, facilitating decisions and resolving land use conflicts’. Clause 17.01-2 (out of centre-development) aims to ‘Ensure that out of centre proposals are only considered where the proposed use or development is of net benefit to the community in the region served by the proposal or provides small scale shopping opportunities that

Page 13


meet the needs of local residents and workers in convenient locations. Given the existing food and drink premises (café) meets the communities needs as it is in a convenient location opposite the train station and that is a small scale café that generally services customers from the local area and commuters, the proposal is considered to be generally consistent with State Planning Policy.

Local Planning PolicyLocal Policy at Clause 21.04-4 aims ‘to ensure non-residential uses in residential zones are located to achieve maximum accessibility to the communities they serve and respect the preferred character of the area and residential amenity’. Some of the relevant strategies to achieve this objective are as follows:

Encourage commercial and community uses permissible in residential zones to be located close to activity centres, community hubs, public transport and other related uses.

Ensure large and/or purpose built, non-residential uses locate in or beside activity centres or beside those parts of main roads which have a mixed use character.

Ensure non-residential uses do not have an adverse impact on the amenity of the surrounding residential area through noise, hours of operation, traffic or parking associated with the use.

In addition, Clause 22.10 further provides policies regarding licensed premises, which seeks to identify appropriate locations, trading hours and patron numbers for licensed premises; and to effectively manage the amenity conflicts between licensed premises and other uses.

Having regards to local policy, the subject site is located directly opposite the Hawksburn Railway station and is located within a group of four shops. More specifically, the proposal is located within an existing commercial building within a residential area. Given the context of the site, it is considered that by allowing liquor to be served with food in an existing food and drink premises, it will not unreasonably impact the amenity of the residential area; this will be discussed further below.

Amenity Impacts

A permit is required to use land to sell and consume liquor pursuant to Clause 52.27 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme. The purpose of the Licensed Premises particular planning provision (Clause 52.27) is to ensure that these premises are situated in appropriate locations to consider their impact on the amenity of the surrounding area.

Furthermore, pursuant to Clause 52.27, relevant decision guidelines are outlined below and read as follows: The State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy

Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.

The impact of the sale or consumption of liquor permitted by the liquor licence on the amenity of the surrounding are.

The impact of the hours of operation on the amenity of the surrounding area. The impacts of the number of patrons on the amenity of the surrounding area. The cumulative impact of any existing licensed premises and the proposed

licensed premises on the amenity of the surrounding area.

Hours and Noise

The proposed hours of alcohol supply are stated as follows:

Page 14


Inside- Monday to Wednesday (inclusive): 11am – 3:00pm - Thursday to Saturday (inclusive): 11am – 9:00pm

Outside (Footpath)- Monday to Wednesday (inclusive): 11am- 3:00pm- Thursday to Saturday (inclusive): 11am- 8:00pm

Council’s Licensed Premises Policy at Clause 22.10 of the Scheme stipulates that it is policy that ‘New licensed premises and the expansion of the licensed area or extension of the trading hours of existing licensed premises in a residential, Activity Centre, Mixed Use or Industrial 3 Zone are discouraged unless the responsible authority is satisfied that the use will not adversely affect the amenity of the area’.

In regards to the physical context of the subject site, to the rear of the site, the land is featured by individual detached homes. To the immediate west and the immediate east, the properties are recognised as retail premises. To the north, the site interfaces with Hawksburn Railway Station, which provides a physical separation of a minimum 100 metres from the residential buildings located further to the north. It is considered that the most sensitive interface is to the rear of the site and the residences on Luxton Road, therefore the amenity of these residential properties will be maintained.

There were a number of objections received with concerns that the proposal would result in significant detriment on the amenity of the surrounding area through noise. However, Council’s records indicate that none of the owners from the reasonably most sensitive properties to the rear of the site expressed their concerns. It is also noted that multiple supporting letters were received from the community including the owners from nearby sites’ at 13 and 16 Luxton Road. It is also noted that most objectors are located to the northern side of Hawksburn Railway Station, which has a minimum 100 metre physical separation from the site and any potential impact would be minimal.

In considering the impacts of the proposed restaurant and café liquor licence, the amenity impact will likely be maintained at a reasonable level. It is considered that the amenity will be similar to the existing conditions as the operating hours for the food and drink premises are maintained as part of the proposal and the hours for serving of alcohol will be restricted to 11:00am to 3:00pm Monday to Wednesday and 11am-9:00pm Thursday to Saturday with restricted footpath trading until 8:00pm Thursday to Saturday. Conditions will be included on the permit in regards to these hours to ensure this happens and the hours are linked to lunch and dinner times. Furthermore, given that the predominant activity of the food and drink premises will be the serving of meals and the proposal allows patrons to consume a drink with the meals it is considered the use will not adversely affect the amenity of the area.

Having regard to the noise concerns raised a permit condition will be included on the permit requesting Noise emanating from the subject land to comply with State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Music Noise from Public Premises) No. N-2. This condition will ensure that the surrounding residents are protected from any unreasonable noise interference from the venue. Further conditions regarding waste removal will be included on the permit to ensure there is no unreasonable noise from bottle removal, this will be elaborated on in the waste section of the report.

Overall the proposal is not considered out of context from the policy direction in terms of amenity impacts; and the proposed hours for liquor supply and consumption are reasonable for the location.

Number of patrons

Page 15


The proposed number of patrons is 26 in total (including 6 in the footpath and 20 inside the premises), which is not considered excessive in nature. As the proposal is reducing the number of patrons from the 34 already approved, the number of patrons proposed is considered reasonable.

Waste

Having Regard to waste, the applicant has shown on the plans that the bins are collected at the front of the premises in front of 16 Luxton Road and the bins are stored at the rear of the subject site in the laneway. The bins are collected every Thursday and the recycling bin is collected every second Thursday. It is recommended to prohibit the removal of bottles and rubbish from within the premises to the bins at the rear laneway between the hours of 9pm and 7am the following day. These times are considered appropriate in the context of the site and having regard to the operating hours of the food and drink premises (café). It is also recommended to include a condition on the permit that the collection point for the bins must be in front of the subject site as currently they are collected from in front of another dwelling.

Type of Licence

The liquor licence sought is for the sale and consumption of liquor on the premises only and will not facilitate the sale of liquor for consumption off the premises. It is therefore considered that the sale or consumption of liquor permitted under the proposed liquor licence (restaurant and café liquor licence) will not result in negative effects on the amenity of the surrounding area.

Proximity to Residential Land and Safety

Clause 22.10 details that research has found that smaller well managed premises generally present a low risk of adverse impacts, in comparison to large licensed premises that operate late at night. Furthermore Clause 22.10 suggests that licensed premises that are most likely to be associated with alcohol related harm are licensed hotels, taverns and nightclubs. It is therefore unlikely that the proposal for a ‘restaurant and café liquor licence associated with a cafe’ will result in alcohol related harm and its location within a residential area is less problematic than a licence for a different type of venue such as a tavern. Additionally conditions will be placed on any permit issued requiring ‘the predominant activity carried out on the premises must be the preparation and serving of meals to be consumed on the licensed premises; and ‘table and chairs must be placed in position on the licensed premises so as to be available for at least 75% of the patrons attending the premises at any one time’.

Objections

In response to the grounds of objection not already discussed in the report, the following comments are made:

Noise impact

As discussed above, any potential amenity impact would be contained within a reasonable level. With respect to the noise, a condition has been placed to ensure that no undue noise would be generated from the business operation, irrespective of the liquor licence. Having regard to the impacts of noise associated with the bins and liquor consumption, additional conditions including restrictions on the hours for disposing of bottles and rubbish from the premises and Noise emanating from the subject land to comply with State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Music Noise from Public Premises) No. N-2 will be included on the notice of decision.

Page 16


Increased street litter

In the current permit, Condition 5 regulates the waste management. Furthermore, it is considered that the proposal will not generate an increase in the street litter given that the serving of alcohol at a café is generally in glasses and not cans or plastic bottles.

Increased street traffic

As the maximum number of patrons is reduced by 8 (from 34 to 26), it is most likely that the street traffic will remain unchanged or reasonably lessened.

Human Rights Consideration

This application has been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (including the Stonnington Planning Scheme), reviewed by the State Government and which complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

CONCLUSION

Having assessed the application against the relevant planning controls, it is recommended that the proposal be supported for the following reasons: The proposed amendment will continue to be consistent with the strategic direction

outlined by the Stonnington Planning Scheme which encourages recreational and entertainment activities in appropriate locations.

Subject to recommended conditions, the proposal will not cause unreasonable adverse amenity impacts on neighbouring properties.

ATTACHMENTS

1. PA Stat Planning -Objector map Plans

2. PA Stat Planning- Plans Plans

Page 17


RECOMMENDATION

That a Notice of Decision to Amend a Planning Permit No: 878/08 for the land located at 14 Luxton Road, South Yarra be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for a Section 72 Amendment to the approved permit and plans comprising of the following changes:

Permit preamble amended to read as follows;

- Restaurant and café liquor licence associated with use of premises as a food and drink premises (café) in a Neighbourhood Residential Zone

Permit conditions amended as follows:

Condition 1 (to be included) as follows:‘Before the commencement of the development, 1 copy of plans drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans date stamped 15 December 2017 but modified to show:

a) The location for the collection point of the bin to be changed so that it is located in front of the subject site.

b) The number of patrons proposed on the footpath reduced to 6 patrons.

Condition 4 amended to read:‘A maximum number of 26 seats, including 6 in the footpath and 20 inside the premises, must be provided to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority’.

Condition 5 (to be included) as follows:‘The supply and consumption of alcohol must operate only between the following hours:

Inside- Monday to Wednesday (inclusive): 11:00am – 3:00pm - Thursday to Saturday (inclusive): 11:00am – 9:00pm

Outside (footpath)- Monday to Wednesday (inclusive): 11:00am – 3:00pm- Thursday to Saturday (inclusive): 11:00am-8.00pm’.

Condition 6 (to be included) as follows: ‘The use shall at all times be conducted in a manner which ensures that the residential amenity of nearby residential properties is not detrimentally affected to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority’.

Condition 7 (to be included) as follows:‘The predominant activity carried out at all times on the licensed premises must be the preparation and serving of meals for consumption on the licensed premises to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority’

Condition 8 (to be included) as follows:

Page 18


‘Tables and chairs must be place in position on the licensed premises so as to be available for at least 75% of the patrons attending the premises at any one time, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority’.

Condition 9 to be included as follows:‘Noise emanating from the subject land must comply with State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Music Noise from Public Premises) No. N-2, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority’.

Condition 11 (to be included) as follows:‘Bottles and rubbish must not be removed from the premises between the hours of 9 pm and 7am the following day’.

Condition 13 (to be included) as follows:‘Collection of the bins is to be in front of the subject site’

Other conditions subsequently renumbered

The amended permit will read as follows should it be amended:

The permit allows:

Café and restaurant liquor licence associated with use of premises as a food and drink premises (café) in a Neighbourhood Residential Zone in accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the commencement of the development, 1 copy of plans drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans date stamped 15 December 2017 but modified to show:

a) The location for the collection point of the bin to be changed so that it is located in front of the subject site.

b) The number of patrons proposed on the footpath reduced to 6 patrons.

All to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

2. The plans endorsed to accompany the permit must not be amended without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

3. The use hereby permitted must operate only between the hours of 7.30am to 9.00pm unless an extension I variation is approved in writing by the Responsible Authority.

4. A maximum number of 26 seats including 6 in the footpath and 20 inside the premises, must be provided to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Page 19


5. The supply and consumption of alcohol must operate only between the following hours:

Inside

- Monday to Wednesday (inclusive): 11:00am – 3:00pm

- Thursday to Saturday (inclusive): 11:00am – 9:00pm

Outside (footpath)

- Monday to Wednesday (inclusive): 11:00am – 3:00pm

- Thursday to Saturday (inclusive): 11:00am-8:00pm

6. The use shall at all times be conducted in a manner which ensures that the residential amenity of nearby residential properties is not detrimentally affected to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

7. The predominant activity carried out at all times on the licensed premises must be the preparation and serving of meals for consumption on the licensed premises to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority’

8. Tables and chairs must be place in position on the licensed premises so as to be available for at least 75% of the patrons attending the premises at any one time, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

9. Noise emanating from the subject land must comply with State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Music Noise from Public Premises) No. N-2, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

10. The provision of music and entertainment on the premises must be limited to background music or entertainment by performers using non-amplified instruments unless with the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

11. Bottles and rubbish must not be removed from the premises between the hours of 9pm and 7am the following day.

12. Adequate provision must be made for the storage and collection of wastes and recyclables within the site. This area must be appropriately graded, drained and screened from public view to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

13. Collection of the bins is to be from in front of the subject site.

14. This permit will expire if the use is not started within two years from the date of this permit.

NOTES:

Page 20


Unless a permit is not required under the Stonnington Planning Scheme, signs must not be constructed or displayed without a further planning permit.

This permit is for the use of the land and/or buildings and does not constitute any authority to conduct a business requiring Health Act/Food Act registration without prior approval from the Health Services Coordinator of Council.

This property is located in a Heritage Overlay and planning permission may be required to demolish or otherwise externally alter any existing structures. External alterations include paint removal and any other form of decoration and works, but does not include re-painting an already painted surface.

Page 21


2. PLANNING APPLICATION 1054/17- KOOYONG LAWN TENNIS CLUB, 489 GLENFERRIE ROAD, TOORAK VIC 3142- PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF THE STADIUM, SUBSEQUENT BUILDINGS AND WORKS AND TO ALTER ACCESS TO A ROAD ZONE CATEGORY ONE, IN THE SPECIAL USE ZONE, HERITAGE OVERLAY, INCORPORATED PLAN OVERLAY AND LAND SUBJECT TO INUNDATION OVERLAY.


PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for the partial demolition of the stadium, subsequent buildings and works and to alter access to a Road Zone Category One, in the Special Use Zone, Heritage Overlay, Incorporated Plan Overlay and Land Subject to Inundation Overlay at Kooyong Lawn Tennis Club, 489 Glenferrie Road, Toorak.

Executive Summary

Applicant: UrbisWard: NorthZone: Special Use Zone – Schedule 1 (SUZ1)Overlay: Heritage Overlay – Schedule 263 (HO263) – Grade A1

Land Subject to Inundation Overlay (LSIO)Integrated Plan Overlay – Schedule 1 (IPO)

Date lodged: 10 October 2017Statutory days: (as at council meeting date)

139

Trigger for referral to Council: Of Council interest Officer Recommendation: Refusal to Grant a Planning Permit

BACKGROUND

The Proposal

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by Bruce Henderson Architects, known as Project – 33138 Sept 2017, Council date stamped 10 October 2017 and Craig Eldridge Design Job No. 82017 Sept 2017 and Council date stamped 10 October 2017. Additional information submitted for Council’s consideration includes: Planning Report prepared by Urbis, Traffic Engineering Assessment prepared by TraffixGroup, Heritage Impact Statement prepared by Bryce Raworth and Flood Risk Report prepared by Cardno with all supplementary information Council date stamped 10 October 2017.

The key features of the proposal are:

Partial demolition of the existing stadium to include the removal of two (2) of the top tiers (constructed in 1953 – southern and 1956 - western) being the south and west tiers;

The construction of a three (3) level car park (including basement) and new maintenance and storage facilities;

New crèche building (ancillary use) to be constructed under the northern tiers of the stadium;

The expansion of the existing clubhouse building to include:

Page 23


A gymnasium addition and associated amenities; New squash courts; Additional storage; Expansion to the existing dining facilities; New stadium function rooms and balcony; and Members private dining / meeting room and deck.

New loading bay including excavation under the south western corner of the clubhouse building to allow for an increase in vehicle clearance heights;

Minor internal and external alterations to the clubhouse building; and, Alteration to vehicle access and movement arrangements, including alteration to the

access to Glenferrie Road.

In support of the application, the applicant’s heritage consultant Bryce Raworth provides the following key points of justification:

“The later 1950s series of additions are identified as elements of secondary significance. The architectural detailing of these stands, whilst having an appreciable strength and solidity, is not of the same aesthetic merit as other representative examples of spectator stands.”

“The architects of the 1950s stands, Bates Smart McCutcheon, do not have a reputation as designers of sports buildings, and their Kooyong stands are of minor interest relative to the firm’s highly regarded body of post-war work. Within the broader context of post-war sporting and recreation venues in Melbourne, the 1950s Kooyong stands do not compare well against the structural bravado of the Olympic Swimming Pool (1952-56) and Sidney Myer Music Bowl (1956-59).”

Site and Surrounds

The subject site is located on the western side of Glenferrie Road, Toorak south of the Monash Freeway and north of the Glen Waverley railway line (Kooyong Station). It has the following characteristics:

A trapezium shape lot with an extended frontage along Glenferrie Road of approximately 231.5 metres and a total area of approximately 63,870 square metres;

The main clubhouse building is located along the Glenferrie Road frontage with ancillary buildings located in various parts of the subject site;

Vehicle access to the site is via three (3) crossovers to Glenferrie Road; The site includes 26 grass courts and 22 en tout cas (clay) courts located to the rear of

the site along with three (3) plexicushion court facilities, located within the stadium; The land is relatively flat within the centremost portion of the site with the land

ascending towards to the north, east, south and west boundaries by a maximum of seven (7) metres; and,

A majority of the site is devoid of significant vegetation with the exception of the northern boundary, abutting Gardiners Creek Trail.

Protected by an individual Heritage Overlay (HO263), the key significance to the subject site is the Kooyong Lawn Tennis Stadium (known as Centre Court). Notably, HO263 extends an additional 10 metres beyond the perimeter of the stadium and includes the former ticket booth along the Glenferrie Road frontage.

The stadium comprises a 10-sided horseshoe amphitheatre constructed of reinforced concrete with two tiers including 14 upper and 14 lower rows of seating (including 3 rows of boxes). The construction of the stadium occurred at various stages between the 1920’s -1950’s.

Page 24


The site is accessible from major forms of public transport including rail and tram. Glenferrie Road is a two-way road running in a north-south direction with ‘no standing’ on both east and west sides of the road. The surrounding area comprises a mix of public parks (Sir Zelman Cowen Park and HA Smith Reserve); commercial uses and detached residential dwellings beyond the immediate surrounds.

The site interfaces with adjoining properties, as follows:

To the north, across Gardiner’s Creek Trail and the Monash Freeway is Scotch College, located within the City of Boroondara.

To the east of the subject site across Glenferrie Road are two residential developments. On the corner of Glenferrie Road and Talbot Crescent at 434 Glenferrie Road is a two (2) storey building and a four (4) storey building at 444 Glenferrie Road. A two (2) storey commercial building is located at 446-456 Glenferrie Road and public parks are located to the north east.

To the immediate south, the Glen Waverley railway line runs the extent of the southern boundary of the site.

The subject site abuts a private roadway with St. Kevin’s College to the west.

History of the Kooyong Lawn Tennis Club

The Kooyong Lawn Tennis Club has a longstanding history and is a site of international, state and local significance both as an Australian tennis venue and a venue having hosted several concerts including Elton John, Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, The Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan and David Bowie.

Kooyong was the Melbourne venue for the Australian Open and became a permanent venue from 1972 - 1987. It hosted the last Australian Open that was played on grass courts. The tournament was moved to the hard courts of Melbourne Park in 1988. Having been resurfaced with plexicushion, the Kooyong Lawn Tennis club remains the venue for the Kooyong Classic exhibition tournament. The Kooyong Lawn Tennis Club has also hosted several Davis Cup ties and finals, including the 1986 Davis Cup Final. The stadium hosted a tie for the 2016 Davis Cup against the USA on a portable grass court.

The 2002 Statement of Significance of the heritage citation notes the site’s level of significance as both State and Local. With the following significance noted:

“As the first sporting stand in the State to almost surround an outdoor sporting arena in this type of horse-shoe amphitheatre architectural form. As the first to use reinforced concrete in a circular stadium configuration and among the earliest group of reinforced concrete stands in any configuration. For the association with the designers, JT Knox and the firm Bates Smart & McCutcheon, both renowned in their field within the State. As, by far, the most substantial sporting structure designed for tennis in Victoria and Australia over a long period after its construction. As the venue for most international tennis championships held here until the 1980s, as well as a number of major popular music concerts in the 1970s and 1980s.

As, from its construction in the 1920s, the focus for tennis in Victoria, following the lead of Wimbledon in promoting tennis through the construction of large and modern facilities as a comparison with the many more traditional grandstands at sporting grounds already constructed throughout the state. For its association with most of the internationally famous names in tennis of the 20th century, as a primary venue for their contest within the sport.”

Page 25


The Kooyong Tennis Stadium Incorporated Plan dated 16 February provides the following external elements of particular significance:

The stadium, with emphasis on external fabric from its major construction stage in the 1920s and the secondary contribution of the 1930’s and 1950’s additions.

Associated land of particular significance (as defined by the outside perimeter of the stadium). This excludes the buffer land outside the stadium perimeter.

The 1920’s external fabric of primary significance includes:

10-sided horseshoe-shape stadium, set on an east-west axis, opening to Glenferrie Road.

A central tennis court area within the horseshoe-shape plan. 12 bays of reinforced concrete, raked and elevated tiered seating, supported on two

spans with perimeter and central column rows. Arcaded reinforced concrete under-croft, with a concrete arch and flanking piers for

each bay. A 1.5m wide promenade (formerly with a 3 pipe and formed post balustrade), encircling

the upper deck of the stadium. Two approach bridges linking Glenferrie Rd to the promenade, with 4 pipe balustrade,

plus capped and formed concrete posts.

The 1930’s external fabric of secondary significance includes:

Northern stand extension providing an additional 2,000 seats, in 3 northern bays added to former 1920’s promenade upper perimeter

The 1950’s external fabric of secondary significance includes:

Added reinforced concrete tiered bays or galleries added to the former 1920’s promenade perimeter, and supported on two rows of rectangular section reinforced concrete columns (linked with beams plus some arched concrete gussets at stair wells) plus a perimeter cantilever, to complete the double-layer horse-shoe form.

Added reinforced concrete T-shape stair flights (1.65m and 3.3m wide) set in stair wells, with reinforced concrete solid balustrade and single pipe handrail, linking existing 1920’s promenade level with ground.

Pipe balustrade added to top perimeter of stadium.

Previous Planning Applications

A search of Council records indicates that there is an extensive history of planning permit applications for the subject site. The following planning applications are considered of most relevance:

Planning Permit (0952/07) for ‘alterations and additions to existing tennis club buildings within a Special Use Zone, Land Subject to Inundation Overlay, Heritage Overlay and Incorporated Plan Overlay’ issued on 12 October 2007. This planning permit allowed the construction of a water tank on site.

Planning Permit (1078/07) for ‘alterations and additions to the existing tennis club building’ issued 6 February 2008 allowed for the substantial redevelopment of the clubhouse building and car parking.

Page 26


Planning Permit (0363/11) for ‘building and works to an existing tennis club within a Special Use Zone for the construction of a pergola over the Sedgman terrace’ was issued on 4 July 2011. This permit allowed for the construction of a pergola associated with the main clubhouse building.

Planning Permit (0619/11) for ‘building and works to an existing tennis club within a Special Use Zone and Land Subject to Inundation Overlay’ issued on 30 November 2011 granted approval for the construction of a boardwalk.

The Title

Described as Lot 1 on Title Plan 632511L and contained in Volume 09435 Folio 663, the site is subject to encumbrances in the form of multiple easements, including:

A Section 173 Agreement (S979052U dated 10/02/1994) is applicable to the subject site. The Section 173 Agreement relates to a drainage easement (“the easement”). The site plan annexed to the Agreement relates to the easement that runs north – south along the western boundary, parallel to private road to the west of the subject site. Relevant to building and works, the Section 173 agreement states:

e) At all times carry out and comply with all and any directions of the Council's building surveyor in relation to the construction of any building or buildings or any part thereof or the carrying out of any building work in or over the easement.

f) Ensure that any floor erected over the said easement relative to the construction of the said building be constructed in such a manner so as to· be capable of being removed in the event of access to the pipes laid in the said easement becoming necessary.

g) At all time provide the Council with proper means of ingress and egress to and from the easement and/or drain.

It is considered that the proposed works do not breach the Agreement by virtue of the location of the affected easement relative to the location of the proposed works. The easement burdened by the Agreement is sited along the western boundary of the subject site and runs north – south. The proposal seeks to carry out works to the northeast and southeast corner of the site, geographically isolated from the burdened easement. The applicant has also confirmed in writing that this is also their understanding of the agreement. The proposal is therefore not considered to be in breach of the Agreement.

Planning Controls


Zone

Clause 37.01 - Special Use Zone - Schedule 1 (SUZ1)Pursuant to Clause 37.01-4, a planning permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works.

Pursuant to Schedule 1 of Clause 37.01-1, a place of assembly (broadly defined to include the use of the land as a function centre) is a Section 2 (permit required) use. Therefore a planning permit is required for the use of the land. A search of Council records indicates that no planning permit has been issued for the use of the land as a place of assembly. Pursuant to Clause 63 (Existing Uses) of the Stonnington Planning Scheme, the provision states: “an

Page 27


existing use right is established in relation to use of land under this scheme if … the use was lawfully carried out immediately before the approval date”.

It appears that the subject site was being used as a place of assembly prior to the approval date of Clause 63 (Existing Uses) into the Stonnington Planning Scheme on 19/01/2006 via Amendment VC37. Therefore, it is considered that the subject site enjoys the benefits of existing use rights and a planning permit is not required for the use of the land as a place of assembly.

Overlays

Clause 43.01 - Heritage Overlay – Schedule 263 (HO263) Pursuant to Clause 43.01-1, a planning permit is required to demolish or remove a building and construct a building or construct or carry out works.

Clause 43.01-3 of the Heritage Overlay states that no planning permit is required for anything done in accordance with an incorporated plan specified in a schedule to this overlay. There is an incorporated plan, pursuant to Clause 43.01-3 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme relevant to the subject site (HO263) (Kooyong Tennis Stadium at 489 Glenferrie Road, Kooyong Incorporated Plan - 16 February 2004).

Clause 5.0 ‘no planning permit required’ of the incorporated plan states that a planning permit is not required under Clause 43.01 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme provided there is no external change to the ‘elements of particular significance’. The incorporated plan nominates the following elements of particular significance:

The stadium, with emphasis on external fabric from its major construction stage in the 1920’s and the secondary contribution of the 1930’s and 1950’s additions; and,

Associated land of particular significance (as defined by the outside 10 metre perimeter of the stadium). This excludes the buffer land outside the stadium perimeter.

As the application seeks to remove significant elements of the stadium, along with works located within the 10 metre perimeter buffer, a planning permit is therefore required.

Clause 43.03 - Incorporated Plan Overlay – Schedule 1 (IPO1)Clause 43.03-1 states that a permit must not be granted to construct a building or construct or carry out works until an incorporated plan has been incorporated into the Scheme unless the relevant Schedule specifically states that a permit may be granted before an incorporated plan has been incorporated into the Scheme. Schedule 1 to the Incorporated Plan Overlay states that a permit may be granted to construct a building or construct or carry out works before an incorporated plan has been incorporated into the Scheme. It is noted that there is no incorporated plan for this site. Therefore, pursuant to Clause 43.03-1 a planning permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works.

Clause 44.04 - Land Subject to Inundation Overlay – Schedule 1 (LSIO1)The LSIO1 affects a large portion of the site with the exception of the south east corner of the site including approximately a third of the Glenferrie Road frontage.

Pursuant to Clause 44.04-1, a planning permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works.

Particular Provisions

Page 28


Clause 52.29 - Land Adjacent to a Road Zone, Category 1 (RDZ1) Pursuant to Clause 52.29, a planning permit is required to create or alter access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1.


The following clauses of the Stonnington Planning Scheme, in addition to those listed above, are particularly relevant to this assessment:

Clause 11Clause 13Clause 15

SettlementEnvironmental RisksBuilt Environment and Heritage

Clause 17 Clause 18 Clause 19Clause 21.03

Economic DevelopmentTransportInfrastructureVision

Clause 21.06 Clause 22.04 Clause 22.05Clause 22.16

Built Environment and Heritage Heritage PolicyEnvironmentally Sustainable DevelopmentInstitutional Uses Policy

Clause 22.18 Stormwater Management (Water Sensitive Urban Design)Clause 65 Decision Guidelines

Advertising

The application has been advertised pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 by sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining land and placing two (2) signs along the Glenferrie Road frontage. The public notification of the application has been completed satisfactorily.

No objections have been received.

Internal Referrals

This application was referred to the following internal departments within Council:

Heritage Council’s Heritage Advisor provided comments on initial concept plans in October 2016. The following advice was given:

Demolition

The demolition of the 1953 and 1956 portions of the stadium will remove the sections that were constructed to accommodate the great 1950s and 60s surge of interest and Australian success in international tennis competition.Kooyong was the venue of memorable Davis Cup ties during this period and they alone were probably the reason for the expansion of the stadium at this time.The proposed demolition will return the stadium to its configuration prior to this high point in Australian tennis.An alternative option would be to remove the 1956 (western) portion of the stadium and retain the 1953 (southern) extension.This would retain a more balanced configuration of the stadium and allow the expansion of the car parking.However, it would prevent the proposed northern extension of the member's facility.

Page 29


Should the proposed demolition occur memories of this high period will be reliant on photographs and other documentary material.

Should the demolition be permitted it should only be on condition that the full extent of the stadium at various points in time is clearly displayed to the public on site.

New Works

The proposed extensions to the car park will result in a new parking deck at the same level as the top of the retained stadium to the west.Whilst, this is not a fundamental incursion into the retained fabric it will have a strong visual impact on the stadium and a greater level of consideration needs to be given to the manner in which the cars will not be visible from the stadiumEqually it may be better if the new car park deck doesn't immediately butt into the retained structure.The proposed extension of the member's facility to the north will result in this building being joined to the retained portions of the stadium.I believe that it would be better if there was a clear separation between the two structures (possibly with bridge connections)The proposed design of these extensions repeats the existing architectural forms of the building. This is an appropriate response.The other extensions to the member's facilities are not covered by the HO.

Conclusion

I believe that further consideration should be given to retaining the 1953 (southern) extension to the horseshoe.Extra detail as to how the car park is to be separated and visually disguised from the stadium should be provided.Any extension of the member's facility to the north should not butt into the stadium, but alternative options for linking the stadium to the facility need to be considered.

Notably, the plans presented at application submission are not dissimilar to those plans considered at pre-lodgement to which the above advice was given. In November 2017, Council’s Heritage Advisor reviewed the application submission plans and provided the following comments. These comments were written in conjunction with comments provided in October 2016. These being:

The 1953 (southern) extension to the stadium should be retained. This being, the southernmost top tier of the stadium.

That links between the Member’s Pavilion and the stadium should retain the two as distinctly separate structures.

The “green wall” has the potential to disguise the new carpark from the stadium depending on how it is constructed.

InfrastructureThe application was referred to Council’s Infrastructure Engineer who considered there was no apparent infrastructure related concerns. Conditions relating to legal point of discharge were recommended to be imposed, should a planning permit be granted.

LandscapeCouncil’s Arborist has reviewed the plans and offered no objection to the proposal.

Page 30


Transport and ParkingCouncil’s Traffic Engineers reviewed the application submission plans and raised concerns with the proposed car parking design, loading facilities and bicycle parking. These concerns were raised largely due to a lack of information shown on the plans. Should a planning permit issue, dimensions as nominated in the Traffic Engineering Assessment must be clearly shown on the development plans.

External Referrals

This application was formally referred to the following statutory authorities, pursuant to Section 55 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987:

Melbourne WaterMelbourne Water offered no objection to the application, subject to conditions relating to flood levels. Should a planning permit issue; these conditions would be imposed on the planning permit.

VicRoadsVicRoads afforded the application conditional consent with conditions relating to the submission of functional layout plans, increased dimensions to design layouts, additional signage and swept path analysis. Should a planning permit issue; these conditions would form part of the approval.

KEY ISSUES

In considering this application, regard has been given to the State and Local Planning Policy frameworks, the provisions of the Stonnington Planning Scheme, referral advice and the merits of the application.

The application proposes the partial demolition of the stadium to remove the 1953 (southern) and 1956 (western) upper level tiers, buildings and works associated with the extension of the existing clubhouse building, crèche, three (3) storey car park and alteration to vehicle access arrangements.

The assessment of this application has been divided into two parts. Being:

The proposed buildings and works associated with the clubhouse building (with the exception of the northernmost gymnasium addition, proposed stadium function room and members private dining area), crèche, three (3) storey car park and alteration to access arrangements; and,

The proposed partial demolition of the stadium and extension of the clubhouse building to include a gymnasium addition, stadium function room and members private dining area.

Buildings and works associated with the clubhouse building (with the exception of the northernmost gymnasium addition, proposed stadium function room and members private dining area), crèche and three (3) storey car park and alteration to access arrangements

The subject site is located within the Special Use Zone – Schedule 1 (‘SUZ1’). The main purpose of this zone in relation to the subject site is to “retain and enhance the unique character of the Kooyong Lawn Tennis Club”. Relevantly, the decision guidelines of the SUZ1 direct Council to consider, amongst other things, the following:

Page 31


“The appearance and bulk of buildings having regard to the adjoining land, especially the relationship with residential areas.”

“The provision for landscaping.”

“The effect of the proposed buildings and works on the amenity of the neighbourhood, including the effects of noise, lighting, overshadowing, building bulk and privacy.”

The site is also affected by Heritage Overlay – Schedule 263 (‘HO263’). The purpose of the Heritage Overlay is:

“To conserve and enhance heritage places of natural or cultural significance.”

“To conserve and enhance those elements which contribute to the significance of heritage places.”

“To ensure that development does not adversely affect the significance of heritage places.”

“To conserve specifically identified heritage places by allowing a use that would otherwise be prohibited if this will demonstrably assist with the conservation of the significance of the heritage place.”

The following aspects of the proposal will be assessed against both the purpose and decision guidelines of the SUZ1 and where relevant, the HO263.

Clubhouse building extension (with the exception of the gymnasium addition, proposed stadium function room and members private dining area)

The proposed works associated with the clubhouse building, excluding the northernmost works, are largely internal to the existing building footprint with the exception of the ‘Racquet Club’ dining room extension, located in the southwest corner of the clubhouse building. The proposed expansion of the ‘Racquet Club’ dining room and internal works to the clubhouse building are largely obscured from street view (Glenferrie Road) with the siting of the works occurring to the rear of the existing clubhouse building or internal to the building. The works are located west of the residential zoned land with sufficient setback to ensure that any potential off-site amenity impacts are mitigated. Further, the proposed siting of these works are inconsequential to HO263 that affects the stadium by virtue of lack of proximity and visibility. This aspect of the proposed works to the clubhouse building, when assessed against the purpose of the SUZ1 is considered acceptable.

Construction of the crèche

The proposed crèche is sought to accommodate the children of Club Members. It is proposed to operate as an ancillary use to the primary use of the land as a Tennis Club and therefore the additional use has been accepted. It is noted that if the crèche was to operate independent of the Club (i.e. to take children not of Club Members/ outside of times that a member was using the facilities), a planning permit would be required for the use of the land as a Child Care Centre.

Page 32


The crèche is proposed to be constructed to the underside of the1934 upper northern tier of the stadium with abuttal to the lower 1927 tier. The proposed crèche will extend beyond the perimeter of the top tier with the crèche entry and two play rooms extending beyond the northernmost aspect of the stadium. Views from Glenferrie Road to the crèche will be obscured in part by the existing height of the boundary fence along Glenferrie Road. Despite a level of visibility, particularly from the north and east, the crèche has been designed in so far that it is at no detriment to the HO263, SUZ1 or the neighbouring residential zoned land. This is due to the considered placement of the crèche and the design detailing. Council’s Heritage Advisor raised no concerns with this aspect of the proposal.

Alteration to the access arrangements

Other works, as previously noted, comprise alteration to access to include a dual lane entry and egression through to the west of the site, a loading and unloading bay facility to the west of the clubhouse building along with the alteration to the vehicle access points to Glenferrie Road. The proposed alteration to access arrangements within the site and to the Glenferrie Road entry and exit has been accepted both by Council and VicRoads, subject to conditions. The altered access will improve vehicular legibility through the site and is not considered to have a detrimental impact on the operation of Glenferrie Road or public safety in the area.

Construction of a three (3) level car park

The application also proposes the construction of a three (3) level carpark including basement. The proposed access to the car park is via a relocated internal accessway proposed to be located with direct abuttal to the southernmost 1927 tier of the stadium. At present, the existing accessway is located on the outside perimeter of stadium, south of the stadium’s undercroft concrete support pillars. The applicant seeks to make this accessway the primary connection to the area west of the clubhouse building. This is driven by the desire to pre-emptively address the potential loss of the accessway on the southern side of the clubhouse building for the possible future rail line realignment on the Glen Waverley rail line (Kooyong Station).

Following the proposed demolition of the western 1956 top tier of the stadium and removal of the support pillars, the car park is proposed to be sited with direct abuttal to the lower wing of the western most 1927 stadium component. Behind the retained western (1927) tier, a green wall is proposed to be constructed to obscure view lines to the proposed car park.

It is noted that the proposed additional buildings and works associated with the site will generate a statutory car parking demand of 71 additional car parking spaces. Due to the ad hoc nature of the existing car parking arrangement, the total number of existing car parking spaces on the site cannot be established. As a result of the proposed reduced stadium capacity, a 954 space reduction would be applicable to the site. Notwithstanding any statutory parking rate reduction associated with the reduction in the stadium capacity, the proposed revised car parking arrangements will result in an additional 134 car parking spaces across the site.

The proposed three (3) level car park, when assessed against the SUZ1, is considered acceptable on the basis that views to the sensitive aspects to the south and east are obscured. The green wall is proposed to be sited above the height of the lower tier of the stadium, impeding views from the Glenferrie Road interface. Whilst there will be views to the car park from the north via the Monash Freeway, the most sensitive view from the street frontage will be concealed.

Page 33


When reviewed against the relevant heritage aspects of the Stonnington Planning Scheme, specifically, Clause 15.03-1 (Heritage Conservation) of the SPPF, Clause 21.06-10 (Heritage) of the LPPF and Clause 43.01 (Heritage Overlay) and in conjunction with the recommendation of Council’s Heritage Advisor, the removal of the top tier of the 1956 (western upper level tier) component of the stadium is considered acceptable for the following reasons:

It is the furthest removed from the primary viewing aspect being Glenferrie Road; The removal of the 1956 (western upper level tier) tier will allow for the accommodation

of additional car parking spaces to in turn support the growing function of the Club; and The car park will be obscured by the proposed green wall and therefore, the integration

with the two forms will be separated.

This aspect of the partial demolition of the stadium is accepted. It is considered that the proposed car park respects and sits apart from the key attributes that underpin the heritage significance of the stadium are retained.

Further to the above, where practicable, landscaping has been provided and has been accepted by Council’s Landscape (Parks) Department. The proposed landscaping is considered acceptable when measured against the extent of built form across the site and the use of the land for a Tennis Club.

It is considered that these aspects of the proposal being the buildings and works associated with the clubhouse building (with the exception of the gymnasium addition, proposed stadium function room and members private dining area), crèche and three (3) storey car park and alteration to access arrangements are acceptable.

Partial demolition of the stadium and extension of the clubhouse building to include a gymnasium addition, stadium function room and members private dining area

The remaining key issues for Council’s consideration in the assessment of these aspects of the application include:

How does the proposed partial demolition of the 1953 (southern) component of the stadium and northern expansion of the clubhouse building respond to the State Planning Policy Framework (‘SPPF’)?

Are the proposed works responsive to Council’s Local Planning Policy Framework (‘LPPF’)?

Will the proposed partial demolition and buildings and works result in unreasonable heritage impacts when assessed against the Heritage Overlay?

How does the proposed partial demolition of the 1953 (southern) component of the stadium and northern expansion of the clubhouse building respond to the State Planning Policy Framework (‘SPPF’)?

The Kooyong Lawn Tennis Club is an established institution of both State and Local significance. Strategies outlined within the State Planning Policy Framework (‘SPPF’), specifically Built Environment and Heritage (Clause 15) seek to “…ensure all new land use and development appropriately responds to its landscape, valued built form and cultural context, and protect places and sites with significant heritage, architectural, aesthetic, scientific and cultural value” and “ensure the conservation of places with heritage significance” (Clause 15.03-1). As previously discussed, the Centre Court Stadium within the Kooyong Lawn Tennis Club is protected by an individual heritage overlay.

Page 34


Relevantly, as noted above, Council’s Heritage Advisor has accepted the removal of the western upper level tier of the stadium, constructed in 1956. However the removal of the 1953 southern upper level tier is not supported.

Specific heritage conservation strategies (Clause 15.03-1) within the SPPF seek to:

“Provide for the conservation and enhancement of those places which are of, aesthetic, archaeological, architectural, cultural, scientific, or social significance, or otherwise of special cultural value.”

“Encourage appropriate development that respects places with identified heritage values and creates a worthy legacy for future generations.”

“Retain those elements that contribute to the importance of the heritage place.”

“Encourage the conservation and restoration of contributory elements.”

“Ensure an appropriate setting and context for heritage places is maintained or enhanced.”

Additionally, the policy guidelines of Clause 15.03 direct the Responsible Authority to consider the findings and recommendations of the Victorian Heritage Council (‘VHC’). The Statement of Significance detailed in the HO263 states:

“The 1920s sections of the Kooyong Tennis Stadium at 489 Glenferrie Road, Kooyong, are of State significance and parts of the 1920s, 1930s and 1950s sections are of Local significance.”

The proposed removal of the 1953 (southern) tier of the stadium, a section recognised as having local significance and the construction of the northernmost extension to the clubhouse building is contrary to the policies and strategies contained in the SPPF due to:

The removal of part of the stadium which houses key architectural, cultural and social significance – specifically when viewed from the street (Glenferrie Road);

The proposed northern extension of the clubhouse building with direct abuttal to the southern lower tier of the stadium does not appropriately respect the State and Local heritage significance of the place due to lack of separation to the Stadium;

Despite the ‘local significance’ classification of the 1953 (southern) tier by the Victorian Heritage Council, each distinct construction stage contributes to the presence and stature of the amphitheatre when viewed from Glenferrie Road. The demolition of the 1953 component will remove a most visible element that contributes to the significance of the heritage place when viewed from Glenferrie Road and the public realm, contrary to the objective of the SPPF; and,

The removal of the 1953 (southern) fabric and the extension of the clubhouse building directly to the lower tier perimeter is not considered an appropriate setting or context to ensure the significance of the stadium is maintained or enhanced but rather, it results in a loss of key heritage fabric.

It is for the reasons outlined above that it is considered that the proposed partial demolition of the 1953 (southern) component of the stadium and northern expansion of the clubhouse building do not appropriately respond to the objectives and strategies outlined within the SPPF.

Page 35


Are the proposed works responsive to Council’s Local Planning Policy Framework (‘LPPF’)?

Clause 21.06-10 (Heritage) of Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement (‘MSS’) seek to “prevent incremental loss of heritage places and inappropriate new development which can undermine the integrity of the heritage place” via strategies that seek to “ensure that the design process and the consideration of applications respond to the heritage citation (including any statement of significance), the relevant historic themes and the ascribed level of significance of the heritage place”.

The Victorian Heritage Council heritage grading of the stadium is nominated as A1 grade. Pursuant to Clause 22.04-2 (Heritage Policy), a place with a grade of A1 is considered a ‘significant place’ of either State or Local significance.

Further, Clause 22.04-3 of Council’s Local Heritage Policy contains the following objectives:

“To retain all significant and contributory heritage places.”

“To conserve and re-use significant and contributory heritage places.”

“To ensure that new development respects the significance of heritage places.”

“To maintain views of and vistas to significant heritage places.”

This theme is maintained in Section 4.3.2 –Building elements of Council’s Heritage Design Guidelines (2017) that states “significant heritage fabric should remain the dominant architectural feature of a heritage place, particularly when viewed from the street” … “not be covered or obscured by modern fabric”.

The proposed removal of the 1953 (southern) aspect of the stadium and the extension of the clubhouse building does not appropriately respond to Council’s local policies by:

Failing to ensure that the northern clubhouse building addition respects the built form character of the place by virtue of the scale, siting and lack of setback to the significant heritage fabric;

Failing to adopt a visually recessive design whereby the significance of the heritage stadium remains the dominant visual element, particularly when viewed from Glenferrie Road; and,

Removing a significant aspect of the stadium via the demolition of a key component of the heritage fabric that ensures views, vistas and the interpretation of the stadium is retained from its most visible vantage point.

Having regard to the above, it is considered that the extension of the clubhouse building to the north, abutting the lower level aspect of the stadium and the demolition of the 1953 fabric will result in the incremental loss of significant heritage fabric. In turn, this will be at consequence to the integrity of the heritage place. It is therefore considered that these aspects of the proposed works do not satisfactorily respond to Council’s local policies.

Will the proposed partial demolition and buildings and works result in unreasonable heritage impacts when assessed against the Heritage Overlay?

Page 36


The key concern with the proposal is the partial demolition of the stadium with the proposed removal of the 1953 (southern) and 1956 (western) tiers. As extensively noted, the removal of the 1956 (western) tier has been accepted.

Clause 22.04-1 of Council’s Heritage Policy details policy specific to demolition (including partial demolition). The policy states:

“Discourage demolition of parts of significant buildings (including but not limited to significant building fabric, the primary building volume, original fences, outbuildings, gardens and other features identified in the statement of significance or heritage assessment) unless it can be demonstrated that one or more of the following apply:

The demolition is minor in scale. The demolition will not adversely affect the significance of the heritage place. The replacement development is sympathetic to the scale, setback and

significance of the heritage place.”

Further, the policy seeks to:

“Ensure significant building fabric is retained to conserve:….… The intactness of the heritage streetscape.”

As previously noted, the purpose of the Heritage Overlay (Clause 43.01) is to “conserve” and “enhance” heritage places. Pertinently, Clause 43.01-5 (Decision Guidelines) of the Heritage Overlay directs the Responsible Authority to consider:

“The significance of the heritage place and whether the proposal will adversely affect the natural or cultural significance of the place.”

“Any applicable statement of significance, heritage study and any applicable conservation policy.”

“Whether the location, bulk, form or appearance of the proposed building will adversely affect the significance of the heritage place.”

“Whether the location, bulk, form and appearance of the proposed building is in keeping with the character and appearance of adjacent buildings and the heritage place.”

“Whether the demolition, removal or external alteration will adversely affect the significance of the heritage place.”

“Whether the proposed works will adversely affect the significance, character or appearance of the heritage place.”

The 1934 (north) and 1953 (south) aspects of the stadium are the most visible when considered from Glenferrie Road. This view is maintained in the Victorian Heritage Council Statement of Significance that state (as assessed from Glenferrie Road) “each distinct construction stage is still visible and does not mask or obscure perception of the other stages”.

The possible removal of the 1956 (western) tier and the retention of the 1953 (southern) tier would maintain an appreciation of the place as a stadium when viewed from Glenferrie Road.

Page 37


The consequential net loss of both the 1953 and1956 aspects will result in a significant depreciation of the heritage place as valued from the primary viewing vista of Glenferrie Road (and the immediate surrounds). This, in conjunction with the replacement development, results in a form that is considered unsympathetic to the State and Local heritage significance of the stadium.

Additional to the above, as noted in the referral section of this report, Council’s Heritage Advisor provided commentary seeking the retention of the 1953 (southern) component of the stadium along with the isolation of the northern extension of the clubhouse building to ensure that the two structures are read independent of each other.

The heritage response submitted in support of the application justifies the removal of the 1950’s aspects of the stadium due to the ‘secondary’ (local) significance of these elements whilst maintaining the stands have an “appreciable strength and solidity”. The report further states that these elements are “not of the same aesthetic merit as other representative examples of spectator stands” nor does it “compare well against the structural bravado of the Olympic Swimming Pool (1952-56) and Sidney Myer Music Bowl (1956-59).” It is considered that the justification presented in the report fails to appropriately assess the application against the local significance of the stadium rather, it measures the removal against other institutions across the State.

As such, the extent of demolition proposed is considered excessive as the combined removal of the south (1953) and west (1956) top tiers will alter the intactness of the heritage place by removing key aspects of the stadium when viewed from the most sensitive viewing vista, Glenferrie Road. Consequentially, the demolition will result in an adverse effect to the significance, character and appearance of the heritage place.

For the reasons detailed above, it is considered that the proposed works (partial demolition of the stadium and buildings and works) do not appropriately satisfy the purpose of the Heritage Overlay by failing to conserve and enhance the cultural and heritage significance of the place resulting in an adverse impact to the significance of the heritage place.

Assessment against the Incorporated Plan Overlay – Schedule 1 (IPO1) and Clause 22.16 – Institutional Uses Policy

Clause 43.01-1 of the Incorporated Plan Overlay states that a permit may be granted to construct a building or carry out works if the schedule allows for the granting of a permit, prior to an incorporated plan being implemented into the Scheme.

Schedule 1 to the Incorporated Plan Overlay states that a permit may be granted to use or subdivide land, construct a building or construct or carry out works before an incorporated plan has been incorporated into this scheme. The Schedule does not include and Incorporated Plan for the subject site.

The Decision Guidelines as contained in IPO1 state that the Responsible Authority must consider:

“The interface with adjoining land, especially the relationship with residential areas.” “The impact of any buildings or works on the character of the area.” “The location and type of access to the site.” “The provision and location of car parking.” “The appearance and bulk of buildings having regard to the adjoining land, especially the relationship with residential areas.” “The impact of heritage buildings on the land.” “The provision for landscaping.”

Page 38


“The movement of pedestrians and cyclists and vehicles providing for supplies, waste removal, emergency services or public transport.” “The impact of traffic generated by the proposal and whether it is likely to require special traffic management or control works.” “The effect of any buildings or works on the amenity of the neighbourhood, including the effects of noise, lighting, overshadowing, building bulk and privacy.” “The matters set out in Clause 22.16.”

The proposal largely complies with the design guidelines of the IPO1 due to the large separation between the proposed works and the residential areas, the positive alteration to the access to Glenferrie Road and functional road and pedestrian path layout within the site, the provision of landscaping and the limited off-site amenity impacts such as overshadowing.

The decision guideline of Clause 43.01 stating “the impact of heritage buildings on the land”; however, has not been appropriately responded to. The impact to the heritage stadium as a result of the proposed partial demolition and building and works is not considered to positively respond to this aspect of the IPO1.

The decision guidelines of the IPO1 also direct the Responsible Authority to consider the objectives and policies of Clause 22.16 of the Institutional Uses Policy. Importantly, one of the key objectives of Clause 22.16-2 states:

“To accommodate, wherever possible, the future use and development needs of institutional uses in recognition of the positive and significant contribution they make to the City.”

Whilst the directive of the policy is to accommodate the future use and development needs of the institution (the Kooyong Lawn Tennis Club), it should not come at a compromise to the heritage relevance of the key element of significance being the stadium. Part of the extension to the clubhouse building, construction of the crèche, three (3) storey car park, alteration to access arrangements and partial demolition of the 1953 western tier of the stadium has been accepted as appropriate development to accommodate the future growth of the Club; however, the northern extension to the clubhouse building and partial demolition of the 1953 southern tier of the stadium is considered a detriment to the heritage place.

For the reasons as outlined above, it is not considered that the proposal responds positively to the IPO1 and Clause 22.16 – Institutional Uses Policy.

Assessment against the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay – Schedule 1 (LSIO1)

As previously noted, the application was referred to Council’s Infrastructure Department who raised no concerns with the proposal. The relevant determining referral authority, Melbourne Water, has assessed the proposed works to ensure that the development maintains free passage to ensure impact as a result of a flood event is limited. Subject to conditional requirements, it is considered that the proposal would satisfy the purpose of the LSIO1.

Assessment against Clause 22.05 (Environmentally Sustainable Design) and Clause 22.18 (Stormwater Management – Water Sensitive Urban Design)

Pursuant to Clause 22.05-4 of the Environmentally Sustainable Design Policy, the development of a non-residential building with a gross floor area of more than 1000 square metres would require the submission of a Sustainability Management Plan (SMP) and Green Travel Plan (GTP). As no SMP or GTP was submitted with the application, should a planning permit issue, a condition of the permit would require the submission of an SMP and GTP

Page 39


along with any alteration to development plans to be provided before the development commenced.

Similarly, as the proposed extension to the clubhouse building exceeds 50 square metres, a response to Council’s Stormwater Management (Water Sensitive Urban Design) would be required to be submitted prior to the endorsement of plans.



CONCLUSION

Having assessed the application against the relevant planning controls and the design and layout of the proposal, it is considered that the proposal cannot be conditionally approved on the basis that the removal of the 1953 (southern) upper level tier is relied upon for the construction of the revised internal access to the three (3) storey car park. This is due to the location of the stadium’s undercroft concrete support pillars.

The extent of planning permit conditions required to ensure the retention of the 1953 (southern) upper level tier along with the revised location of the internal access would result in a significant transformation of the development and may compromise the feasibility of other aspects of the proposal.

As such, it is recommended that the proposal be refused for the following reasons:

The extent of proposed partial demolition of the 1953 aspect of the stadium would result in an appreciable loss of significant heritage fabric, particularly when viewed from Glenferrie Road; and,

The proposed northernmost extension to the clubhouse building does not adopt a visually recessive design where the significance of the stadium remains the dominant visual element.

ATTACHMENTS

1. PA2 - 1054-17 - 489 Glenferrie Road Toorak - Attachment 1 of 1 Plans

RECOMMENDATION

That a Refusal to Grant a Planning Permit No: 1054/17 for the land located at Kooyong Lawn Tennis Club at 489 Glenferrie Road, Toorak be issued under the

Page 40


Stonnington Planning Scheme for partial demolition of the stadium, subsequent buildings and works and to alter access to a Road Zone Category One, in the Special Use Zone, Heritage Overlay, Incorporated Plan Overlay and Land Subject to Inundation Overlay, on the following grounds:

1. The extent of proposed demolition of the 1953 (southern) aspect of the stadium will result in the inappropriate loss of significant heritage fabric and is contrary to the objectives of Clause 15 and Clause 21.06 (Built Environment and Heritage), Clause 22.04 (Heritage Policy) and Clause 43.01 (Heritage Overlay) of the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

2. By virtue of the inappropriate scale, siting and lack of setback to the heritage stadium, the proposed buildings and works associated with the construction of the northernmost extension to the clubhouse building (gymnasium addition, stadium function room and member’s private dining area) results in a visually dominant addition that consequentially undermines the integrity of the heritage place as specified in the purpose and objectives of Clause 22.04 (Heritage Policy) and Clause 43.01 (Heritage Overlay) of the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

Page 41


3. PLANNING APPLICATION 1336/17- CHADSTONE SHOPPING CENTRE, 1341 DANDENONG ROAD, MALVERN EAST VIC 3145 – RECONFIGURATION AND EXTENSION OF THE GROUND FLOOR CAR PARK ON THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE SHOPPING CENTRE


PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for buildings and works to the existing Coles car park pursuant to Commercial 1 Zone and the Incorporated Plan Overlay at Chadstone Shopping Centre, 1341 Dandenong Road, Malvern East.

Executive Summary

Applicant: Urbis Pty LtdWard: EastZone: Commercial Zone 1 - Clause 34.01Overlay: Special Building Overlay – Clause 44.05,

Incorporated Plan Overlay (Schedule 2) – Clause 43.03 - Chadstone Shopping Centre Incorporated Plan, August 2012

Date lodged: 20 December 2017Statutory days: (as at council meeting date)

89

Trigger for referral to Council:

Application of interest to the Councillors

Number of objections: No objections - application exempt from noticeConsultative Meeting: NoOfficer Recommendation: Issue a Planning Permit

BACKGROUND

The Proposal

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by The Buchan Group and are known as Drawing No’s: ATP-10002 Revision P00, ATP-10003 Revision P00, ATP-10004 Revision P00 and ATP-10005 Revision P00 and Council date stamped 20 December 2017.

Key features of the proposal are:

Buildings and works to facilitate changes to the internal roadway at the centre's Coles (eastern) entry.

The internal road, between the multi-deck car park and the centre is to be altered to become access to the carpark and not a through road.

The car park expanded at the ground floor level to provide 42 additional spaces.

Specifically, the works will involve the following:

Page 43


Close the Internal Centre Road to through traffic. Extend the car park across the closed carriageway and former bus bay area to provide

an additional 42 car parking spaces. Reconfigure the northernmost and southernmost vehicle access ways to provide a 'free

- flow' design in the ground level parking area. Modify the southwest roundabout to provide a left-turn slip lane on the north approach

into Middle Road. Reduce number of right-tum lanes at the southwest roundabout on the east approach

to one lane.

Site and Surrounds

Chadstone Shopping Centre (the Centre) is located on the northern side of Dandenong Road (Princes Highway) in Malvern East. The site is irregular in shape and has a total area of approximately 27 hectares. The site is dominated by one building positioned diagonally across the land and is generally surrounded by open air car parks and multi-level car parking decks. An internal ring road extends around the boundary of the land, allowing for vehicles to circulate within the site and enter and exit from the east, west or south. A recently constructed office tower (10 storeys in height) sits between the Eastern Access Road (east) and Central Access Road (west) along the southern boundary of the Shopping Centre site, directly interfacing with Dandenong Road.

On the opposite (south) side of Dandenong Road, east of Poath Road, is the City of Monash. West of Poath Road is the City of Glen Eira. Lots on the southern side of Dandenong Road are zoned General Residential and are accessed via a service lane. The properties fronting Dandenong Road are located approximately 60 metres from the southern boundary of the subject site.

More broadly, Chadstone Shopping Centre has the following interfaces:

To the north, east and west are primarily residential areas with the exception of the McDonalds restaurant located on the north-west corner of Dandenong and Chadstone Roads.

Princes Highway (Dandenong Road) sits adjacent to the subject land to the south; Warrigal Road to the east; and Chadstone Road to the west.

Additional vehicle access is provided by Middle Road which runs east to west off Warrigal Road.

More broadly, the Monash Freeway and Waverly Road are located to the north and Scotchman's Creek and parklands are situated on the eastern side of Warrigal Road. To the north-west is the Percy Treyvaud Memorial Park that sits amongst residential properties.

This application relates to the multi-deck car park on the eastern side of the Shopping Centre, to the south of Virginia Grove and to the west of Capon Street. It is easily accessible to the Coles entry, and is therefore referred to as the ‘Coles car park’. However, car parking at the Shopping Centre is not designated to a specific use or tenancy and is shared between all uses at the Centre.

Previous Planning Application(s)

There is an extensive planning permit history for this site. A search of Council records indicates the following relevant planning applications:

Relevant Permits Issued:

Page 44


Planning Permit 956/17 issued on 8 February 2018 by Council for buildings and works within the Commercial 1 Zone; a waiver of the car parking requirements; and a waiver of the loading bay requirements of Clause 52.07. The works specifically allowed for modifications to the existing shop and food and drink tenancies within the east mall and the “Atrium” space to increase the leasable floor area by 1,148 square metres for shops and food and drinks tenancies. The application generated a statutory requirement for 75 car parking spaces yet provided no additional car parking. Importantly, the assessment acknowledged the additional parking to be provided by the expansion of the Coles car park and changes to the west mall, part of which forms the basis of the subject application.

Current Planning Applications:

An amendment under Permit 945/07 for the west mall is currently with the Planning Department. This amendment proposes minor external works and a change of use to the west mall that will generate a surplus of 67 car parking spaces. This application will come to Council in due course.

A new application also for the west mall known as ‘West Piazza’ is currently being advertised and seeks a permit for buildings and works in a Commercial 1 Zone; a use not generally in accordance with the Incorporated Plan; to use the land for the sale and consumption of liquor (general liquor licences); and reduction in the car parking requirements.

The application seeks to allow for a new outdoor dining area including two general liquor licences associated with the food and drink premises at the ground and first floor levels. Tenancy G41 will cater for 290 patrons (180 inside and 110 external), while Tenancy G41B will cater for 370 patrons (300 internal and 70 external). The proposed hours for both liquor licences will be 10am to 10pm Sunday through to Thursday, and 10am to 1am Friday and Saturday. This application generates a statutory requirement for 15 car spaces.

If all applications as proposed are approved, the cumulative outcome in terms of car parking will be a surplus of 19 spaces.

The Title

The site is described as Lot 1 on Title Plan 950949 Volume 11395, Folio 272, and there are numerous restrictions which affect the land including Covenant A718781 relating to the purchase price of the land.

It is considered that this application will not breach the restrictions on the title.

Planning Controls


ZoneClause 34.01 – Commercial 1 Zone Pursuant to Clause 34.01-4 a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works.

Overlay(s)

Page 45


Clause 43.03 - Incorporated Plan Overlay (Schedule 2)Pursuant to Clause 43.03-1, a permit must not be granted to use or subdivide land, construct a building or construct or carry out works until an incorporated plan has been incorporated into this scheme.

A permit granted must:

Be generally in accordance with the incorporated plan, unless a schedule to this overlay specifies otherwise.

Include any conditions or requirements specified in a schedule to this overlay.

The relevant Incorporated Plan for Chadstone Shopping Centre is known as Incorporated Plan (August 2012). The Incorporated Plan outlines the building envelope for the Centre, specifies building heights and setbacks from boundaries, landscaping buffers and includes details of locations for allowable uses.

The proposal is in accordance with the Incorporated Plan.

Clause 44.05 - Special Building Overlay

No permit is required under this Overlay as the location of buildings or works are not proposed within the area designated as being within the Special Building Overlay.


Clause 11.03 Activity CentresClause 17 Economic DevelopmentClause 21.03 VisionClause 21.04 Economic DevelopmentClause 22.11 Chadstone Commercial Centre Policy

Advertising

Pursuant to Clause 43.03-2 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme the application is exempt from public notification where the works are generally in accordance with the Incorporated Plan.

The works to extend the Coles car park will not exceed the building envelope as defined by the Incorporated Plan, August 2012, and therefore is generally in accordance with the Incorporated Plan.

Given the works are in accordance with the Incorporated Plan, it is not considered necessary to notify the adjoining properties under Clause 22.11 (Chadstone Commercial Centre Policy).

The subject site is located in East Ward.

Referrals

Transport and Parking

The proposal is to alter the layout of the parking and circulation road in the former bus bay area near the Coles entry to Chadstone Shopping Centre. The works do not involve a land area increase (although some of the additional parking spaces are effectively to mitigate a slight increase to retail area in another part of the centre), and are wholly located within the title boundary.

Page 46


There are a proposed additional 42 parking spaces created as part of the works. Of these, 8 are proposed to offset the loss incurred due to a permit application 956/17. This is considered reasonable. The additional parking is noted, and is unlikely to impact the surrounding road network (given the size of the development currently, and the relatively small increase in spaces).

The turning templates provided are noted and are considered reasonable.

It is recommended that the change to the pedestrian crossing be referred to VicRoads, as the authority for installation of such devices.

There is a shared use path at the northern end of the works area. It is unclear how this path continues in the new design. This was an area which was highlighted in the ITAP for further shared path works. It is recommended that this be addressed.

KEY ISSUES

Building and Works

The purpose of this application is to improve pedestrian safety, reduce traffic queuing by improving the car park circulation and to increase the car parking supply at the Centre by 42 spaces.

The existing ground floor level car park is known as C-P1 and currently provides 629 car parking spaces including 16 accessible spaces. The proposed works will increase the car parking supply to 671 spaces including 16 accessible spaces and 15 spaces for parents with prams. This will result in an overall increase in car parking by 42 spaces at the ground floor level, directly accessible to the Coles entrance of the Shopping Centre.

Overall the works are positive and will address the existing traffic congestion along the internal centre road between the Coles multi-level car park and the entry to the Shopping Centre (Coles entrance). The changes to the parking aisles will also encourage vehicles to utilise the internal ring road which provides access to the majority of car spaces on the upper levels of the Coles multi-deck car park, as vehicles cannot circulate from the ground level car park to the upper decks. This again should reduce additional traffic movements by removing traffic from the congested area at the ground level.

The works will not only improve traffic conditions but will also create designated pedestrian areas to improve the pedestrian experience between the car park and the Shopping Centre. The change to the southern circulation path includes creating a pedestrian path, complete with bollards and fencing for pedestrian protection.

The location and connection of the accessible bays under this new parking arrangement is considered positive and will improve access to the Centre by moving the bays closer to the building entry.

As per the advice of Council’s Transport and Parking Department, the change to the pedestrian crossing is subject to VicRoads consent and this will be addressed via a condition of approval. Importantly, the proposed works will introduce additional parking to partly compensate for the reduction allowed by “the Atrium” application approved in February 2018. The other applications as detailed earlier in this report that are currently being assessed by the Planning Department will also impact on the overall car parking provision on the subject site.

Page 47


It is reiterated that Planning Permit 956/17 (“the Atrium” development) was approved by Council on 5 February 2018, which allowed a full waiver of the 75 car parking spaces. The Atrium application was approved on the understanding that additional car parking proposed by the Coles car park expansion (subject application) and west mall amendment were likely to be supported. The subject application will increase the car parking on site by 42 spaces. The amendment to the west mall which will come to Council in due course will increase parking by 52 spaces (67 in total, minus the 15 spaces triggered by the West Piazza outdoor dining application).

Ultimately the end result of various changes to car parking and retail floor area as proposed by the current applications with the Planning Department will result in a surplus of car parking by 19 spaces.

Amenity Impacts

The proposed works are unlikely to cause unreasonable amenity impacts on the residential properties that surround the subject site. The works are located at the ground level only, between the Coles entrance and the multi-deck Coles car park. The works seek to improve car parking availability on site and reduce traffic congestion.

Share Path

Planning Scheme Amendment C154 was approved by the Minister of Planning and gazetted on 5 November 2012. At this time, the Incorporated Plan Overlay (IPO) was amended to include conditions and requirements for permits. Specifically, Point 3.4 of Schedule 2 to the IPO (Clause 43.03) requires the following:

"A permit which results in an increase in any floor space by more than 10,000 square metres must give effect to the recommendations contained in an Integrated Transport and Access Plan (ITAP) prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority prior to the grant of the permit. The recommendations of the ITAP must be implemented progressively at agreed stages as documented in the ITAP to the satisfaction of the responsible authority."

An Integrated Transport and Access Plan (ITAP) was approved by Council on 6 May 2013 and amended on 17 July 2014. It was required as a result of the $500 million redevelopment of the Centre (works completed in 2016). The Report of the Panel for Amendment C154 (dated 17 July 2012) acknowledged the need for a modal shift to be addressed in a serious way via an Integrated Transport and Access Plan at Chadstone Shopping Centre. The Panel found that "the share of walking and cycling needs to grow" and that "a well-connected network of paths, including share paths, are integral to increasing the mode share for walking and cycling” (Report of the Panel, p. 53).

The approved ITAP addresses items such as the new centralised bus interchange, bicycle facilities for staff and customers, share path networks and Green Travel Plans. The Plan seeks to promote the use of sustainable modes of transport and addresses alternative options to better manage alternative access to the Centre. The network of share paths detailed in the ITAP are the subject of ongoing discussions between the applicant and Council. However, it was agreed at the time of approval in 2013 that pedestrian priority areas with threshold treatments should be included at the northern entry to the Centre and the Coles and Capital Kitchen entrances to prevent pedestrian and cyclist conflict. These pedestrian areas are detailed on the Active Travel Plan within the ITAP.

As the proposed works to the ground floor level car park will alter the current pedestrian paths along the eastern side of the building, details of the share path integration are required.

Page 48


The Applicant’s traffic consultants (GTA Consultants) have submitted indicative details of how the paths in the area will connect into the existing network. The sketch plan includes minimum dimensions at key locations demonstrating that the majority of the path will exceed 2.5 metres in width, with a small section to have a minimum width of 2.0 metres. The ITAP acknowledges that there are existing constraints in specific areas, which means that the delivery of the preferred 2.5 metre wide path (with 0.5 metre clearances) at all locations may not be possible for the entire length of the route. The ITAP directs that where the path is below the optimal width, appropriate design and signage can be used to manage the usability and safety of the path.

As was required for the northern mall redevelopment (under permit 579/13); it is necessary to include a condition requiring detailed design of the share path including dimensions, signage, paving and barriers. These details are to be shown on the architectural plans. The applicant has confirmed that it is intended that a different pavement will be used to delineate the area of high pedestrian activity.



CONCLUSION

Having assessed the application against the relevant planning controls, it is recommended that the proposal be supported for the following reasons:

The works are in accordance with the Incorporated Plan (August 2012) and meet the requirements of Schedule 2 of the Incorporated Plan;

The new works will have minimal amenity impacts beyond the boundaries of the subject site;

The works to extend the Coles car park will create additional car parking at the Centre.

ATTACHMENTS

1. PA1 - 1336 17 - Chadstone Shopping Centre - 1341 Dandenong Road Malvern East - Attachment 1

Plans

RECOMMENDATION

Page 49


That a Planning Permit No: 1336/17 for the land located at Chadstone Shopping Centre, 1341 Dandenong Road, Malvern East be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for buildings and works to the existing Coles car park pursuant to Commercial 1 Zone and the Incorporated Plan Overlay subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the commencement of the development, 1 copy of plans drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application Council date stamped 9 January 2018 but modified to show:

a) Details of the share paths as required by the Integrated Transport and Access Plan (ITAP) to be shown on the plans in accordance with the details included within the approved ITAP but further modified to show:

i. Detailed design of the share path including dimensions; andii. Details of pedestrian threshold treatments including, but not limited

to, signage, paving or barriers, as required, to limit pedestrian and cyclist conflict;

all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority

2. The layout of the site and the size, levels, design and location of buildings and works shown on the endorsed plans must not be modified for any reason without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

3. Any Major Traffic Control Items, as defined in the Victorian Road Rules, proposed to be installed must be accompanied by an appropriate Memorandum of Consent from Vic Roads, prior to the use of the new roads and car parks allowed by this permit unless a devolution agreement has been entered into between Vic Roads and the applicant or its representative.

4. Prior to occupation, access for persons with disabilities must be provided in compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and such access must be maintained at all times the building is occupied or in use.

5. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

a) The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit.

b) The development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit.

In accordance with Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, a request may be submitted to the Responsible Authority within the prescribed timeframes for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.

Page 50


NOTES:

A. This permit does not constitute any authority to carry out any building works or occupy the building or part of the building unless all relevant building permits are obtained.

B. At the permit issue date, Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 stated that the Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing within the following timeframes:

i. Before or within 6 months after the permit expiry date, where the development allowed by the permit has not yet started; and

ii. Within 12 months after the permit expiry date, where the development allowed by the permit has lawfully started before the permit expires.

Page 51


4. C223 - GLENFERRIE RD AND HIGH ST ACTIVITY CENTRE PLANNING CONTROLS - ADOPTION

Acting Manager City Strategy: Augarette Malki General Manager Planning & Amenity: Stuart Draffin

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider:

The findings and recommendations of the Amendment C223 – Glenferrie Rd and High St Activity Centre Panel report.

Adopting Amendment C223 with changes and requesting the Minister for Planning to approve the Amendment with changes.

BACKGROUND

Glenferrie Rd and High St Activity Centre Structure PlanThe Glenferrie Rd and High St Activity Centre is identified in Plan Melbourne 2017-2050 as a ‘Major activity centre’ where medium and higher density development is encouraged, close to services, jobs and public transport.

The economic analysis undertaken by Essential Economics, as part of the Structure Plan, identified that the activity centre could accommodate approximately an additional 800 to 900 dwellings by 2031, at the average rate of 50 dwellings per annum.

In preparing the Structure Plan Council undertook three stages of consultation. At each stage Council sent notice (via a postcard, flyer or brochure) to over 6000 owners, occupiers, traders and key stakeholders in and around the activity centre. Council sought to gather information or seek feedback on the Issues and Opportunities Paper and seek feedback on the Draft Structure Plan.

On 15 November 2015 Council adopted the Glenferrie Rd and High St Structure Plan and resolved to seek Ministerial authorisation to prepare a planning scheme amendment for planning controls to implement the Structure Plan. The degree of change and increase for the Activity Centre in relation to dwelling density and commercial and retail floorspace is moderate. The proposed controls seek to have moderate heights in response to the significant heritage fabric in the Heritage Overlay (High St, Glenferrie Rd and Station St) and higher built form in those areas not subject to the Heritage Overlay.

Amendment C223 Proposed Planning ControlsAmendment C223 seeks to introduce planning controls to manage built form outcomes such as heights and setbacks and to facilitate high quality urban design outcomes within the Activity Centre and adjoining Wattletree Road area.

In summary, the Amendment proposes: A new Design and Development Overlay (DDO19) to guide preferred maximum built

form heights and preferred minimum upper level setbacks in the Glenferrie Road and High Street Activity Centre.

New Schedules to the existing General Residential Zone and the Residential Growth Zone for the Wattletree Road area to introduce mandatory maximum building heights (GRZ15 and RGZ3).

Page 53


A new Development Plan Overlay (DPO3) for the Malvern Central Strategic Development site and adjoining railway land to ensure that the use and development of the site is coordinated, and respects the surrounding area.

Include the Glenferrie Road and High Street Structure Plan as a reference document in the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

The map at Attachment 1 shows the proposed heights across the different precincts as exhibited.

Amendment C223 Exhibition Amendment C223 was exhibited from 21 July to 22 August 2016. Notification and exhibition of the amendment was carried out via a range of methods including letters, public viewing file, summary brochure and a drop in information session.

Two hundred and thirty one (231) submissions were ultimately received by Council during and after the exhibition period.

The following is an approximation of the number of types of formal submissions received: Seventeen (17) submissions from consultants on behalf of clients who own land in the

activity centre or other key stakeholders such as AMP Capital (Malvern Central), VicTrack, Cabrini Hospital.

One hundred and sixteen (116) individual written submissions. Ninety-eight (98) submissions in a proforma style.

A brief summary of the broad issues raised in submissions: Proposed preferred heights at Malvern Central are too high. Proposed preferred heights throughout the activity centre area are too high and setbacks

are too small. Concern regarding visual bulk and unsightly development. New development will negatively impact the significance of heritage buildings. It is not acceptable that the only measure of shadow is at the equinox. New development will result in increased traffic congestion and demand for car parking. Concern regarding lack of consultation about the amendment.

As a result of the number of submissions and issues raised, Council invited submitters to register to attend one of six focus groups. Community members who were not submitters but wished to attend a focus group were still able to do so. In March 2017 six (6) focus groups were held to discuss Amendment C223 and the proposed planning controls. Ninety (90) participants attended the focus groups including residents, local business representatives, consultants and developers. The majority of attendees were submitters to the amendment.

Amendment C223 Panel Hearing The Panel appointed to hear Amendment C223 was chaired by Con Tsotsoros with Panel member Suzanne Barker. The Panel Hearing was held over 8 days in October and November 2017 at Planning Panels Victoria.

In addition to Council, seventeen (17) submitters were heard at the Panel Hearing. Council was represented by barrister Peter O’Farrell, instructed by Darren Wong of Planology, and called expert evidence in urban design (Craig Czarny), planning (John Glossop) and heritage (Bryce Raworth).

The submitters to the hearing included residents, land owners, Cabrini Hospital, AMP Capital (Malvern Central), VicTrack and Kokoda Property (owner of sites corner of Glenferrie and

Page 54


Dandenong Rd). Submitters called a total of ten (10) expert witnesses with expertise in planning and urban design.

The Panel subsequently prepared a Report which was received by Council on 15 December 2017.

DISCUSSION

Overall the Panel found that the Structure Plan strikes the right balance between protecting the Activity Centre’s considerable heritage values and enabling growth. The Panel considered that the Amendment faithfully implements the Structure Plan and this was reflected in submissions and expert witnesses who generally supported or praised the Amendment. The Panel considers that the Amendment is well founded and strategically justified and should proceed subject to addressing some more specific issues.

The table in Attachment 2 details the key aspects of the planning controls at each stage, all Panel recommendations and Council officers recommended response.

The key Panel recommendations and discussion are summarised below.

Upper level setbacksProposed policy Panel recommendation Officer recommendation8-10m upper level setback above the street wall. Applies to development in Glenferrie Road (Precinct A) and High Street (Precinct B).

1 a) revise the preferred minimum setback above street wall for Precincts A and B to 5 metres.

Do not support Panel recommendation.Revise upper level setback to a discretionary 8 metres.

1 g) Specify all setback provisions as a single measure.

Support Panel recommendation.

The Panel raises the following concerns with applying an upper level setback of 8-10 metres: 8-10m is excessive for a Major Activity Centre. Unsupported weight could be given to planning policies for heritage values over other

policies supporting development in an activity centre. The setback may restrict the ability to achieve 800-900 dwellings if individual sites are

unfeasible.

It is considered that the issue of balancing the objective to protect heritage buildings while also providing for increased density is critical in an area where there is a high level of heritage significance and the centre is also designated as a Major Activity Centre.

It is considered that a discretionary upper level setback of 5 metres may result in the heritage significance of buildings being compromised. Consistent with the evidence of Mr Raworth (Council’s heritage expert), the setback proposed (8-10m) is consistent with the recently approved setback controls (10 metres) in Windsor/ Toorak Road Neighbourhood Activity Centre (Amendment C172 – Activity Centre Zone 1).

The proposed controls are also consistent with the recently approved setback controls (10 metres) in Greville Street which is part of the Prahran/ South Yarra Major Activity Centre (Amendment C172 – Activity Centre Zone 1). There are parallels between Chapel Street Windsor and Glenferrie Road/ High Street. Despite being different centres hierarchically, and

Page 55


different levels of growth anticipated, the integrity and consistency of the heritage form in Glenferrie Road and High Street is equal to if not greater than that found in Windsor. The proposed upper level setbacks for Amendment C223 are discretionary, allowing flexibility to vary the specified measure in appropriate instances.

To the issue of the centre being a Major activity centre and sufficient capacity being allowed for it is considered that the Essential Economics additional analysis has confirmed that sufficient capacity is allowed for with an 8 metre setback. Refer to Attachment 3 for the additional, and more detailed, analysis undertaken for the purpose of the Panel. The assessment by Essential Economics confirms that even on a conservative set of assumptions, the capacity targets for the Centre will not be troubled by the proposed preferred setbacks of 8-10 metres. And that capacity will not be close to being exhausted in 25 years, being the planning horizon of the Structure Plan.

It is therefore considered that a discretionary 8 metres be adopted. Being a discretionary measure, this allows for some flexibility for circumstances where a reduced setback may be appropriate.

Rear interfaces and setbacksProposed policy Panel recommendation Officer recommendationRequirement for 1.5m rear lane offset at ground level to facilitate the ongoing function of the laneway.

Support. No change.

Landscape requirement for rear ground level setback included.

1.e) delete the requirement to landscape the rear ground level setback in sub-precinct A2

Support Panel recommendation.Delete requirement for landscaping the rear ground level setback.

Rear setbackThe Panel supports the discretionary 1.5 metre ground level setback where it is required to provide safe access to a new development. The Panel however, does not support using this setback for public benefit such as improved through-traffic movement or to beautify a public space through landscaping.

LandscapingThe Panel considers that landscaping the rear ground level 1.5 metre setback is not justified or appropriate in areas which predominantly serve access and utility functions. It is considered that the laneway setback cannot accommodate landscaping and the setback should be used for the purpose of better facilitating movement into private developments. The removal of this setback provision is supported.

Wattletree Road WestProposed policy Panel recommendation Officer recommendation5 storeys (16m) (maximum) (New RGZ3)

4. Amend Growth Zone Support Panel

Page 56


(RGZ3) to increase maximum height to 18 metres.Panel conclusion: Retain the preferred maximum building height of 16m (5 storeys) in the DDO.

recommendation.Revise mandatory maximum building height to 18 metres (5 storeys) in the RGZ. Do not support adding 16 metre discretionary height in the proposed DDO.

The Panel supports the mandatory nature of the building height in the Residential Growth Zone (RGZ) as it is existing. The Panel incorrectly notes that the preferred maximum building height was deleted in the Version A of the proposed DDO (adopted for Panel). The proposed controls have always sought to have the mandatory maximum building height in the RGZ3 and not include a height control in the DDO.

It is acknowledged that 16 metre height may not be sufficient, in all circumstances, to allow a 5 storey building. Consistent with the designated height for 5 storeys in the approved Activity Centre Zone for Chapel Street, and the 5 storey height in Precinct B (High Street), the height of 18 metres for 5 storeys is supported. It is noted that the template for the Residential Growth Zone (RGZ) does not allow the height to be expressed in storeys as well as metres. It is also preferable that the maximum building height be located in one control, the RGZ, and not two controls, in order to avoid confusion and duplication.

Cabrini HospitalProposed policy Panel recommendation Officer recommendation 4 storeys (13.5m)

maximum Existing RGZ2(Noting that the height does not apply to institutional uses)

2.b) remove DDO from land bounded by Wattletree Road, Isabella Street, Winter Street and Coonil Crescent (Cabrini Hospital main campus).

Do not support Panel recommendation in full.Revise the DDO to clearly identify the two design requirements which are relevant for any development on the Cabrini Hospital main site. Refer to Clause 2.6 (Precinct D) of the proposed DDO.

The Panel agrees with Council that design and development provisions, whether through an Incorporated Plan or other form of provision is needed for the Cabrini Hospital main campus. The Panel considers that the DDO19 does not sufficiently respond to the hospital’s functional needs and that the built form typology in Precinct D is not suitable for the main hospital campus. The Panel does note the importance of built form appropriately responding to its sensitive interfaces with the surrounding residential land.

It is considered that the development of an Incorporated Plan is preferable, however the Incorporated Plan Overlay (IPO) does not compel Cabrini to prepare a plan and obtain approval from Council. In the absence of such a plan, Council continues to work with permit applications as they are lodged, and as a result additional policy is required.

The proposed Design and Development Overlay seeks not to control the height of buildings but rather manage the edges of the development including contributing to the landscape setting and providing a transition in scale with the adjacent low scale residential development. It is considered that just two key objectives/ design requirements be retained in

Page 57


the proposed DDO19 as having relevance and to provide assistance in managing the edges of development on the Cabrini Hospital main campus.

It is noted that the Panel supports the DDO and considers its provisions relevant to the Cabrini carpark site at 185-189 Wattletree Road. The Panel also made some concluding statements regarding the need for a masterplan for Cabrini Hospital main campus. This is discussed further below under ‘Panel Conclusions’.

Dandenong Rd and Glenferrie Rd strategic sitesProposed policy Panel

recommendationOfficer recommendation

Dandenong Rd site (E) - 10 storeys (35.5m)

Glenferrie Rd site (F) - 8 storeys (28.5m) Remaining land (A2) - 6 storeys (21.5m)

Support. No change.

The Panel finds that the preferred provisions have been well considered and do not have to represent the maximum possible extent of development. The Panel may have thought otherwise if mandatory built form provisions were proposed. The discretionary heights do allow a taller building, subject to all the design requirements being carefully considered.

The Panel, in its conclusions, in considering an appropriate height for these sites supported the view that the southern footpath (of Dandenong Road) should not be overshadowed at the September equinox. A provision has been added to the proposed DDO to ensure that the Dandenong Rd southern footpath is not overshadowed at the September equinox. This overshadowing consideration will be a guiding principle for potential future development on these sites.

Other requirements in the proposed DDO which will guide development include: Providing active ground floor frontages along the railway interface. Consideration of views to the site from Glenferrie Rd and Station St. Providing passive surveillance of the public realm. Siting the tallest built form away from the Former Railway Hotel (HO403).

Malvern Central and VicTrack land Proposed policy Panel recommendation Officer recommendationBuilding height:8 storeys (28.5m) Adopted for Panel

3 a) require built form to step down from 42.5 metres (12 storeys) to 28.5 metres (8 storeys) to the south and west.

Support Panel recommendation.Support built form to step down from 42.5m (12 storeys) to 28.5m (8 storeys) to the south and west.

Display of Development Plan:Before approving or amending a development plan, the responsible authority should display the plan for public comment for at least four weeks.

3 d) delete the provision to display the development plan.

Support Panel recommendation.Delete the provision to display the development plan.

Built form

Page 58


In relation to the proposed building height for the Malvern Central site the Panel concluded: The exhibited maximum 12 storey building height is informed by robust design modelling

and evidence which confirms that a proposal of this scale may be able to address amenity impacts and align with the aspirations of DDO19 and the Structure Plan.

There is no strategic basis or information to support a lower building height. Reducing the building height to 8 storeys would unnecessarily reduce the Activity

Centre’s overall development capacity. The taller form located in the north-eastern corner should step down to 8 storeys to the

west and south, consistent with the Structure Plan.

The Panel has acknowledged that many submissions opposed the maximum building height of 12 storeys due to concerns relating to overshadowing and visual bulk, amongst others. The Panel observed the subject land from different vantage points, including Railway Avenue and its surrounds.

The Panel took into consideration the role of this site given its location in a Major Activity Centre and the modest building heights elsewhere in the Activity Centre as a result of heritage constraints. 3D modelling and analysis tabled at the Hearing was also of benefit to the Panel in considering offsite impacts of development such as overshadowing. The Panel supports the height of 12 storeys with a transition to 8 storeys to the south and the west, in order to provide a visual transition to the residential interfaces to the south. It is considered that the Panel has carefully considered the offsite amenity impacts and the role of this site in supporting growth in a Major Activity Centre.

Display of Development PlanThe Panel has noted that the parent clause specifies that planning permits are exempt from notice and review and it is not possible to require the display of the plan in the new templates for the DPO.

Accepting this, it is considered appropriate to remove this requirement from the proposed DPO. Irrespective of this provision being in the DPO or not, Council has the discretion to display the development plan for public comment before Council takes the plan to a Council meeting for a decision.

Form and Content of the AmendmentAmendment VC110, gazetted on 27 March 2017, changed the Ministerial Direction – Form and Content of Planning Schemes which directs Council on the content and style of all planning scheme amendment documents. The new Ministerial Direction is consistent with the State Government’s Smart Planning program which seeks to reform Victoria’s planning system, make it more efficient and reduce duplication. This VC Amendment was gazetted after Council had prepared and exhibited Amendment C223.

For the purpose of the Panel Hearing a version of the proposed DDO and the DPO was drafted which faithfully translated these controls into the new templates as directed by the Ministerial Direction - Form and Content of Planning Schemes. Council tabled these new versions of the DDO and DPO at the Panel Hearing. Other parties also tabled their suggested versions of the DDO and DPO.

In the preparation of the adopted version of the controls for Panel, and the subsequent version tabled at the Panel Hearing, Council officers have carefully considered revisions to the DDO and DPO in the interest of removing duplication and reducing the length of the policy. Unlike other recently approved comparable activity centre policies across metropolitan Melbourne, Amendment C223 proposes a DPO and a DDO only and not a local policy. In the

Page 59


interest of improving readability it wasn’t considered necessary to have provisions in both a DDO and a local policy. It was decided that one discreet policy, being either the DPO or the DDO, would be the most efficient way of applying policy for a specific area.

The Panel has also discussed the issue of how best to express the DDO provisions which enable the DDO permit trigger. The discussion centres on whether the requirements should be expressed as ‘must’ or ‘should’. The Panel notes that the proposed DDO, like other DDO schedules in planning schemes, uses the word ‘must’ in provisions so that they are expressed as requirements which can be varied by a permit. The Panel concludes that consistent State-wide advice on drafting statutorily robust provisions in DDO schedules would help reduce lack of clarity and re-prosecution of the same issue at Panels. In the absence of this advice from State Government the Panel recommends Council use the ‘must’ terminology in the proposed DDO.

Panel ConclusionsThe Panel has made other suggestions for investigation which fall outside of the formal process for Amendment C223. These suggestions are contained within the Conclusion headings in the Panel report and are addressed below.

Traffic and parkingThe Panel considered whether the Amendment appropriately responded to traffic and parking impacts that will be created by additional development envisaged by the Structure Plan. The Panel acknowledges that many actions specified in the Structure Plan are outside the Amendment’s scope.

The Panel has made the following conclusions: Council should better inform itself about the degree to which the existing network can

accommodate additional vehicle generation based on: additional residential, retail and commercial floor space envisaged in the Economic

Report potential vehicle movements which this additional development is likely to generate actions which seek to encourage more sustainable movements.

Further traffic related strategic work should be conducted separately to ensure that the Amendment progresses without delay.

Strategic foresight would assist in applying associated traffic and parking costs or works more fairly and equitably.

Council is well informed about the impacts on the local road network managed by Council. Council considered future impacts on the arterial road network, including impacts on Glenferrie Road and High Street, in the 2013 Through Traffic Study. This study researched the causes and impacts of through traffic in Stonnington, including local trip generation. The investigation identified present areas of concern, assessed opportunities and constraints in the local and arterial transport network and recommended practical actions that Council might consider for reducing the impact of through traffic. Council is currently implementing these actions and is also updating the Through Traffic Study.

Council has not only invested in sustainable transport alternatives but also advocated for greater public transport capacity. Council has also been supporting a greater transfer of local trips from private vehicles to cycling. Through the Stonnington Cycling Strategy, Council has been investing in cycling infrastructure such as bike parking rails in commercial precincts, including High Street. Council has also implemented improved pedestrian linkages to the railway stations including a linkage along the southern side of the railway corridor near Malvern Station.

Page 60


InfrastructureMany submitters were concerned that infrastructure would be adversely impacted by additional development envisaged by the Structure Plan. The Panel considers that Council can satisfactorily monitor and plan for the relatively modest annual dwelling growth anticipated. The Panel considers that retail and commercial floorspace will generate different infrastructure demands which need further consideration. The Panel concludes that Council should assess the cumulative impact that additional development will have on existing infrastructure and identify thresholds which trigger the need for upgrades.

Council regularly reviews its infrastructure assets and prioritises upgrades as needed. Areas where an increase in development is anticipated and therefore demand on infrastructure, is considered in Council’s planning for infrastructure upgrades. This has been further identified in the Planning Scheme Review.

Cabrini masterplanAs part of the formal recommendations the Panel has recommended that the planning controls not be applied to the Cabrini Hospital main campus. This recommendation is addressed above. In the absence of the DDO provisions applying the Panel has concluded that Cabrini Hospital should work collaboratively with Council to prepare a masterplan with building envelopes.

It is considered that the Panel’s conclusions are reasonable with respect to the preference for a masterplan with building envelopes. A masterplan would provide Council and the wider community with greater certainty as to the development outcomes expected on Cabrini owned land used for the purpose of a hospital. It is considered that Council should consider approaching Cabrini Hospital to discuss the Panel’s recommendations to prepare a masterplan with building envelopes.

Mandatory minimum garden areaAmendment C223 proposes to retain the General Residential Zone and introduce a new Schedule (GRZ15) to ensure that the zone and proposed Design and Development Overlay are compatible. The Panel is concerned that the new minimum garden requirement in the GRZ may have serious implications for the ability of this area to achieve the capacity and objectives in the Structure Plan.

The Panel makes the following conclusion: Council should review the impact of the GRZ mandatory minimum garden area

requirement on land in Precinct D, through a separate process, to determine: whether the potential extent of development and dwelling loss would continue to

achieve objectives sought by the Structure Plan whether the GRZ is still a suitable zone for Precinct D.

It is considered that Council can review the implications of the garden area requirement on the capacity of the land in Precinct D as part of the residential zones review project and the preparation of the Housing Strategy.

Adoption of AmendmentIt is recommended that Council adopt Amendment C223 with changes, based on the Panel recommendations and discussion above and in Attachment 2. Attachment 4 includes a copy of the revised amendment documents for Council’s consideration for adoption. Changes to

Page 61


the Panel’s version of the DDO and DPO are shown as tracked changes. Changes to the exhibited version of the other policies are shown as tracked changes.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Council Plan 2017-2021The Amendment is consistent with the following liveability strategies in the Council Plan: Preserve Stonnington’s heritage architecture and balance its existing character with

complementary and sustainable development. Balance the competing demands of maintaining residential amenity and population

growth through appropriate planning. Enhance the design outcomes of public spaces, places and buildings.

Plan Melbourne 2017-2050The Amendment is consistent with the directions and policies of the State Government planning policy framework as follows: Direction 2.1 - Policy 2.1.2 - Facilitate an increased percentage of new housing in

established areas to create a city of 20-minute neighbourhoods close to existing services, jobs and public transport.

Direction 2.2 - Policy 2.2.3 - Support new housing in activity centres and other places that offer good access to jobs, services and public transport.

Direction 5.1 – Policy 5.1.1 – Create mixed-use neighbourhoods at varying densities.

Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) Clause 21.04-1 – Activity Centres - Developing and implementing Structure Plans for

principal, major and large neighbourhood activity centres.

FINANCIAL AND RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS

The financial costs of planning scheme amendments has been included in the budget of Council’s City Strategy Unit in 2016/17 and 2017/2018.

Anticipated timeline:

April 2016 July-Aug 2016 Mar 2017 Oct-Nov 2017 Mar 2018 June 2018

Authorisation Exhibition Further consultation

Panel Adoption Ministerial Approval

LEGAL ADVICE & IMPLICATIONS

All parties have had the opportunity to be heard at an independent panel hearing.

CONCLUSION

The Amendment C223 Panel report considers that the Structure Plan strikes the right balance between protecting the Activity Centre’s considerable heritage values and enabling growth. The Panel considers that the Amendment is well founded and strategically justified and should proceed subject to addressing some more specific issues.

It is considered that Council should adopt Amendment C223 in accordance with the Panel’s recommendations with some changes. It is considered that Council should adopt the Panel’s recommended changes only in part with respect to the upper level setbacks for High Street and Glenferrie Road and inclusion of two of design requirements applying to the Cabrini Hospital main campus.

HUMAN RIGHTS CONSIDERATION

Page 62


This recommendation complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

ATTACHMENTS

1. C223 - map heights - Attach 1 Excluded

2. C223 - Panel recommendations table - Attach 2 Excluded

3. C223 - Capacity Analysis Nov 2017-Attach 3 Excluded

4. C223 - Amendment documents for adoption - Attach 4 Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:1. Notes the public release of the Panel report for Amendment C223.2. Considers the Panel Report and adopts Amendment C223 to the Stonnington

Planning Scheme with changes since exhibition (pursuant to Section 29 (1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987) in accordance with Attachment 4.

3. Submits the adopted Amendment C223 to the Minister for Planning for approval, in accordance with Section 31 (1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

4. Advises all submitters of Council’s decision in relation to Amendment C223.5. Approach Cabrini to discuss the Panel’s recommendations for the preparation

of a masterplan with building envelopes.

Page 63


5. AMENDMENT C266 - OPEN SPACE REZONING - CONSIDERING SUBMISSIONS

Acting Manager City Strategy: Augarette Malki General Manager Planning & Amenity: Stuart Draffin

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is for Council to:

Decide whether to adopt Amendment C266 which proposes to rezone fifteen (15) Council owned properties to the Public Park and Recreation Zone (PPRZ) following exhibition of the Amendment; and

Request the Minister for Planning approve the Amendment.

BACKGROUND

Public Realm Strategy (2010)Stonnington has the second lowest amount of public open space at 6.7% (20sqm per person) of any Victorian Municipality and with population increasing this percentage is expected to decline. Parks and reserves play a significant role at the local level, providing spaces for recreation, social and nature based activities. Council’s Public Realm Strategy (2010) provides an analysis of open space in Stonnington and direction for Council to address the issue of limited open space.

The Public Realm Strategy outlines key actions to improve the quality and quantity of open space within the Municipality. One of these actions is to implement an acquisition strategy to acquire new land for the purpose of public open space.

Strategies for Creating Open Space (2013)Strategies for Creating Open Space establishes a set of overarching objectives to guide the strategic acquisition of land for open space in Stonnington.

Since adoption of the Strategy in 2013 Council has purchased several properties that have met the requirements within Strategies for Creating Open Space.

Amendment C266 Amendment C266 proposes to rezone fifteen (15) Council owned properties across Stonnington to the Public Park and Recreation Zone (PPRZ) to reflect the current use or future proposed use as public open space. For a complete list of all properties affected by this Amendment please refer to Attachment 1. The existence of these sites has occurred for a number of reasons, mostly due to Council acquiring properties for open space. These properties should be rezoned in order to ‘provide for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use and development of land’ in accordance with Section 4 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

ExhibitionFormal exhibition of the Amendment took place from 25 January to 27 February 2018.

Notification and exhibition of the Amendment was carried out via the following measures:

Letters sent to Prescribed Ministers.

Public Land Managers notified.

Notice was published in the Stonnington Leader and Government Gazette on 23 and 25 January 2018 respectively.

No submissions were received during the exhibition period.

Page 65


DISCUSSION

Adoption of C266As Council has not received any submissions for Amendment C266, it is recommended that Council adopts the Amendment C266 as exhibited.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The Amendment is consistent with the following livability strategy in the Council Plan (2017-2021):

Strategically invest in open spaces, sporting fields and community facilities and optimize use according to community needs.

Balance the competing demands of maintaining residential amenity and population growth through appropriate planning

The Amendment is consistent with the objective of Council’s Open Space and Environment Strategy, Clause 21.07

To provide an equality of public open space quality and quantity across the municipality, sufficient to meet future needs and which improves the accessibility, safety and environmental sustainability of the open space system.

The Amendment is consistent with the objectives for planning in Victoria in section 4 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987:

To provide for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use and development of land.

The Amendment is consistent with Plan Melbourne 2017:

Direction 5.4: Deliver local parks and green neighbourhoods in collaboration with communities.

Policy 5.4.1: Develop a network of accessible, high-quality, local open spaces

The Amendment implements Council’s Public Realm Strategy 2010 and Strategies for Creating Open Space 2013.


The financial cost of planning scheme amendments has been included in the budget of Council’s City Strategy Unit for 2017/2018.

The indicative timeframe for Amendment C266 is identified in the table below. December 2017 February 2018 March 2018 May 2018

Authorisation Exhibition Consider Submissions

Ministerial Approval

CONCLUSION

Amendment C266 proposes to rezone fifteen (15) Council owned properties to PPRZ.

It is recommended that Council adopts Amendment C266 as exhibited and submit the Amendment to the Minister for Planning for approval given no submissions were received.


Page 66



ATTACHMENTS

1. C266 - Attachment 1 List of Places Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:1. Adopts Amendment C266 to the Stonnington Planning Scheme as exhibited.2. Submit the adopted Amendment C266 to the Minister for Planning for approval,

in accordance with Section 31(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Page 67


6. DONALD STREET, PRAHRAN - PROPOSED REMOVAL OF PARKING RESTRICTIONS TO ALLOW FOR STREET SWEEPING

Manager Physical Operations: Noel Kiernan General Manager Assets & Services: Simon Thomas

PURPOSE

This report seeks to determine if the current 1-hour ‘No Parking’ restrictions that allow for street sweeping along Donald Street, Prahran between High Street and Greville Street be altered.

BACKGROUND

At the Council meeting of 20 March 2017 the Mayor tabled a petition from eight (8) Donald Street residents (representing seven households), stating that the street sweeping restrictions that apply on Wednesday and Thursday mornings (between High Street and Greville Street), are unnecessary and cause residents inconvenience and a lack of quiet enjoyment.

The petitioners request that the street sweeping restrictions in Donald Street Prahran between High Street and Greville Street be removed.

Donald Street, between High Street and Greville Street, currently features the following parking restrictions:

On the west side; o 2P 9am-6pm Monday-Wednesday & Fridayo No Parking 9am-10am Thursdayo 2P 10am-6pm Thursdayo 2P 9am-1pm Saturday.

On the east side;o 2P 9am-6pm Monday, Tuesday, Thursday & Fridayo No Parking 9am-10am Wednesdayo 2P 10am-6pm Wednesday. o Permit 3pm-Midnight Saturday & Sunday

Original Council Survey

On 24 March 2017 consultative letters were mailed to the ninety two (92) residences fronting and abutting Donald Street, between High Street and Greville Street, Prahran. The letter, accompanied by an individually addressed response form and a postage-paid return envelope, provided residents information upon which they could base their opinion. (Refer Attachment 1).

This survey closed on Wednesday 12 April 2017. A number of responses were received by mail from individual properties.

Results

The following summarises those responses.

Page 69


Circulars delivered: 92Responses received: 20Response rate: 22%

In favour: 40% or 8 responsesAgainst: 55% or 11 responsesNeutral: 5 % or 1 response

Proponent/Resident Process

Concurrently and independently the proponent of the original petition in March 2017 delivered by hand to the Service Centre a further group of responses. These responses were:

Predominantly photocopied survey sheets on which the pre-printed property address had been deleted and another address inserted by hand;

Were all in agreement of the proposal to remove the restrictions; Incorporated multiple responses from individual properties, which included 9 (nine)

submissions from 1 one property on Donald Street; and, Included a response from one of the 20 properties who had already formally

responded to Council. This response differed from the response to Council.

Officers understand the proponent door-knocked properties in the street to collate these responses, the results indicated full support to remove restrictions amongst this separate sample. This approach is typically not how Council determines the views of residents; as it can potentially skew responses and not provide residents enough time to consult with all household members adequately.

Proponent/Resident Results

Responses received: 51 (from 27 properties)Response rate: 55%

In favour: 100% or 51 responsesAgainst: Nil responses

It is Council’s standard procedure when dealing with petitions that one opinion per household is taken into account. That procedure is set out in Council’s Consultation Policy – Traffic and Parking Control Items and states All properties in the street (or streets) affected by proposed traffic/parking control measures must be consulted. The procedure does not refer to persons, owners or occupiers but to properties. Accordingly, Council accepts one opinion for each affected property.

DISCUSSION

Further Council Survey

As outlined above, the results of both survey processes varied significantly.

Council needs to ensure that survey responses accurately reflect the sentiments of the majority of households in the street, to ensure that residents have an equal opportunity to

Page 70


express a consensus view on behalf of their property it was determined to resurvey residents of the street.

Community Consultation

Consultation was undertaken as per Council’s ’Consultation Policy – Traffic & Parking Control Items’.

On 2 June 2017 a second consultative letter was mailed to ninety three (93) residences fronting and abutting Donald Street, between High Street and Greville Street, Prahran. This letter (Refer Attachment 2), accompanied by an individually addressed response form and a postage-paid return envelope, outlined Council’s concerns with responses from the initial survey and again sought the resident’s view.

Community Response

Full details of respondents and responses of the second consultation is attached (Attachment 3). The following summarises those responses.

Circulars delivered: 93 Responses received: 26

Response rate: 28%

In favour: 50% or 13 responsesAgainst: 50% or 13 responses

The results from this survey align more closely with the responses received for the first Council survey, being only one response per property. Comments accompanying the responses include:

In favour of removal:

“I would be very happy if the street sweeping related parking restrictions were removed. They cause considerable stress . . . “

“Please remove”

There is no meaningful issue with refuse or leaves that warrant the ordinary rights of effected persons to park outside their place of residence/work.”

And against removal:

“The proposal will prevent effective sweeping of the street and gutters which in turn will lead to accumulation of rubbish, possible blockage of drains and impact on the amenity of the area and residents.”

“We strongly oppose the removal of the one hour restriction. We want to keep the current arrangement to ensure our street is accessed for proper street sweeping. We want the same level of amenity that our neighbouring streets enjoy.”

“I want the street to be clean.”

Options

Page 71


A 50/50 Council Survey result would normally be determined in favour of status quo as it suggests that there is technically insufficient support for change.

The responses were plotted on a plan of the street which revealed that the majority of households on the east side of Donald Street support the removal of the subject parking restrictions, while the majority of households on the west side of Donald Street oppose the removal.

Results of East/West Sides of Street

The following summarises those responses

Results of East/West Sides of Street

East Side of Street9 - remove current restrictions

4 - maintain current restrictions

West Side of Street 4 - remove current restrictions

9 - maintain current restrictions

Councillors considered this matter at a Briefing on the 11 September 2017, and requested that a Street Meeting be convened with South Ward Councillors to further understand the consensus view of the street to inform a decision in relation to this matter.

The sentiments of the majority of households in the street need to be understood, to ensure that residents have an equal opportunity to express a consensus view on behalf of their property it was determined to host this meeting to ensure Councils final decision reflected the consensus views of residents.

Further Street Meeting

A further opportunity to understand the consensus view of the street on the 25 October 2017 was facilitated, a Street meeting was convened at the Prahran Town Hall (Committee Room). An invitation to the meeting was sent to all 93 households on the 2 October 2017 consistent with the process undertaken via the original Council surveys of the Donald Street and abutting Street from the 20 March 2017.

The Street meeting on the 25 October 2017 was chaired by the South Ward Councillor, Steve Stefanopoulos and in attendance Judy Hindle (Councillor Melina Sehr an apology).

A total of 12 residents attended representing 10 properties in Donald Street and abutting Greville Street.

Two property representatives expressed a view for the parking restrictions to be removed in the Street, the remaining eight property owners indicated that they would prefer the existing 1-hr ‘No Parking’ restrictions for the purpose of street sweeping not be removed.

The general discussion of the meeting expressed views that the majority of the residents valued the amenity of the street and accept the periodic restrictions which require them to remove their cars to clean the streets with mechanical sweepers.

It was discussed at the meeting that resident’s from the east side of Donald Street, have potential off-street access to the rear of their properties to garage their vehicles via the

Page 72


abutting laneway to reduce reliance on Donald Street off-street parking. Seven properties on the west side of Donald Street have access to a rear laneway. At the meeting, residents with rear access were encouraged to consider opting to park their cars off-street in the future.

In line with previous Council surveys this latest meeting process failed to demonstrate clear support normally required to implement a change of conditions. Accordingly, this matter now can be placed for decision before Council, with the majority of views of street indicating as being generally in favor of the parking restrictions not being removed.


NIL

LEGAL ADVICE AND IMPLICATIONS

Corporate Counsel was consulted concerning the initial survey and resurvey conducted in 2017 and June 2017 to ensure the survey process was sound and the views of residents were accurately reflected.

CONCLUSION

A petition was received from a number of Donald Street, Prahran, residents requesting the removal of the parking restrictions that allow for street sweeping of Donald Street between High Street and Greville Street.

Initial consultation with residents resulted in multiple responses from individual properties. It was then determined to re-survey residents. The subsequent consultation with all 93 potentially affected residences resulted in 26 responses; 13 respondents in favour of the proposal and 13 respondents opposing.

This proposal failed to demonstrate the clear support normally required to implement a change of conditions. Council could determine to retain in full (not remove) the 1-hr parking restrictions for the whole street.

A further Street meeting on the 25 October 2017, of 12 residents attending representing 10 properties expressed a majority view to retain the existing parking restrictions.


The above proposal complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 - Donald Street Consultation Letter - March 2017 Excluded

2. Attachment 2 - Donald Street Consultation Letter June 2017 Excluded

RECOMMENDATION

Page 73


That:

1. The existing 1-hr ‘No Parking’ restrictions for the purpose of street sweeping in Donald Street, Prahran, be retained.

2. All property occupiers previously consulted on this proposal be advised of the Council’s decision.

Page 74


7. DRAFT POSITIVE AGEING STRATEGY 2018-2021

Manager Aged, Diversity, Health & Animal Management: Penny Pavlou Acting General Manager Community & Culture: Tony Oulton

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to present the draft Positive Ageing Strategy 2018-2021 to Council and request that Council endorses the Strategy for community consultation.

BACKGROUND

The draft Positive Ageing Strategy 2018-2021 (attachment 1) provides the strategic direction for Council in working with older residents. The document has been developed based on the needs of, and feedback from, older residents, their families, community groups and services, and provides clear strategic direction to guide future services and priorities for Council.

The Strategy responds to the changing political environment and links with Council’s plans and strategies that are aimed at improving the health and wellbeing of the Stonnington community. This Strategy will lay the pathway for a strong and inclusive community that values diversity and ageing.

DISCUSSION

For the purposes of the draft Positive Ageing Strategy 2018-2021, an older person is considered to be 65 years of age and older. This is in accordance with the World Health Organisation, which states that, “most developed countries have accepted the chronological age of 65 years as a definition of ‘elderly’ or ‘older person’”. The Commonwealth and Victorian State Government have also used the chronological age of 65 to determine funding and services for older Australians. It should be noted that for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, the term ‘older person’ is defined as 50 years and over, reflecting the life expectancy gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.

The draft Positive Ageing Strategy 2018-2021 bases its focus on the directions of the Council Plan 2017-2021 and Public Health and Wellbeing Plan 2017-2021. Council has identified through the adoption of these overarching plans a clear focus on improving the health and wellbeing of the Stonnington community, by:

facilitating responsive and inclusive services and programs,

delivering quality accessible infrastructure and public spaces; pursuing strong partnerships and collaboration with other service providers and community groups,

reducing barriers to participation in community life; and,

providing public spaces which support community wellbeing and liveability.

The Positive Ageing Strategy 2018-2021 will provide Council with the direction to achieve these goals for older communities in Stonnington.

In the changing aged care environment, with a plethora of new service providers, the Strategy recognises that services for older people and their families are provided by a mix of private operators, community or not-for-profit organisations, the Federal, State and Local Government. With this in mind, Council will need to consider new approaches, and may adopt new roles in supporting older people. The Positive Ageing Strategy 2018-2021 will provide a guide to the organisation to achieve this.

People aged 55 to 64 years

Page 75


As the previous Older Persons Strategy was developed for people aged 55 years and over, there is an understanding that Council must consider the needs of those people aged 55 to 64 years of age who will not be covered by the Positive Ageing Strategy 2018-2021. Further work will be undertaken in this area and reported back to Council for consideration.

Demographics of Stonnington residents over 65 years

The City of Stonnington will experience consistent population growth over the next 10 years with the population projected to increase to 131,144 or by 17.5 percent by 2026. The age cohort that will experience the highest growth during this time will be those aged between 35 and 49 years. This age cohort will grow by 40.4 percent (8,302 people) and by 2026 will account for 22 percent of the population (28,868 people). By comparison, the population of people aged 65 years and over will increase by 31.3 percent during the same period. This means that by 2026, there will be just over 20,000 people aged 65 years or older in the City of Stonnington, accounting for 15.8 percent of the population (at the 2016 Census, this age cohort accounted for 14.1 percent of the population).

This growth will drive increased demand for programs, services and supports for older adults right across the City, but particularly in the western parts of Stonnington (Prahran, South Yarra and Windsor) where higher levels of growth are projected compared with the central and eastern parts of the City. Of note, is the high level of growth projected in those aged 85 years or older across the City, accounting for an increase of 1,440 people between 2016 and 2026 (58.3 percent increase). The increase will be particularly seen in the western end of the municipality and suggests that demand for support services for frail aged members of the community is likely to increase.

This is important to understand for the City of Stonnington given the increasing number of people living alone (projected to increase from 15,000 in 2016 to over 22,000 by 2026), particularly older adults as they become frail aged. In addition, the gender profile of the community must be considered. With much higher proportions of females aged 65 years and older compared with males, it is more likely older females will be living in lone person households and consequently are more likely to experience loneliness and isolation, particularly as they become frail aged.

The cultural diversity of the Stonnington community and the proportion of residents from a non-English speaking background has steadily increased over the past decade. At the 2016 Census the top six overseas countries of birth for Stonnington residents were China, United Kingdom, India, New Zealand, Greece, and Malaysia. The most notable change between 2011 and 2016 was the increase in the proportion of residents from China and the decrease in those from Greece. Population forecasts for residents aged 65 years and older suggest that these trends will continue, with the number of older adults from China projected to more than double, and those from Greece projected to more than halve by 2033. Other notable changes projected are the increasing number of older adults from India, Malaysia and South Africa, and the declining number from Italy and Russia. These changes suggest Council will need to review how it provides support to culturally diverse older adult groups.

A detailed analysis of the demographics is attached for Councillors’ information (attachment 2).

Current Council Services

Council provides a range of services, programs, activities and events aimed at residents aged 65 years and over to keep them engaged and connected in community life and remain independent within their own homes. This information is attached for Councillors’ information (attachment 3).

Active recreation opportunities in Stonnington

Page 76


At the time the Positive Ageing Strategy - Discussion Paper was presented to Council in July 2017, additional information regarding the extent of recreation and leisure programs currently available for older adults in the City of Stonnington was requested. Attachment 4 to this report provides a list of active recreation programs and activities provided by Council or community-based groups, known to Council in 2017. In addition to the programs and activities listed in the table, there are a number of private providers, such as gyms, yoga and pilates studios, and dance groups, which offer activities that may be accessed by or targeted to older people at a fee.

Consultation and engagement

The draft Strategy is built upon a number of themes that emerged from targeted community engagement including interviews, focused discussions with both individuals and groups, and written questionnaires. These included:

Accommodation service providers – aged care homes, retirement homes, supported residential services, community housing, public housing,

Home care and maintenance service providers operating in Stonnington,

Community health care organisations operating in Stonnington,

Council committees and networks – Ethnic Services Committee, Access Stonnington Committee, and the Supported Residential Services Workers Network,

Clients at community centres – Chris Gahan Centre, Grattan Gardens Community Centre, Will Sampson Centre,

Stonnington Aged Services clients who receive home care and maintenance services,

Individual culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) groups – members of Greek, Chinese and Russian clubs,

Trader Associations; and,

Internal stakeholders – including several Councillors, and staff from Council services and facilities.

Through this initial consultation with these groups four themes emerged:

Trust and Reliability – Council is trusted by its clients and by many service providers and stakeholders,

Social Connection – With its closeness to community, Council has a natural role to play in responding to social isolation and loneliness that may increase as people age,

Communication, Advocacy and Information – The common refrain from both clients and service providers during the consultation was that people who are not already clients do not know what is available; and,

Relationships and Networks - Service providers want to participate in networks facilitated by Council, and look to Council to share information through these networks.

Priority areas for Council

Based on the themes emerging from demographic research and consultation, the draft Strategy has established ten priorities areas and key strategies for the next four years. The ten priority areas are listed below.

1. Determine Council’s Future Role

2. Define Council’s role as a Funder

3. Health and Wellbeing

Page 77


4. Community Accessibility

5. Community Groups

6. Community Amenity

7. Volunteering

8. Council as a Community Leader

9. Stonnington as an Age Friendly City

10. Community Consultation

11. Accountability

Further consultation

It is recommended that an extended period of public consultation of up to eight weeks be approved by Council to allow for feedback on the draft Strategy. This will ensure that interest groups are engaged and a range of opportunities for public comment are collected and considered. The range of consultation will include Connect Stonnington, advertising in local media, Council’s website and social media, and meeting with community leaders and organisations. Following the consultation period, a further report will be presented to Council, requesting that Council endorse the Positive Ageing Strategy 2018-2021.

Accountability and Action Plan

Council Officers will develop an action plan identifying activities under the Positive Ageing Strategy priorities. The actions of the strategy will be integrated and implemented by a range of Council departments. The action plan will be presented to Council within three months of the adoption of the Strategy.

A progress report will be presented to Council on an annual basis. The action plan will be updated as required to continue to respond to community needs.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The development of the Positive Ageing Strategy will assist Council to deliver the Council Plan objectives of Community and Liveability. The strategy will have a clear focus on improving the health and wellbeing outcomes for the community by planning, delivering and advocating for quality services in partnership with the community, government and other service providers. The flow chart below demonstrates how the Positive Ageing Strategy links with other local, State and Commonwealth frameworks.

CONCLUSION

The draft Positive Ageing Strategy 2018-2021 provides the strategic direction for Council in working with residents who are 65 years of age and over. The draft Strategy also responds to the changing political environment and links with Council’s plans and strategies that are aimed at improving the health and wellbeing of the Stonnington community.

Widespread consultation and research has been completed to understand the needs of older residents in the City of Stonnington. This has informed the development of the draft Positive Ageing Strategy 2018-2021, which outlines a clear vision, key themes and strategies that will guide Council’s planning and decision making over the next three years.

Officers recommend an extended period of public consultation of up to eight weeks be approved by Council to allow for feedback on the draft Strategy.

Page 78


This will ensure that interest groups are engaged and a range of opportunities for public comment are collected and considered. Following the consultation period, a further report will be presented to Council, requesting that Council endorse the Positive Ageing Strategy 2018-2021.



ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Positive Ageing Strategy Attachment 1 of 4 Excluded

2. City of Stonnington Community Profile Attachment 2 of 4 Excluded

3. City of Stonnington Current Services Attachment 3 of 4 Excluded

4. Active Recreation Programs - 2017 Attachment 4 of 4 Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council endorses the draft Positive Ageing Strategy for community consultation for a period of eight weeks.

Page 79


8. FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE PERIOD JULY 2017 TO DECEMBER 2017

Acting Manager Finance: Anthony Cowan General Manager Corporate Services: Geoff Cockram

PURPOSE

To provide Council with an update of financial performance for the six months ended December 2017.

BACKGROUND

Section 138 of the Local Government Act requires the provision of a quarterly financial report to an open Council meeting comparing the budgeted revenue and expenditure for the financial year with the actual revenue and expenditure to date.

DISCUSSION

Executive SummaryThe year to date net surplus including open space contributions at 31 December 2017 was $24.89M against a budget of $20.09M, a positive variance of $4.8M.

The year to date net surplus excluding open space contributions at 31 December 2017 was $18.60M against a budget of $15.09M, a positive variance of $3.5M.

The surplus is expected to increase to $40.52M by 30 June 2018 ($30.52M excluding open space contributions), resulting in a forecasted favourable full year variance to budget of $4.09M.

The favourable $4.8M year to date surplus budget variance was largely due to: Higher operating income (excluding contributions) $943K, particularly higher user

fees $618K, operating grants $746K, interest income $167K and other revenue $268K, offset by lower statutory fees ($543K) and capital grants ($313K).

Higher contributions income ($1.05M), due to timing of the receipts of open space and developers contributions ($160K) and capital works contributions ($88K).

Lower employee costs $902K, materials and services expenditure $1.3M (year to date budget timing differences largely not forecast to continue to year end), community grants $35K, finance costs $424K and operating initiatives expenditure $375K. These are marginally offset by an unfavourable variance in depreciation and amortisation ($155K) and other expenses ($76K).

As at 31 December 2017, Council held cash and investments before restricted cash assets totalling $104.6M ($10.7M after restricted cash assets of statutory reserves, discretionary reserves, unspent grants and capital works deferrals).

With Net assets of $2.6B at 31 December 2017, Council achieved a year to date working capital ratio of 1.97, indicating continued strong ability to meet its current financial commitments.

Page 81


Operating ResultThe favourable full year forecast to budget variance of $4.09M is expected to be primarily due to the net effect of the following items:

$501K lower than budgeted statutory fees and fines, mainly due to reduced parking enforcement income following commencement of the Cato Square project.

$606K higher than budgeted user fees, mainly due to increased permanent carpark income following the Cato Street carpark closure $290K, higher Building and Local Law lodgement and applications fees from increased activity $153K and higher usage at aquatic centres $225K.

$50K higher than budgeted contributions income, where unbudgeted capital works contributions are expected from Wattletree Early Centre to fund the Buildings Accessibility Improvement project.

$300K higher than budgeted operating grants income in the Assessment, Youth, Transport and from General Purpose and Local Road Funding grants.

$88K higher than budgeted capital grants, predominantly from the Transport Accident Commission for Greville Street Public Realm Improvement $70K.

$160K higher than budgeted interest income, mainly due to higher 1 July 2017 cash holdings resulting from increased capital carryovers/deferrals to 2017/18 than expected.

$159K higher than budgeted other revenue, mainly due to unbudgeted income received from a granting of easement over Council land $217K and VEC election infringements receipt $130K. These were offset by lower work zone fee income ($50K), less than budgeted Venue facilities regular and casual income ($94K) and reduced Prahran Market rental income ($48K).

$2.8M net underspend in employee costs against budget through various position vacancies and lower service utilisation levels, including: Defined Benefit Super call unlikely to eventuate $2.0M; Governance & Corporate Support $49K; Business Systems & Technology $20K; Aged & Health Administration $75K; In Home Services $177K; Library Services $103K; Building & Local Laws $83K; Statutory Planning $237K; Urban & Infrastructure Projects $15K; Project Management & Delivery $22K; Property Maintenance $26K; Roads & Drains $138K; and Waste Management $34K. Partly offsetting these reductions are overspends in Transport temporary and casual staff costs ($88K) and Planning Enforcement additional employee that was unbudgeted ($65K).

$117K net overspend in materials and services costs against budget. This includes lower than budgeted expenditure in Physical Operation tipping costs due to lower waste tonnage than expected $458K; lower than budgeted Roads and Drains Maintenance expenditures $152K and Finance printing and bank charges lower than budgeted $36K. This forecast underspend is partly offset by higher than budgeted Aquatic Services utilities costs ($109K), Transport overspend in security and merchant fees (128K); Business System and Technology major contract and IT supplies costs ($24K), increased investment property maintenance in Property & Coordination ($28K); Youth Services events and programs overspend ($23K); Property maintenance increased costs ($60K); Corporate Counsel consulting fees and unbudgeted urgent repairs to Council’s property ($57K) and Waste Management unbudgeted printing expense for new bin stickers and additional telephone expense ($29K).

$709K higher than budgeted depreciation, as a result of revaluation increments in roads, bridges, land and land under roads assets at 30 June 2017.

Page 82


$1.0M lower than budgeted interest expense, as a result of the Cato Square project loan borrowings now deferred to 2018/19.

$50K lower than budgeted operating capital expenditure, mainly due to the LED street lights upgrade project being transferred to the Capital budget $200K; offset by overspends in under-budgeted buildings work contributions to Prahran Mechanics ($40K); Civic building maintenance ($20K) and Economic Culture and Development events overspends ($87K).

Capital Works ExpenditureNet committed Capital Works expenditure excluding Operating Initiatives at31 December 2017 was $41.4M. This includes:

Dunlop Pavilion redevelopment $4.3M,

Chapel Street Precinct masterplan implementation $4.0M,

Local Road refurbishment and resurfacing $3.3M,

Cato Square development $2.6M,

Cato Street Road Refurbishment $1.0M,

Gardiner Park redevelopment $2.7M,

Prahran Town Hall masterplan $1.9M,

Property purchases for open space realm $1.9M,

Malvern Golf Course condition audit $1.5M,

Civic Centre basement rectification $485K,

Forrest Hill Public Realm $439K,

High Street Malvern Records Office refit $519K,

Strategic property purchases $7.6M.

Net year to date committed capital expenditure equates to 28% of the full year net budget.

Full year net capital expenditure (excluding Operating Initiatives) is forecast to be $77.9M against a net budget of $87.1M. Capital works carry-overs and deferrals to 2018/19 are currently estimated at $15.5M (Cato Square project $14.2M).

Cash FlowCash and investments total $104.6M as at 31 December 2017, with $93.9M restricted to reserve funds, long service leave entitlements, trust funds and deposits, unspent grants and capital works carry-overs and deferrals.

The cash position is expected to be $92.3M surplus at 30 June 2018 before restricted cash assets ($1.6M cash surplus after total restricted cash assets; $32.2M cash surplus after restricted cash assets excluding discretionary reserves).

The attachment provides Council with the following: Income Statement to 31 December 2017 Full Year Forecast Major Variance Analysis as at 31 December 2017 Balance Sheet as at 31 December 2017 Cash Flow Statement as at 31 December 2017 Financial Performance Indicators to 31 December 2017 Capital Works Expenditure Report as at 31 December 2017.

Page 83




ATTACHMENTS

1. Council Financial Report for period to Dec 31st 2017. Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council receives and notes the Financial Report for the City of Stonnington for the six months ended 31 December 2017.

Page 84


9. PRAHRAN MARKET OPERATING REPORT TO COUNCIL FOR THE QUARTER ENDED 31 DECEMBER 2017

General Manager Corporate Services: Geoff Cockram Chief Executive Officer: Warren Roberts

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to consider the quarterly operating report of Prahran Market Pty Ltd for the quarter ended 31 December 2017.

DISCUSSION

A copy of the Prahran Market operating report to Council for the quarter ended 31 December 2017 is attached.

Items of particular note are:

- Regular community events and activities

- Say Cheese festival

- Media coverage and marketing

- The Omega and Neil Perry kitchen events.



ATTACHMENTS

1. Prahran Market Operating Report December 2017 Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council receives the Prahran Market operating report to Council for the quarter ended 31 December 2017.

Page 85


o) Confidential

1. PRAHRAN MARKET FINANCIAL REPORT TO COUNCIL FOR THE QUARTER ENDED 31 DECEMBER 2017General Manager Corporate Services: Geoff CockramConfidential report circulated separately.

Page 87