Agenda of Ordinary Council Meeting - 20 December 2016...Bayside City Council Ordinary Council Meeting - 20 December 2016 Page 5 of 200 1. Prayer O God Bless this City, Bayside, Give

Council Meeting Agenda

Agenda Paper

for the

Ordinary Meeting of Council

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

on

Tuesday, 20 December, 2016 at 7:00pm

Chairman: Cr Alex del Porto (Mayor)

Councillors: Cr Laurence Evans Cr James Long BM JP Cr Michael Heffernan Cr Clarke Martin Cr Rob Grinter Cr Sonia Castelli

Bayside City Council Ordinary Council Meeting - 20 December 2016

Page 2 of 200

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

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

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


Page 3 of 200

Order of Business

1. Prayer

2. Acknowledgement of Original Inhabitants

3. Apologies

4. Disclosure of any Conflict of Interest of any Councillor

5. Adoption and Confirmation of the minutes of previous meeting

6. Public Question Time

7. Petitions to Council

7.1 Petition: Relocation of Power Sub station on the corner of Nepean Highway and Hawthorn Road Brighton East ............................... 7

8. Minutes of Advisory Committees

8.1 Assembly of Councillor Record ................................................... 9

9. Reports by Special Committees

Nil

10. Reports by the Organisation

10.1 133 Esplanade, Brighton Dendy Beach Pavilion Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit Application No.: 2016/266/1 Ward: Northern .......................................................................... 19

10.2 Future provision of Netball and Athletics Facilities in Bayside ... 87

10.3 Level Crossing Removal Update ............................................... 97

10.4 Notice of Motion - 256 - Expected Impact of Commuter Parking on the Sandringham Line ............................................................. 105

10.5 Beaumaris Sports Club Loan Guarantee ................................. 111

10.6 Traffic Management and Transport Planning Service Review . 115

10.7 Age Friendly Victoria Declaration - Statement of Support and Partner Endorsement .............................................................. 141

10.8 CON/16/119 Tulip Street Basketball Courts Redevelopment – Design Services ...................................................................... 147

10.9 CON/16/125 Brighton Golf Course Stormwater Harvesting Project ................................................................................................ 151

10.10 CON/16/132 Playgrounds Upgrade Works 2016/17 ................ 155

10.11 Kerbside Recyclables Collection Contract Extension .............. 159


Page 4 of 200

10.12 Review of Councillor and Mayoral Allowances ........................ 163

10.13 Debt Collection Services - Extension to Contract No 1511/1212 ............................................................................... 167

10.14 Valuation Services Contract 2018 ........................................... 171

10.15 October 2016 Financial Report ................................................ 175

10.16 Council action awaiting report ................................................. 189

11. Reports by Delegates

12. Urgent Business

13. Notices of Motion

13.1 Notice of Motion - 260 - Kerb Outstands in Cochrance Street Brighton ................................................................................... 199


Page 5 of 200

1. Prayer

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

2. Acknowledgement of Original Inhabitants

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

3. Apologies

4. Disclosure of any Conflict of Interest of any Councillor

5. Adoption and Confirmation of the minutes of previous meeting

5.1 Confirmation of the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of Bayside City Council held on 29 November 2016.

6. Public Question Time


Item 7.1 – Petitions to Council Page 7 of 200

7. Petitions to Council

7.1 PETITION: RELOCATION OF POWER SUB STATION ON THE CORNER OF NEPEAN HIGHWAY AND HAWTHORN ROAD BRIGHTON EAST

Corporate Services - Governance File No: PSF/15/8758 – Doc No: DOC/16/255027

Petition requesting Council to instruct Yarra Trams to relocate the power substation located at the corner of Nepean Highway and Hawthorn Road Brighton East. (298 signatories)

“We the undersigned hereby petition Bayside City Council to instruct Yarra Trams to relocate the power substation located on the of Nepean Highway and Hawthorn Road Brighton East, as we consider it to be safety hazard for road users.”

Petition Requirements

The submitted petition containing 298 signatories meets the required format of a petition in accordance with Council’s Governance Local Law No: 1, Clause 65.

That the petition be referred to the Chief Executive Officer for consideration and response.

Support Attachments

Nil


Item 8.1 – Minutes of Advisory Committees Page 9 of 200

8. Minutes of Advisory Committees

8.1 ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLOR RECORD


Executive summary

Purpose and background

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

Key issues

This report fulfils the requirements of reporting an Assembly of Councillors to the next practical Ordinary Meeting of Council in accordance with the Local Government Act 1989

Recommendation

That Council notes the Assembly of Councillor records submitted as required by the Local Government Act 1989:

Date Name

24 November 2016 Councillor Induction Session – Emerging Issues

1 December 2016 Councillor Induction Session – Democratic Governance

6 December 2016 CEO and Councillor Only Briefing

6 December 2016 Councillor Briefing

8 December 2016 Councillor Induction Session – Corporate Governance

Support Attachments

1. 24 November 2016 Record of Assembly of Councillors ⇩ 2. 1 December 2016 Record of Assembly of Councillors ⇩ 3. 6 December 2016 CEO and Councillor only Record of Assembly of Councillors ⇩ 4. 6 December 2016 Record of Assembly of Councillors ⇩ 5. 8 December 2016 Record of Assembly of Councillors ⇩



Considerations and implications of recommendation

Liveable community

Social

There are no social implications associated with this report.

Natural Environment

There are no natural environmental impacts associated with this report

Built Environment

There are no environmental impacts associated with this report.

Customer Service and Community Engagement

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

report.

Human Rights

The implications of this report have been assessed and are not considered likely to breach or

infringe upon, the human rights contained in the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and

Responsibilities Act 2006.

Legal

It is a requirement of the Local Government Act 1989 that a record of Assembly of

Councillors be presented to an Ordinary Meeting of Council as soon as practical after the

Assembly.

Finance

There are no financial implications associated with this report.

Links to Council policy and strategy

The record of Assembly of councillors and presentation to Council provides greater

transparency to the community.


Attachment 1



Attachment 2



Attachment 3



Attachment 4



Attachment 5



Page 17 of 200

9. Reports by Special Committees

Nil


Item 10.1 – Reports by the Organisation Page 19 of 200

10. Reports by the Organisation

10.1 133 ESPLANADE, BRIGHTON DENDY BEACH PAVILION NOTICE OF DECISION TO GRANT A PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION NO.: 2016/266/1 WARD: NORTHERN

City Planning & Community Services - Development Services File No: PSF/15/8755 – Doc No: DOC/16/218996

1. Purpose and background

To report a planning permit application for partial demolition and associated works to the existing heritage bluestone sea wall, the removal of native/indigenous vegetation, a waiver of loading bay requirements and alterations to an access to a Road Zone, Category 1 (refer Attachment 2) at 133 Esplanade, Dendy Beach Pavilion (refer Attachment 1).

This application will facilitate the redevelopment of the Dendy Street Pavilion (the subject land) to provide a new Brighton Lifesaving Club, a café/kiosk, place of assembly, associated public amenities and a redesigned car park.

Dendy Street Beach Masterplan

Bayside City Council appointed Urban Initiatives in July 2012 to undertake the public engagement and design process required to develop an integrated Masterplan for Dendy Street Beach.

The Masterplan was developed, presented and approved by Council on 22 November 2013. The plan articulates Council’s vision for the future development of the site and provides the framework for the ongoing management and future decision-making that will affect Dendy Street Beach. The Masterplan is located on Council’s website via the below link:

(www.bayside.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/doc_13_152717_dendy_street_beach_masterplan_final_november_13.pdf)

The plan outlines the preferred building envelope for a new public building to house the Brighton Life Saving Club as well as a café/kiosk and public change rooms and toilets. A redeveloped and landscaped public car park is also illustrated. The Masterplan recommends the redesign of the existing carpark as part of any redevelopment of the buildings at Dendy Street Beach.

The Masterplan articulates parameters for the siting, size, form and materiality of both the building project and the stormwater diversion scheme. Recommended actions associated with the redesigned carpark are included in the proposed Masterplan, which include the provision of a layout that maximises efficiency, a bus parking bay and a clear emergency vehicle access route through the carpark to the proposed ramp to the foreshore promenade.

Proposed Design Response

This application facilitates the broader redevelopment of the Dendy Street Beach in association with the design objectives and guidelines outlined in the Council adopted

Applicant Bayside City Council c/- Contour Consultants

Date application received 18 November 2016 (amended application)

Statutory days expired 18 February 2017

http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/doc_13_152717_dendy_street_beach_masterplan_final_november_13.pdf

http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/doc_13_152717_dendy_street_beach_masterplan_final_november_13.pdf



Masterplan.

The final design response for the subject land was established in response to the adopted Masterplan following extensive community and stakeholder consultation which concluded that the preferred option for the site was a built form outcome reflective of the natural surroundings of the site.

2. Policy implications

Planning permit requirements

The application facilitates the redevelopment of the Dendy Beach Pavilion and surrounding land, which includes a place of assembly (surf lifesaving club and multi-purpose room), retail premises (café/kiosk), a redesigned carpark and new emergency disabled access to the beach.

This broader development does not require planning permission because it is conducted by or on behalf of the public land manager (Bayside City Council) under the Local Government Act 1989. This exemption is pursuant to Clause 36.02-1 and Clause 36.02-2 of the Public Park and Recreation Zone.

A Land Status Report prepared by The Public Land Consultancy dated 9 August 2016 provides confirmation that Bayside City Council is the owner and manager of the subject freehold land and the proposed works are not located on Crown Land. The report is provided at Attachment 3.

In light of the above, the subject matter of the permit application is limited due to how the planning provisions operate, and only the following aspects require planning permission:

Clause 43.01-1 (Heritage Overlay Schedule 491 – Sea Wall): A permit is required to demolish or remove a building (including partial demolition) and construct a building or to construct or carry out works. The proposed partial demolition and associated works involve three new single overflow penetrations in the bluestone sea wall below ground to the north of the proposed building for stormwater outfall and the removal of an existing below ground stormwater drain penetration directly in front of the existing lifesaving club.

Clause 3.0 (Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule 1): A permit is required to remove, destroy or lop native vegetation. A total of eight native / indigenous trees are proposed to be removed under this application.

Clause 52.07 (Loading and Unloading of Vehicles): A permit is required to waive the loading bay requirements pursuant to Clause 52.07 associated with the proposed café/kiosk.

Clause 52.17 (Native Vegetation): A permit is required to remove, destroy or lop native vegetation, including dead native vegetation. A total of eight native / indigenous trees are proposed to be removed under this application.

Note: The Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DEWLP) provided advice to Council that a planning referral for this application was not required as the Biodiversity Assessment Report submitted with the application identified that the native vegetation to be removed is within the low or moderate risk-based pathway and is below 0.5 hectares.

Clause 52.29 (Land Adjacent to a Road Zone, Category 1 or a Public Acquisition Overlay for a Category 1 Road): A permit is required to alter access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1.

While the existing ingress and egress access ways to the Esplanade are being retained as part of the proposal, a planning permit is required under the provisions of this Clause as it is expected the volume and/or frequency of traffic to the car parking area will change as a result of the proposal. A referral to VicRoads is required pursuant to Section 55 of the Act.



The original application also sought approval for the inclusion of a liquor licence as part of the broader facility. This has since been removed from the application pursuant to Section 57A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 following public notification.

A heritage report prepared by Insight Heritage Pty Ltd confirms that a mandatory Cultural Heritage Management Plan is not required since both the history of prior land use and the geotechnical investigations (conducted 16/4/2015 and 14/7/2016) demonstrate that the land has undergone Significant Ground Disturbance as defined in the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007.

Planning scheme amendments

Planning Scheme Amendment C139 has been prepared by Council. Planning Scheme Amendment C139 implements the Bayside Drainage Development Contribution Plan and requires development to provide a financial contribution for drainage in this area. Council has adopted Amendment C139 and has submitted it to the Minister for Planning for approval. Whilst the Amendment is now considered ‘seriously entertained’, the Minister has not yet made a decision on the Amendment.

3. Stakeholder Consultation

External referrals

The application was referred to the following authorities:

Referral Authority Response

VicRoads No objection, subject to conditions.

Internal referrals

The application was referred to the following Council departments for comment:

Internal Referral Response

Urban Design No objection.

Heritage Advisor No objection.

Traffic Engineer No objection, subject to conditions.

Arborist No objection, subject to conditions.

Public notification

The application was advertised pursuant to Sections 52(1)(a) and (d) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and 46 objections were received. The following concerns (summarised) pertaining to the merits of the proposal were raised:

Heritage

Loss of heritage and cultural values;

Lack of sufficient heritage consultation;

Detrimental works to bluestone seawall;

The absence of a Heritage Impact Assessment Report fails to comply with the Bayside Planning Scheme and Section 4 (Permits) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Non-compliance with the heritage objectives of Clause 43.01-1 (Heritage Overlay);

Vegetation

Loss of vegetation and green lawns will have a detrimental impact on the amenity



of the area;

Grounds for removal of native vegetation are unjustified;

Regrowing of vegetation extremely difficult;

Evidence of early settler and Boon Wurrung culture will be compromised;

Damage to natural dune ecosystem and historical place and increased dune instability and potential erosion;

Traffic & loading bay facilities

Waiver of loading bay requirements is unacceptable;

Increased traffic congestion due to rubbish and waste management vehicles;

Traffic and car parking safety;

Other

Increased rubbish to the area;

Odours from the waste disposal/café/restaurant; and

For Council to benefit from the exemption to a number of the permit triggers, it was asserted Council should directly operate the facility.

Concerns have also been raised in relation to the broader redevelopment of the subject land. Given the proposed building and the proposed use do not require a planning permit, the concerns relating to the broader redevelopment cannot be considered in the assessment of this application. The main issues raised related to the proposed built form, use, policy, consultation and character. These concerns that are not relevant to the permit triggers are discussed further in Attachment 4.

Following the completion of the advertising process, an amendment to the application was submitted pursuant to Section 57A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to remove the liquor licence component from the proposal.

The amended permit application was not re-advertised as it was considered that no further loss of material detriment would occur as a result of the amendment. Notwithstanding, a description of the amended application was provided on Council’s website on 23 November 2016.

Consultation Meeting

A Planning Consultation Meeting was held on the 5 December 2016 which was attended by Council Officers, the permit applicant and objectors.

The discussion largely focused on concern of a perceived lack of consultation regarding the initial Masterplan project, along with the proposed use and built form (which is exempt from planning permission).

Objectors expressed concern that there had been insufficient community consultation prior to the lodgement of the planning application and that preliminary concerns had not been considered in the overall design response.

The discussion at the Consultation Meeting centred on the following:

Cost of works;

The development’s lack of consistency with the existing Dendy Street Beach Masterplan;

Removal of existing vegetation to accommodate the shared vehicle/pedestrian path to the north of the building;

Commercialisation of the site;



Car parking;

Loss of property values/views;

Loss of existing character; and

Disability access (DDA compliance).

No objections have been withdrawn since the conclusion of the meeting.

4. Recommendation

That Council:

Issues a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit under the provisions of the Bayside Planning Scheme in respect to Planning Application No. 2016/266/1 of the land known and described as 133 Esplanade, Brighton (Dendy Beach Pavilion), for the partial demolition and associated works to the existing bluestone sea wall, the removal of native / indigenous vegetation, a waiver of loading bay requirements and alterations to an access to a Road Zone, Category 1 in accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the following conditions from the standard conditions:

1. Before the development starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the advertised plans, prepared by Jackson Clement Burrows Architects, Project No. 14-041, Council date stamped 7 June 2016 and 7 September 2016 and Site Office Landscape Architects, Council date stamped 7 June 2016 but modified to show:

a) A revised demolition plan which details the exact extent of demolition including the stormwater pipe penetrations (ie. Size of holes, the extent of bluestone removal and methods to ensure the bluestone wall remains intact). Such detail must be provided at a scale of 1:20 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

b) Detailed engineering drawings which demonstrate the repairs to the removed stormwater pipe penetration to the existing bluestone sea wall including the materials and finishes to be used consistent with the existing bluestone wall. Such detail must be provided at a scale of 1:20 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

c) The proposed steps adjacent to the existing bluestone wall must be constructed of a different material to ensure the steps are easily distinguishable from the existing bluestone wall.

d) A detailed landscape plan generally in accordance with the landscape concept plans prepared by Site Office dated 03/08/2016 and be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plan must show:

i. Removal of indigenous vegetation to be replaced with a similar extent of indigenous coastal vegetation;

ii. Removal of native vegetation to be replaced with a similar extent of indigenous coastal vegetation;

iii. Removal of non-native vegetation to be replaced with native or indigenous coastal vegetation of species likely to provide habitat for native and indigenous fauna;



iv. Removal of exotic vegetation to be replaced with native or indigenous coastal vegetation of species likely to provide habitat for native and indigenous fauna.

v. A survey, including, botanical names of all existing trees and vegetation to be retained on the site.

vi. A planting schedule of all proposed trees and shrubs, including botanical names, common names, pot sizes, sizes at maturity, and quantities of each plant. Plantings must be 80% indigenous by species and count.

vii. Landscaping and/or planting within all areas of the site not covered by buildings or hard surfaces.

viii. Details of surface finishes of pathways and driveways.

e) A Tree Management Plan in accordance with Condition 3 of this permit.

f) Any other changes to be in accordance with all conditions in this permit.

All changes to the plans must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

2. The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

Tree Management and Protection Plan

3. Before the development starts, including any related demolition or removal of vegetation, a Tree Management Plan (report) and Tree Protection Plan (drawing), to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, must be submitted to and be endorsed by the Responsible Authority.

The Tree Management Plan (report) must be specific to the site, be in accordance with AS4970-2009, prepared by a suitably qualified arborist and provide details of tree protection measures that will be utilised to ensure all trees to be retained remain viable post-construction. Stages of development at which inspections are required to ensure tree protection measures are adhered to must be specified.

The Tree Management Plan (report) must be in accordance with AS4970-2009, be drawn to scale and provide details of:

a) The Tree Protection Zone and Structural Root Zone for all trees to be retained on the site and all trees adjoining the subject land where any part of the Tree Protection Zone falls within the subject land.

b) Methods to be utilised and instruction on how to deploy them.

c) When the protection measures are to be deployed.

d) When the protection measures can be modified.

e) The process that will be followed if any damage occurs to a tree.

f) The process that will be followed if construction works require alteration to protection measures outlined in the report.

g) The stages of development at which inspections will occur.

The Tree Protection Plan must be drawn to scale and show:

a) The location of all tree protection measures to be utilised.

If tree protection measures are proposed to be changed during the development, one plan for each stage of tree protection measures must be submitted.

4. All protection measures identified in the Tree Management Plan and Protection Plans must be implemented, and development works undertaken on the land



must be undertaken in accordance with the Tree Management and Protection Plans, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

5. Before the occupation of the development the landscaping works shown on the endorsed plans must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

6. The landscaping shown on the endorsed plans must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced.

7. All loading and unloading of goods to occur between 6am and 10am to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority unless with the prior written approval of the Responsible Authority.

VicRoads conditions

8. The crossover and driveway are to be constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and at no cost to the Roads Corporation (VicRoads) prior to the commencement of the use of the development hereby approved.

9. Driveways must be maintained in a fit and proper state so as not to compromise the ability of vehicles to enter and exit the site in a safe manner or compromise operational efficiency of the road or public safety (eg. by spilling gravel onto the roadway).

10. Prior to the commencement of the use of the development hereby approved, the access lanes, driveways, crossovers and associated works must be provided and available for use and be:

a) Formed to such levels and drained so that they can be used in accordance with the plan.

b) Treated with an all-weather seal or some other durable surface.

Permit Expiry:

11. 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.

Permit Notes:

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.

VicRoads Notes:

If the proposed development requires works within the arterial road reserve, separate approval under the Road Management Act for this activity may be required from VicRoads (the Roads Corporation). Please contact VicRoads prior to commencing any works.

5. Council Policy

Council Plan 2013-2017

Relevant strategies of the Council Plan include:



2.1.2 Ensuring our services and facilities are accessible and inclusive and respond to current and emerging needs.

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

3.1.3 Advocating Council’s planning and urban design objectives.

4.1.2 Protecting and enhancing Bayside’s biodiversity, foreshore, natural reserves and open spaces for the enjoyment of all our community

5.1.2 Encouraging and supporting our diverse culture by providing places to gather and connect

6.1.3 Promoting our shopping areas, strong business precincts and local tourism features

7.1.3 Maximising community utilisation of Council assets to improve financial and/or social return.

Bayside Planning Scheme

Clause 11 Settlement

Clause 12 Environmental and Landscape Values

Clause 13 Environmental Risks

Clause 14 Natural Resource Environment

Clause 15 Built Environment and Heritage

Clause 18 Transport

Clause 19 Infrastructure

Clause 21.02 Bayside Key Issues and Strategic Vision

Clause 21.04 Environmental and Landscape Values

Clause 21.05 Environmental Risks

Clause 21.06 Built Environment and Heritage

Clause 21.08 Open Space

Clause 21.09 Transport and Access

Clause 21.10 Infrastructure

Clause 22.05 Heritage Policy

Clause 36.02 Public Park and Recreation Zone (Schedule 2)

Clause 42.02 Vegetation Protection Overlay (Schedule 1)

Clause 43.01 Heritage Overlay (Schedule 491)

Clause 43.02 Design and Development Overlay (Schedule 1)

Clause 52.07 Loading and Unloading of Vehicles

Clause 52.17 Native Vegetation

Clause 52.29 Land Adjacent to a Road Zone, Category 1, or a Public Acquisition Overlay for a Category 1 Road

Clause 65 Decision Guidelines

Clause 81.01 Incorporated Documents – Bayside Coastal Strategy April 1997



Council Adopted Plans

Dendy Beach Master Plan (November 2013)

6. Considerations

In considering this permit application, regard has been given to the State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks, the provisions of the Bayside Planning Scheme, objections received and the individual merits of the application.

6.1. Heritage Overlay

The subject land is affected by Heritage Overlay Schedule 491 (Foreshore Sea Wall) which is located along the north western boundary of the site. The extent of Heritage Overlay Schedule 491 relates to a linear wall with no adjacent land area included.

The Statement of Significance reads:

“The sea wall is of historical and aesthetic significance. Constructed during the Great Depression as part of a public works programme to improve the foreshore reserve, the wall illustrates the role of local government in providing local employment opportunities. Of interest is the use of bluestone from other sources, including the headstone of Ned Kelly and other hanged prisoners from the Old Melbourne Gaol. Extending for a considerable length, the wall is an important foreshore feature.”

Alteration to Bluestone Sea Wall below ground

As part of the overall redevelopment of the site, the current stormwater overflow outlet in front of the existing lifesaving club will be decommissioned with all stormwater redirected via an underground pipe to storm water detention tanks located below ground. The proposed water tanks and rain garden will be integrated into the broader landscape of the site.

To accommodate this new system, stormwater pipe penetrations to the existing bluestone sea wall are required. The Existing Conditions Site & Demolition Plan prepared by Jackson Clements Burrows Architects (A0-106) illustrates three new single overflow penetrations in the bluestone sea wall below ground to the north-west of the proposed building. The penetrations within the bluestone sea wall will each have a diameter of approximately 800mm. These stormwater penetrations trigger the requirement for a permit under the demolition requirements of Clause 43.01-1.

The remaining demolition works, including the demolition of the lifesaving club, car park and existing access ramps do not form part of this application as no planning permit is required for that component of the redevelopment.

In considering the suitability of the proposed demolition works to the bluestone wall, Council’s Heritage Policy at Clause 22.05-3.1 (Demolition) and Clause 43.01 (Heritage Overlay) provides guidance pertaining to demolition and associated buildings and works.

Clause 22.05-3.2 requires the retention of significant and contributory heritage buildings however allows the partial demolition of significant and contributory heritage buildings where the fabric to be demolished is of no significance, or where the demolition helps to reveal the original fabric of the building. Clause 43.01-4 of the Heritage Overlay requires the consideration of whether proposed demolition, removal or external alteration will adversely affect heritage significance of the place.

Following an assessment of the relevant heritage objectives and heritage significance of the subject land, the scope of demolition proposed, which is limited to the three stormwater pipe penetrations to the bluestone sea wall, can be supported. This is largely in light of the minor scale of demolition, the location of demolition and works below ground, and independent advice from Council’s Heritage Advisor who raised no objection to the proposal.

Importantly, no part of the visible wall is intended to be demolished and its setting and



cultural heritage significance will be largely uncompromised. This was also confirmed by Council’s Heritage Advisor.

Notwithstanding the above, the proposed demolition plan includes little detail relating to the demolition process, including the specific location and size of these penetrations. While it is possible to come to the conclusion that there will be no unreasonable impact on the cultural heritage significance of the place, further details relating to the demolition and reinstatement works are required in order to ensure the works will be appropriately undertaken. These requirements are to be addressed by permit conditions.

New works

An existing below ground stormwater drain penetration directly in front of the existing Lifesaving Club will be closed off and the bluestone wall will be subsequently reinstated.

Clause 22.05-3.4 (Restoration) seeks to ensure that restoration of contributory fabric is undertaken using the same materials as the original.

The proposed outcome is considered acceptable particularly given the stormwater drain will be removed and the existing wall will be reinstated. Importantly, the works will be located below ground and will therefore not be visible. As noted above, further details relating to these works will be addressed by permit conditions.

6.2. Vegetation and Landscaping

The purpose of Clause 52.17 (Native Vegetation) is to ensure permitted clearing of native vegetation results in no net loss in the contribution made by native vegetation to Victoria’s biodiversity, while Clause 42.02 (Vegetation Protection Overlay) seeks to protect areas of significant vegetation and to ensure that development minimises loss of vegetation.

The permit application proposes the removal of eight native / indigenous trees to facilitate the proposed redevelopment of the Dendy Beach Pavilion. These trees are numbered in the Arborist Reports prepared by Homewood Consulting Pty Ltd dated 9 April 2015 and 2 June 2016 which summarises the landscape contribution, significance and retention value of the trees proposed for removal.

These trees are also reflected on the proposed landscape plans prepared by Site Office, Revision 01, Council received 7 June 2016 and 18 November 2016. The following table provides a summary of the trees proposed to be removed:

Tree No. Species Useful Life

Expectancy

(ULE)

Individual

significance

Health /

Structure

Retention

value

33 Coast Tea-tree

(Leptospermum

laevigatum)

10-20 years Moderate Fair/fair If possible,

retain

41 Dropping She

Oak

(Allocasuarina

verticillata)

40+ years Low Good/fair If possible,

retain

50 Snowy

Paperbark

(Melaleuca

nesophila)

10-20 years Valuable Fair/fair Retain

51 West Australian

Willow Myrtle

(Agonis

flexuosa)

10-20 years Low Fair/poor If possible,

retain

52 West Australian

Willow Myrtle

(Agonis

flexuosa)

10-20 years Low Fair/poor Not worth

retaining

53 Coast Tea-tree

(Leptospermum

5-10 years Moderate Fair/poor If possible,

retain



laevigatum)

54 Coast Tea-tree

(Leptospermum

laevigatum)

10-20 years Moderate Good/fair Retain

55 Western

Australian

Golden Wattle

(Acacia saligna)

10-20 years Low Fair/very poor Not worth

retaining

As detailed above, 7 out of these 8 trees have a low to moderate individual significance and the loss of these trees is not unreasonable in the context of the overall development.

Importantly, it is considered that the level of tree removal will not adversely impact on the amenity of the area or subject land, particularly in light of their documented health, structure, landscape contribution and individual significance.

In addition, the proposed landscape plans demonstrate suitable landscaping across the subject land to offset the loss of trees proposed. The general landscaping concept will continue to ensure that the landscaped value and character of the subject land is maintained.

Concerns have been raised in regards to the loss of landscaping and the difficulties of replanting in this particular environment. However landscaping conditions requiring the planting of indigenous flora consistent with the area are required permit conditions.

The permit will also require the applicant to demonstrate suitable planting measures to ensure the longevity and viability of the proposed landscaping.

The Biodiversity Assessment Report dated August 2016 confirms there are no offset requirements associated with the removal of native vegetation within the study area. This is due to the small area and condition of vegetation to be removed within the study area, the offset target calculated using the NVIM tool was zero.

Of importance to this permit application however is the removal of two trees from the subject land, which are listed as Tree 50 and 54.

Tree 54 is located in the centre of the subject land and its removal is required to accommodate the north western most corner of the built form. This tree is known as a Coast Tree-tree (Leptospermum laevigatum) and has a life expectancy of 10-20 years with a moderate individual significance. Council’s Arborist has advised that while this tree is a good example of an indigenous coastal tree, replacement planting will compensate for its loss in a reasonable amount of time.

Tree 50 is earmarked for removal to facilitate the proposed steps and timber view point within the northern portion of the site. The proposed Arborist Report indicates that this tree, known as a Melaleuca nesophila, has a ‘valuable’ individual significance and a life expectancy of 10-20 years. This tree is not native to Victoria and is subsequently not protected by the Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule 1. Council’s Arborist has not objected to the removal of this tree subject to conditions requiring replacement of a species that will provide improved amenity and environmental. In light of tree replacement conditions, the removal of this tree is supported.

While only two of the trees listed in the table above are identified as ‘not worth being retained’, Council’s Arborist has supported the removal of these trees, subject to replanting of sufficient vegetation throughout the subject land. This is addressed by permit conditions.

Revised landscaping plans are also required to illustrate the proposed replacement planting for the subject land. The concept plans provided do not detail the proposed landscaping, including species and number of trees, and this is included as a condition of permit. Tree protection measures by way of permit conditions have also been included



to the ensure trees noted above are protected.

6.3. Car parking and traffic

Car parking requirement

The existing carpark on the subject land comprises a total number of 69 formal public car parking spaces. Vehicle access for the existing carpark is currently provided via two connections with the Esplanade at the eastern boundary of the site. This includes entry only and exit only connections to the north and south respectively.

As part of the broader redevelopment it is proposed to redesign the existing carpark while maintaining the existing entry and exit points along the eastern boundary. This design is consistent with the recommended actions outlined in the Dendy Street Beach Masterplan. The existing carpark will be redesigned to accommodate 58 carparking spaces.

While the proposed land uses do not require a planning permit, the applicable car parking provisions under Clause 52.06-5 must be provided. A planning permit is required to reduce the number of spaces required under Clause 52.06-5.

The proposed development falls under the land use categories of a place of assembly and food and drink premises under Clause 74 of the Bayside Planning Scheme. The car parking requirements for these proposed uses are set out under Clause 52.06 and the carparking table at Clause 52.06-5.

The table below sets out the statutory car parking requirements for the various uses of the proposed development.

Proposed Use Quantity / Size Statutory Parking Rate

Place of Assembly (Lifesaving Club at ground floor level and use of the first floor northern component)

158 patrons 47 spaces (0.3 spaces to each patron permitted)

Café (food and drink premises)

149m2 5 spaces (4 spaces to each 100m2 leasable floor area).

Total car spaces required 52

Total car spaces proposed 58

Based on the proposed statutory car parking assessment above, the proposed development has a peak car parking requirement for 52 spaces which exceeds a car parking surplus of 6 spaces under the requirements of Clause 52.06-5. A planning permit is therefore not required.

Vehicle crossing works

The existing ingress and egress access ways to the Esplanade will be retained as part of the current proposal. However, a planning permit is required under the provisions of Clause 52.29 as it is anticipated that the volume and/or frequency of traffic to the car parking area may change as a result. Subsequently, a referral to VicRoads has been undertaken which provided consent for the application subject to conditions. These conditions form part of the recommendation.

It is noted that VicRoads has not raised any concern with the anticipated traffic volume or the ingress or egress of vehicles from the site.

Loading and Unloading

Pursuant to Clause 52.07 (Loading and Unloading of Vehicles), a permit can be granted to waive the loading bay requirements associated with a new building for the sale of



goods if adequate provision is made for the loading and unloading of vehicles to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Given the plans do not include loading bay facilities in the overall design response, a permit is required to waive the loading bay requirements associated with the café/kiosk.

Due to the small scale and nature of the proposed café/kiosk, it is anticipated that small vehicles will undertake the majority of deliveries to the subject land instead of large semi-trailers. As such, it is considered that deliveries can use available on site car parking spaces or the proposed coach parking without unreasonably compromising the functionality of the existing car parking area.

In support of the waiver, the applicant has proposed a time based loading bay between 6am and 10am within the coach parking bay. As part of preliminary discussions, Council’s Traffic Engineer supported the use of the bus drop off pick up bay also as a loading zone provided a permit condition is in place. This would ensure any inconvenience to future occupants of the subject land is minimised. As such, a condition has been proposed to this effect.

6.4. Objections received

Issues raised by objectors that have not been addressed in the assessment above, are discussed below:

Increased dune instability and potential erosion due to loss of vegetation

While not applicable to the planning permit triggers of this application, a Geomorphology Report has been prepared which indicates that the area to the north of the Lifesaving Club has been identified as suitable for the establishment of a rainwater garden and has no dune vegetation left and shows significant anthropogenic influences.

Increased rubbish and odour to the area from the proposed use

The proposed use does not require a planning permit. This is not part of the permit application.

Support Attachments

1. Site and Surrounds Imagery ⇩ 2. Development Plans ⇩ 3. Land Status Report ⇩ 4. Objections ⇩


Attachment 1


ATTACHMENT 1 Site and Surrounds Imagery

Legend

Subject site

Objector(s)

*Note: Council has received approximately 46 objections from nearby land owners and

residents. Due to the number of objections received, the properties have not been

identified on the above plan.


Attachment 1


View of the subject site looking south west.

View of the existing car park which forms part of the broader subject site.


Attachment 1


Photo taken from The Esplanade, looking towards the existing car park and Brighton Lifesaving Club.

View of the rear of the existing Brighton Lifesaving Club, looking north east.


Attachment 1


View of the rear of the existing Brighton Lifesaving Club, looking west.


Attachment 2



Attachment 2



Attachment 2



Attachment 2



Attachment 2



Attachment 2



Attachment 2



Attachment 2



Attachment 2



Attachment 2



Attachment 2



Attachment 2



Attachment 2



Attachment 2



Attachment 2



Attachment 2



Attachment 2



Attachment 2



Attachment 2



Attachment 2



Attachment 2



Attachment 2



Attachment 2



Attachment 2



Attachment 2



Attachment 2



Attachment 2



Attachment 2



Attachment 2



Attachment 2



Attachment 2



Attachment 2



Attachment 2



Attachment 2



Attachment 3



Attachment 3



Attachment 3



Attachment 3



Attachment 3



Attachment 3



Attachment 3



Attachment 3



Attachment 3



Attachment 3



Attachment 3



Attachment 3



Attachment 4


ATTACHMENT 4

Matters raised in objections which are not of relevance to the Planning Permit triggers.

Concerns have also been raised in relation to the broader redevelopment of the subject land.

Given the proposed building and the proposed use do not require a planning permit, the

concerns relating to the broader redevelopment cannot be considered in the assessment of

this application. The main issues raised related to the proposed include built form, use, policy,

consultation and character. These are discussed below.

Built form

The use of ratepayers money for the development;

This is not a valid planning consideration and has no relevance to the criteria upon which assessment of a planning permit application is based.

Overdevelopment of the site;

The proposed built form does not require a planning permit.

Unfriendly built environment around Port Phillip Bay and locally along the Bayside foreshore;


Incorrect scale on plans and the development is larger than what is presented;

The proposed information provided is sufficient to assist in the assessment of this application.

Location of public toilets inadequate;


The footprint for the planned works would decimate a large area of open space coastal

parkland;


The scale and use of the training room building is inappropriate;


Loss of views from surrounding properties;

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal has consistently found that although

impact upon views can be considered amongst the amenity impacts of a proposal, there

cannot be considered a right to any particular view. In the absence of particular planning

controls which might require the protection of, or sharing of views, loss of views is often

afforded very limited weight.

Lifesaving requirements can be satisfied in a building of 500m2;


Design detail of the building out of character with surrounding context;



Attachment 4


A modest upgrade more suitable to the context;


Blocking of access to the beach by an overdevelopment;


Provision of viewing platforms and balcony not required;


Use

Unruly people due to liquor licence and function area;

The application has been amended to delete the liquor licence component.

Council is encouraging the sale and consumption of liquor in a coastal recreation area where

families gather for healthy recreation;

The application has been amended to delete the liquor licence component.

Proposed intensive uses will dramatically increase activity in the area;

The proposed land use does not require a planning permit.

Noise and amplified music from the multi-purpose room will largely impact on the

surrounding dwellings;

The proposed land use does not require a planning permit. Amenity protections are afforded by the Environment Protection Act 1970.

Sufficient food and drink premises already available.

The proposed land use does not require a planning permit.

Policy

The development is inconsistent with a community service and lifesaving activities by the

inclusion of a licensed restaurant, café, bar and function centre that is not water related and

contravenes the Victorian Coastal Strategy;

The proposed building and associated land use do not require a planning permit.

The development contravenes the Port Phillip Conservation Council Inc and the Victorian

Coastal Strategy 2002;

The proposed development does not require a planning permit.

The proposal contravenes the Victorian Coastal Strategy 2014 which seeks to discourage the

use of coastal Crown land as cheap alternative to private land, ensure developments are

consistent with surrounding landscape character;

The proposed development does not require a planning permit. Notwithstanding, the works are not located on Crown land.

The application fails to comply with the Cancer Council’s SunSmart Shade Guidelines with

particular reference to the fact that there is no natural shading and there is a high risk of

reflected UV radiation exposure due to the significant increase in areas of concrete;

This policy is not applicable to the planning permit application.

The building fails to meet the 5 Green Star criteria and is an environmentally lazy design;


Attachment 4



Council omission of cultural evidence from the Bayside Coastal Management Plan;

The relevant information as part of the planning permit application has been provided in accordance with the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Consultation

Insufficient community consultation;

Consultation prior to the planning application has occurred and is not a valid planning consideration.

Plans do not adequately inform residents of the proposed use and no business case has been

provided;

The proposed use and built form do not require a planning permit and this information cannot be requested as part of this planning application.

Misleading information from Council in regards to the redevelopment of the site by way of the

commercial nature and heritage demolition;

The relevant information as part of the planning permit application has been provided in

accordance with the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Commercial decision not based on community interests;

This is not a valid planning consideration as part of this application.

Character

The location of the lifesaving club is unreasonably restrictive as the restaurant is given prime

views;

The proposed built form and associated land use do not require a planning permit.

The development will significantly change the unique character of the area;


Loss of tranquil space;


Commercial scale and development will create a loss of the rustic character of the area;


Services including lamp posts and high poles should be located underground;


Noise conditions should be implemented;


Amenity protections are afforded by the Environment Protection Act 1970.

Area already under pressure from tourists and visitors;


Other

Increased vandalism and graffiti;


Attachment 4


The proposed built form does not require a planning permit and therefore matters pertaining to vandalism and graffiti cannot be considered in the determination of this application.

Heritage sites should be preserved from commercialisation; and

Heritage requirements associated with this application only relate to the existing bluestone heritage sea wall.



10.2 FUTURE PROVISION OF NETBALL AND ATHLETICS FACILITIES IN BAYSIDE

Environment, Recreation & Infrastructure - Open Space, Recreation & Wellbeing File No: PSF/15/8761 – Doc No: DOC/16/227902

Executive summary


The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the feasibility study to construct a netball centre on the entire Thomas Street site incorporating the current Scout Hall, Netball Centre and Athletics Centre areas and relocate the current athletics track to Dendy Park.

A Strategic Needs Assessment of Stadium Facilities (the Needs Assessment) was commissioned in 2013 to investigate the need for stadium facilities to service demand and to provide a strategic direction for netball and basketball in Bayside. The Needs Assessment clearly identified the need for access to two indoor and eight outdoor courts to service the needs of netball. There are currently one indoor and six outdoor courts at the Thomas Street site.

Due to a range of site restrictions the required additional facilities are unable to be developed on the existing netball footprint at the current Thomas Street Netball Centre site.

A number of alternative sites have been investigated for netball use. None have proven to be feasible in accommodating the needs of netball. The current athletics facilities at Thomas Street are reaching a condition where renewal is required. Under the terms of its current lease with Council, Sandringham Athletics Club is responsible for the renewal of the athletics related assets.

At its 22 March 2016 meeting Council resolved to receive a report at its December 2016 meeting on the feasibility of constructing a netball centre on the entire Thomas Street site incorporating the current Scout Hall, Netball Centre and Athletics Centre areas and the feasibility of relocating the current athletics track to another suitable location.

Key issues

Following Council’s 22 March 2016 resolution, based on the outcomes of the Needs Assessment a concept plan (set out as Attachment 1) for netball facilities at Thomas Street, Hampton was prepared and includes:

Two indoor courts (an increase of one court);

Eight outdoor courts (an increase of two courts);

Administration area, storage, amenities, change areas and spectator shelters;

230 car parks (an increase of approximately 160);

Bus parking and turning areas for school and regional competition use (currently no bus facilities); and;

Significant landscaping improvements. The concept plan demonstrates the site can accommodate the required indoor and outdoor courts while also achieving a number of amenity improvements for local residents including:

Alleviating significant traffic and parking issues currently impacting the site;

Maximising distance between a new indoor structure and surrounding residences; and

Improved landscaping providing natural sound and light barriers.



The concept plan was completed on the basis that the athletics track would be relocated, as per Council’s resolution.

Athletics

There are currently two athletics facilities, 1.7 km apart, at Dendy Park in Brighton and Thomas Street in Hampton. The synthetic athletics track at Thomas Street will need replacing in the short term (3 - 5 years) at a cost of $1.5 million+ to the clubs. The club at Dendy Park is experiencing ongoing maintenance issues and costs associated with its grass track.

Preliminary discussions have been held with Bayside’s three athletics clubs about collocating at Dendy Park and replacing the existing grass track with a synthetic track. Closing the track at Thomas Street would also make way for expanded netball facilities to include two more outdoor courts and two indoor courts to replace the one indoor court.

Current status - Athletics

A technical study was conducted to establish whether it is possible to construct a synthetic athletics track at Dendy Park. A concept plan (as set out in Attachment 2) for athletics facilities at Dendy Park was prepared.

A consultant was appointed to engage with stakeholder athletics clubs and associations that currently use the Thomas Street and Dendy Park facilities to establish the level of support (or otherwise) for the potential collocation of athletics at a new synthetic track at Dendy Park.

A review of athletics needs is also being completed. Council is finalising terms with an experienced recreation consultant who will engage with local athletics clubs and state athletics associations to develop a report to provide Council with a summary of current and future athletic needs.

Community feedback to proposed track relocation

The proposed relocation of the Glamis Avenue athletics track to Dendy Park has been met with opposition, both from track users and surrounding residents. At its 21 June 2016 meeting, Council received a 116 signatory petition seeking Council to retain the Sandringham Athletics Club, track and land at its current location in Glamis Avenue, Hampton.

Without strong support from track users and local residents of both the Glamis Ave and Dendy Park sites the proposed relocation of the Sandringham athletics clubs to a new synthetic track at Dendy Park is not considered feasible.

Response to petitions

Council has received the following petitions related to this proposed netball centre development at Thomas Street:

21 June 2016 - Petition seeking Council to retain the Sandringham Athletics Club, track and land at its current location in Glamis Avenue Hampton (116 signatories).

“We the undersigned hereby petition Bayside City Council to retain Sandringham Athletics Club, track and land at its current location at Glamis Avenue Hampton and ask that the Council advocate to the State Government for assistance in the upgrade of the Sandringham Athletics Club, track and land to ensure the ongoing use as an Athletics Club for future generations of the City of Bayside and surrounds.”



26 July 2016 - Petition requesting Council expand and upgrade the current netball facilities in Bayside (1341 signatures):

“We the undersigned hereby petition Bayside City Council: To continue to progress the work done over the last 4 years to develop new netball facilities in Bayside.

To provide enough compliant netball courts and building infrastructure to manage our local netball association, allowing us to address the unmet needs of our growing netball community. Each year the demand grows and we are unable to accommodate this growth.

Already, 200 girls have BYEs each week due to lack of court space and we play shorter games so we can fit as many games in as possible.

To commit to providing compatible facilities for netball as is provided for other sports, such as, football, soccer, cricket and golf in the Bayside municipality.”

The recommendations included in this report respond to these petitions and the assessment undertaken to date regarding the feasibility of options.

Next Steps

While the initial proposal to collocate Bayside’s three athletics at Dendy Park and develop a 10 court netball centre at the Thomas Street site appears not feasible, Council is committed to, responding to the identified needs of netball. It is proposed to engage representatives of Sandringham and District Netball Association to explore and evaluate other options to support netball in Bayside.

The need of athletics in Bayside is still unknown at this time and it is proposed to continue to work with athletics stakeholders to determine this need and the type of support required from Council. For this purpose Council plans to engage a recreation consultant to undertake a needs assessment for athletics in Bayside.

Recommendation

That Council:

1. Reconfirms its commitment to netball and its desire to meet the identified needs for

netball being the provision of two indoor and eight outdoor netball courts;

2. Engages representatives of Sandringham and District Netball Association to examine alternatives for Council to respond to the needs of netball in Bayside;

3. Acknowledges that the three Bayside athletics clubs and residents surrounding the Thomas Street/Glamis Avenue, Hampton and Dendy Park, Brighton sites do not support the proposed relocation of athletics to a like facility at Dendy Park and development of a two indoor and eight outdoor court netball centre at Thomas Street, and without this support, the proposal is not feasible;

4. Completes a needs assessment and considers how best to support athletics in Bayside; and

5. Writes to the lead petitioners to notify them of the recommendations included in this report.

Support Attachments

1. Attachment 1 - Thomas Street Netball - Concept Plan ⇩ 2. Attachment 2 - Dendy Park Athletics - Concept Plan ⇩




Liveable community

Social

The development of improved athletics and netball facilities will provide positive benefits for

young people and adults through their participation and engagement in sport and recreation

activities. Intensive sporting activities at Council’s parks and reserves has an impact on

surrounding residential properties.

Natural Environment

A revised approach to the provision of netball facilities at the Thomas Street site may enable

Council to minimise vegetation removal and present opportunities to revegetate some areas.

Built Environment

The concept design of netball facilities at Thomas Street is fully accessible and includes a

number of design elements befitting such a high profile facility.


Council has collaborated with the Sandringham District Netball Association to complete the

Needs Assessment and subsequent feasibility studies. The feasibility studies have also

been informed by discussions and feedback provided by State and local sporting

associations, Sport and Recreation Victoria, other government authorities and schools.

Council will engage netball stakeholders to examine other options for Council to respond to

the identified needs of netball.

Council will soon engage an experienced recreation consultant to work with local clubs, state

sporting associations and surrounding councils to determine the current and future needs of

athletics in Bayside.

Human Rights




Legal

There are no legal implications associated with this report.

Finance

The feasibility study into the relocation of athletics to Dendy Park and a whole of site

approach to netball facilities at the Thomas Street site will identify development costs for any

proposed works. The Long Term Financial Plan includes a funding allocation of $7.4 million

towards the development of netball facilities at the Thomas Street site.


Improvement to sport and recreation facilities is supported by a number of key strategy and

policy documents including the Council Plan 2013-2017, Bayside 2020 Community Plan,



Open Space Strategy 2012, Recreation Strategy 2013, and Wellbeing for All Ages and

Abilities Strategy 2013 - 2017.

Council investment in netball and athletics facilities is a key driver of the outcomes described

in Domain Six of the Bayside Community Plan 2025, Community Health and Participation

and Domain Seven, Infrastructure. Council investment in community infrastructure based on

community needs and future trends directly contributes to achieving the community

aspirations detailed in these and other liveability domains of the Plan.

Options considered

This report discusses the feasibility of establishing a netball facility on the entire Thomas Street site incorporating the current Scout Hall, Netball Centre and Athletics Centre areas and relocate the current athletics track to Dendy Park. As this proposal has been assessed as not feasible, further options to meet the needs of netball will be developed in consultation with the Sandringham District Netball Association.


Attachment 1



Attachment 1



Attachment 1



Attachment 2




10.3 LEVEL CROSSING REMOVAL UPDATE

Environment, Recreation & Infrastructure - Environment, Recreation & Infrastructure File No: PSF/15/8756 – Doc No: DOC/16/228994

Executive summary


The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the current status of the Frankston line projects, in particular the removal of the level crossings at Charman and Park Roads, Cheltenham.

Key issues

Project timing

The level crossing removal works at Charman and Park Roads are planned to occur in 2018. The removal method for the nine level crossings between Cheltenham and Frankston will not be determined until late 2016/early 2017.

Design Options

The two viable level crossing removal options that are under serious consideration by the LXRA for the Charman Road and Park Road sites are:

Lower the rail line into a trench and build two new road bridges at Charman Road and Park Road at the current road level (rail under the road); or

Raise the rail line over Charman Road and Park Road and retain the existing road level (rail over the road).

Consultation Process

The LXRA undertook community consultation in October 2016 to present and seek feedback on the two options for the level crossing removal projects at Charman Road and Park Road. The timing of the consultation period clashed with the Local government elections and restricted Council’s ability to consult with the community and formally consider a submission to the LXRA, as the Local Government Act limits Council’s decision making process during the pre-election period. Notwithstanding this, a submission on behalf of Council as part of the consultation process on the Charman Road and Park Road level crossing removal project has been made to the LXRA by the Director Environment, Recreation and Infrastructure in line with Council’s adopted position. A copy of this submission is provided in Attachment 1.

Opportunities to Increase Commuter Parking

The Bayside Public Transport Advocacy Statement (2016) contains an action to advocate to the State government for a program to expand commuter parking at train stations within Bayside to meet the current and future demand for commuter parking. Major works like level crossing removals provide an opportunity to explore options to provide additional commuter parking.

The LXRA has indicated that there will be no increase in commuter parking provision at Cheltenham Station despite the proposed construction of a multi-level car park as part of the rail under the road option. It is noted that the LXRA aims to ensure no net loss of commuter parking at Cheltenham Station as part of the level crossing removal project. Infrastructure projects of this nature should seek to improve elements like commuter parking.



A no net loss approach to cark parking is insufficient at a time of major infrastructure investment given the current and growing pressures on transport services, and the opportunity to increase train frequency.

Cheltenham Railway Station Buildings Both of the options being considered to remove the Charman Road and Park Road level crossings will involve a new station at Cheltenham. The existing station buildings have heritage value and are included in a Heritage Overlay in the Planning Scheme. It is important that the LXRA give careful consideration to how these buildings will be impacted and how they can be preserved in some form. The LXRA should continue to investigate preservation options with the community and Council. Frankston Railway Line The LXRA is undertaking detailed technical investigations for removing the following nine crossings: 1. Charman Road, Cheltenham

2. Park Road, Cheltenham

3. Balcombe Road, Mentone

4. Edithvale Road, Edithvale

5. Station Street/Bondi Road, Bonbeach

6. Station Street, Carrum

7. Eel Race Road, Seaford

8. Seaford Road, Seaford

9. Skye/Overton Road, Frankston

Recommendation

That Council:

1. endorses the submission to the Level Crossing Removal Authority by the Director Environment, Recreation and Infrastructure dated 27 October 2016;

2. continues to advocate to the State government and its agencies for an increase in commuter parking as part of the level crossing removal program; and

3. advocates for preservation of the heritage elements of the Cheltenham station.

Support Attachments

1. Attachment 1 - Submission to Level Crossing Removal Authority - Charman Road and Park Road Cheltenham ⇩


Liveable community

Social

The level crossing removal program is a State government project to improve safety and reduce the traffic delays associated with 50 railway level crossings across metropolitan Melbourne.



Natural Environment

There are no known implications on the natural environment as the design for the level crossing removals is not known. Given the land acquisition requirements, some vegetation loss is likely. However, the removal of level crossings is expected to improve air quality as a result of reduced peak hour congestion.

Built Environment

The design of each level crossing removal will be a significant impact on the built environment and the designs should be informed by community consultation. Up to nine properties within Bayside have been identified for compulsory acquisition. No notices of acquisition have been sent, however the LXRA has notified affected property owners that their properties may be impacted by the crossing removals. It is understood that the rail under the road option affects nine properties within Bayside and the rail over the road option affects six properties within Bayside. It should be noted that some of these properties have units/dual occupancies on them. Whether all or part of these properties will be acquired is not known at this time.

The existing Cheltenham station has heritage value and preservation options must be

considered.


Two community drop-in sessions were organised by the LXRA in March 2016 at Cheltenham Library and Community Centre to enable the community to provide input for the level crossing removal project at Charman Road. At this stage, the removal of the Park road level crossing was not included within the scope of the project. The LXRA announced the removal of the Park Road level crossing in September 2016 and organised a further two community drop-in sessions in October 2016 at Mentone to present and seek feedback on the two options for the level crossing removal projects at Charman and Park Roads.

Human Rights

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

Legal

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

Finance

The level crossing removal program is a State government initiative and there are no direct costs to Council. The Victorian Government allocated $2.4 billion in its 2015/16 budget to remove at least 20 level crossings by 2018.


Council’s Community Engagement Policy outlines Council’s processes for seeking

community input. The LXRA should adopt an approach which is appropriate for the issue,

and the extent of the Authority’s constraints or flexibility on the matter.

Options considered

There are no options relevant to this briefing paper.


Attachment 1



Attachment 1



Attachment 1



Attachment 1




10.4 NOTICE OF MOTION - 256 - EXPECTED IMPACT OF COMMUTER PARKING ON THE SANDRINGHAM LINE

Environment, Recreation & Infrastructure - Sustainability & Transport File No: PSF/15/8756 – Doc No: DOC/16/222997

Executive summary


The purpose of this report is to present the findings of an investigation into the expected impact on the Sandringham line usage and related car parking pressures, arising from the service disruptions on the Frankston line during the level crossing removal works scheduled for 2018.

The Level Crossing Removal Authority (LXRA) is removing 50 level crossings across metropolitan Melbourne. Three level crossings on the Frankston line have already been removed at Centre, McKinnon and North Roads. These projects were completed in August 2016. Further level crossing removal works are being undertaken on the Frankston line at Cheltenham, Mentone, Edithvale, Bon Beach, Carrum, Seaford and Frankston Stations. As part of the level crossing removal project at Cheltenham both the level crossings at Charman and Park Roads are being removed with works scheduled for 2018. At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 16 August 2016 a Notice of Motion regarding the expected impact on the Sandringham line usage and related car parking pressures, arising from the service disruptions on the Frankston line during the level crossing removal works scheduled for 2018, was considered and Council resolved (in part) to:

receive a report on the expected impact on Sandringham rail line usage and related commuter parking pressures, arising from the service disruptions on the Frankston line during level crossing removal works; and

advocate and work with Public Transport Victoria to mitigate commuter parking pressures on the Sandringham line.”

Key issues

Design Options

The two viable level crossing removal options that are under serious consideration by the LXRA for the Charman Road and Park Road sites are:

Lower the rail line into a trench and build two new road bridges at Charman Road and Park Road at the current road level (rail under road); or

Raise the rail line over Charman Road and Park Road and retain the existing road level (rail over road).

The LXRA has identified the potential construction impacts associated with each option and these are outlined in Table 1.



Table 1: Potential construction impacts associated with each option

Rail Under Road Rail Over Road

More than two months of rail shut down A two month rail shutdown

At least two weeks’ closure of Charman and Park Roads

Closure of Cheltenham Station for four months

Closure of Cheltenham Station for four months Up to an 18 month closure of the station car park (i.e. for the full duration of the construction works)

Up to an 18 month closure of Cheltenham Station car park (i.e. for the full duration of the construction works)

Minor road and lane closures and restricted access along adjacent streets

Expected Impact of the Level Crossing Removal Works on the Sandringham Line During the construction phase of the level crossing removal works on the Frankston line at Centre, McKinnon and North Roads there were a number of train service disruptions on the Frankston line, including the closure of the Frankston line between Moorabbin Station and Caulfield Station for approximately five weeks. Whilst a rail replacement bus service was provided to serve the stations affected by the Frankston line closure, the disruption resulted in an increase in commuters using stations on the Sandringham line, particularly Hampton and Sandringham stations. Commuters who would normally use the Frankston line sought to avoid the service disruptions by changing to the Sandringham line. In turn, this resulted in further pressure being placed on the already constrained supply of commuter parking and resulted in a high demand for all-day commuter parking in residential streets close to the stations. It is expected that the closure of the Frankston line for the level crossing works at Cheltenham will result in additional pressure being placed on the already constrained supply of commuter parking provided close to the Sandringham line. The responsibility for commuter parking rests with the State government. Council’s existing policy framework promotes a high turnover of car parking spaces within its Activity Centres to protect economic viability and foreshore parking areas are provided for foreshore visitors. Foreshore parking areas close to train stations have time restrictions. Residential amenity in streets close to train stations is maintained through the current policy framework by the use of time restricted parking along one side of the street with unrestricted parking provided on the other side of the street.

Time restricted parking has already been implemented in streets within easy walking distance of the Sandringham line. In view of this, it is considered that Council will be well placed to deal with any resultant increased demand for commuter parking in those residential streets close to stations on the Sandringham line. However, it is likely that some residents may experience increased levels of parking in their street as some commuters will be prepared to walk longer distances and will park further away from stations on the Sandringham line to secure all-day parking. In such instances, any reported issues will be investigated by officers on a case by case basis. Any action undertaken will be reflective of the issues observed and the time the issues are expected to exist. It should be noted that following the completion of the level crossing removal works at Centre, McKinnon and North Roads and the subsequent reopening of the Frankston line in August 2016, the number of complaints from Bayside residents in relation to on-street parking reduced significantly as commuters reverted back to the Frankston line.



A further impact of the level crossing removal works at Cheltenham is the proposed closure of Cheltenham Station car park for up to 18 months for the full duration of the construction works. During this time, Cheltenham Station is proposed to be closed for approximately four months and commuters will be expected to use the rail replacement bus service to complete their journey on the Frankston line. However, this also means that Cheltenham Station will be operational for 14 months during the level crossing removal works with no commuter parking provision available at the station. The LXRA has indicated that alternate parking provision will be made available, however no details are available. The level crossing removal will ultimately result in no net loss of car parking when complete. Cheltenham Station currently provides parking provision for approximately 356 vehicles and the car park is often full by 7:30am on a weekday. It is anticipated that the closure of Cheltenham Station car park whilst the station is operational during the level crossing removal works will result in commuters and weekend rail users seeking to utilise adjacent residential streets within the vicinity of Cheltenham Station, potentially impacting on residential amenity in some of these streets. As a result, it is anticipated that the introduction of time restricted parking may be required on a temporary basis in a number of the residential streets within walking distance of Cheltenham Station. Council has had an ongoing campaign regarding the lack of commuter parking with previous approaches to the Minister for Public Transport, local members of parliament and Public Transport Victoria. To date, the responses of successive State governments on this issue has been disappointing. Significant infrastructure projects like the level crossing removals provide an opportunity to increase commuter parking. A no net loss approach to car parking is unacceptable.

Recommendation

That Council:

1. continues with its current advocacy position for Public Transport Victoria (PTV) to provide more commuter parking at stations and for Council to continue to protect residential amenity from commuter parking by introducing time restricted parking restrictions as necessary;

2. continues to advocate to the Level Crossing Removal Authority (LXRA) to mitigate the impacts of the construction works associated with the Cheltenham level crossing removal project on both affected local residents and the local area; and

3. notes that temporary time based parking restrictions may be necessary in residential streets surrounding Cheltenham Station and does not support the use of foreshore parking areas for use by commuters.

Support Attachments

Nil




Liveable community

Social

The level crossing removal program is a State government initiative to improve the reliability of trains and to remove safety risks and traffic delays associated with 50 railway level crossings across Melbourne. The responsibility for commuter parking rests with the State government. Council’s existing policy framework promotes a high turnover of car parking spaces in residential streets surrounding Major Activity Centres to protect their economic viability. Residential amenity in those streets close to train stations is maintained through the current policy framework by the use of time restricted parking along one side of the street with unrestricted parking provided on the other side of the street. Foreshore parking is provided for foreshore visitors and is time restricted in locations near train stations.

Natural Environment

Any net increase in parking provision at stations will encourage more people to drive rather than considering more sustainable alternatives, such as using public transport, cycling or walking from the point of origin of their journey. More frequent and direct bus services would mitigate parking needs.

Built Environment

Increasing commuter parking at stations would likely involve construction of multi deck car parks or the construction of car parks on land that is currently used for some other purpose. Council has long advocated for the provision of additional commuter parking, particularly use of existing land owned by the State government.


Complaints have been received from Bayside residents since January 2015 regarding commuter parking in residential streets, with each of these relating to the inability of residents to park close to their property. Complaints have also been received from commuters about the lack of long stay parking provision close to train stations within the municipality. Any proposed changes to Council’s parking policies to favour commuter parking provision over residential use is not recommended. The LXRA has completed a community engagement exercise. Council requested the State government to undertake extensive community engagement prior to developing the proposed grade separation treatments, including fully informing the community of site constraints and opportunities in order to minimise misinformation and ensure a transparent process. Prior to implementing parking restrictions, consultation in the form of a questionnaire is undertaken with residents about the proposed parking changes. Commuters and other all day parking users are not included in this consultation as the aim of Council’s policy is to remove the all-day parking from residential streets.

Human Rights

This report is not considered likely to breach or infringe upon, the human rights contained in the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

Legal

There are no legal implications associated with this report.



Finance

Providing commuter parking is a State government responsibility. Council’s role is to advocate and influence the State to provide improved service provision where required. Any change to Council’s existing policy framework relating to parking would need to consider the financial implications associated with any proposals. The installation of temporary time based parking restrictions would be funded from existing budgets.


The Managing On-Street Parking Demand Policy provides a consistent, equitable and inclusive approach for the introduction of new parking restrictions in areas where on-street car parking spaces are in high demand. Council’s hierarchy of road users which is used to determine the level of priority afforded to the provision of car parking for different road users identifies the provision of car parking for commuters as a low priority for Council. The provision of additional unrestricted car parking capacity to accommodate rail users at the expense of other road users would not be aligned with existing Council policy. The Bayside Integrated Transport Strategy (April 2013) contains a range of policies and

initiatives aimed at facilitating more short trips to be made by a mode other than the private

car.

Options considered

Option 1 – Proposed Approach

Summary Continue with the current advocacy position that PTV provides more commuter parking at stations and continue to protect residential amenity from commuter parking by introducing parking restrictions as necessary.

Benefits The current parking policy adopts time restricted parking within activity centres as a tool to promote a higher turnover of car parking spaces, thus enabling more customers to visit local businesses. In residential streets close to train stations which are utilised by commuters, the parking policy balances the needs of residents and commuters by leaving one side of the street unrestricted for long stay parking and placing time restricted parking on the other side of the street to facilitate short stay parking.

Issues The demand for commuter parking will rise in line with increases in rail patronage. Level crossing removal works are planned for the next two to three years on the Frankston line. During this time additional pressure for commuter parking within the vicinity of the Sandringham line is expected.

Option 2

Summary Continue with the current advocacy position that PTV provides more commuter parking at stations and review car parking policies to permit more commuter parking in residential streets and foreshore reserves.

Benefits The role of commuter parking will remain a State government responsibility. Increased levels of commuter parking provision within the municipality.

Issues Residents in those streets affected by any proposed change to the exiting parking policy would need to be consulted as there would be less short stay parking available within residential streets. It is likely that any option to permit more commuter parking in residential streets will face fierce opposition from residents. The use of foreshore reserve car parks to provide



for an increase in commuter parking, particularly during the warmer months of the year, would reduce opportunities for beach users to find suitable parking and may have a negative impact on the revenue raised from foreshore parking. It has already been necessary to introduce time restricted parking at several foreshore car parks close to the Sandringham line to prevent utilisation by commuters.

Option 3

Summary Accept some responsibility for commuter parking and review land holdings that may be offered to PTV for commuter parking.

Benefits Potential increase in commuter parking provision within the municipality.

Issues There is no vacant Council controlled land within 500m of the Sandringham line throughout the whole of the municipality. Any Council owned land holding that may be offered to PTV would require a change of existing use. The financial implications associated with the value of any potential land holding would need to be considered further given that such land would command a high value. Council would need to consider its role in providing parking for commuters as this would be out of balance with existing Council policy and the provision of such facilities for visitors to each of the Major Activity Centres along the Sandringham line. Acceptance by Council of a State government responsibility for commuter parking may decrease the appetite of the State government from addressing commuter parking issues within the municipality.

Option 4

Summary Investigate opportunities for temporary commuter parking during the crossing removal works on Council owned land or reserves.

Benefits Increase in commuter parking provision on a temporary basis.

Issues Users of the land or reserve would be prevented from parking and enjoying the services provided by that land or facility. There may be accessibility and public lighting issues as the land or reserve may not be set up for commuter parking provision. Parking in more remote locations would increase traffic in residential streets near the parking facility. For those locations not close to a train station a bus may be needed to transport commuters to/from the parking facility.



10.5 BEAUMARIS SPORTS CLUB LOAN GUARANTEE

Corporate Services - Finance File No: PSF/15/8759 – Doc No: DOC/16/218464

Executive summary


In November 2013 Council approved an application by the Beaumaris Sports Club Inc (BSC) for a loan guarantee of $700k as part of the funding model for the pavilion redevelopment. The approval was conditional upon funding sources being confirmed and funding targets being met.

At the time Council acknowledged the inherent risks in the business case identified by the loan guarantee evaluation panel. The capacity of the club to service the Council guaranteed loan, repay debentures in ten years, and provide an annual dividend to the clubs for their daily operations relies on the club running a successful hospitality business in an untested location.

As the conditions upon which Council approved the original loan guarantee in November 2013 have changed, Council at its meeting on the 25 August 2015 and 27 January 2016 resolved to again consider formal approval of the loan guarantee once the Bendigo Bank provided formal commitment of its loan forgiveness.

Key issues

A number of progress reports have been presented to Council Since the $700k loan guarantee was considered by Council on the 26th November 2013 resulting in

An increase in the required funding from $4.1M to $5M;

A contribution of $1M from Council from the 2014/15 capital budget

A contribution of $1.6M from Council from the 2016/17 capital budget

A decrease in the fundraising target required by the club from $1.8M to $730k

An additional $300k loan from the Bendigo bank required by the BSC in order to achieve their $730k funding target. (substitution for a shortfall in debenture funding)

Confirmation of the Bendigo Bank’s loan forgiveness

Confirmation of the funding model

Awarding of a contract to SJ Higgins Pty Ltd for the Banksia Reserve Pavilion Construction

The Bendigo Bank confirmed their sponsorship arrangements (debt forgiveness) in May 2016 which consists of $90k debt forgiveness guaranteed with the remainder subject to BSC meeting unconfirmed KPI’s.

The loan proposal from the Bendigo Bank to the Beaumaris Sports Club has also now been received and confirms the following.

The loan offer from the Bendigo Bank is for a $1m facility made up of

$300k principal and interest (P&I) repayable over 4 years and

$700k Interest only loan for the first 4 years converting to P&I from years 5 to 15.



The $1M facility is secured as follows

Guarantee and indemnity provided by Bayside City Council limited to $700k

Security deed over BSC property

Security deed over BSC liquor license

Mortgage of lease over the property

Right of entry to Banksia Pavilion Loan Guarantee Assessment An assessment has been conducted on the BSC business model which has been updated in accordance with the confirmed Bendigo Bank loan offer and debt forgiveness agreement. The updated cash flow model and balance sheet confirm the repayment of loan and debenture payments are achievable based on the underlying assumptions. The ability of the business to service the $1 million loan over 15 years, repay the debentures in ten years, and provide an annual dividend to the clubs for their daily operations is however contingent on BSC running a successful hospitality business in an untested location. An assessment of the application against the Loan Guarantee Policy criteria was provided to Council when the original application was received in November 2013. The assessment has been updated based on the latest information and business model including the confirmed project costs, funding model, and Bendigo Bank loan and sponsorship offer. This assessment is attached.

Recommendation

That Council

1. acts as loan guarantor for the Beaumaris Sports Club Inc for $700,000 for a maximum of 15 years to assist with the funding of the Beaumaris Sports Club pavilion project subject to the loan excluding a redraw facility; and

2. authorises the necessary loan guarantee documentation being signed and affixed with the Bayside City Council Common Seal.

Support Attachments

1. Updated Loan Guarantee Policy Assessment ⇩




Liveable community

Social

The Beaumaris Sports Club will provide positive benefits for young people and adults through their participation and engagement in sport and recreation activities at Banksia Reserve.

Natural Environment

The pavilion design and works takes into account the protection of existing vegetation and includes sustainability measures including energy efficient lighting, thermally efficient building structure, reuse of rainwater, and water sensitive urban design car park runoff.

Built Environment

The new pavilion will enhance and improve the quality and the capacity of sporting pavilion amenities at Banksia Reserve.


Discussions have taken place with the sporting clubs regarding funding, project costs and design. Community consultation has taken place regarding the Town Planning Permit. Together with the contractor Council will provide further advice to key stakeholders during the construction period.

Human Rights

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

Legal

Council has signed a funding agreement with Sport and Recreation Victoria, Cricket Australia, Cricket Victoria, and Tennis Victoria and equipment product suppliers for funding and equipment contributions. Council at its 23 August meeting awarded a contract for the construction of the pavilion to SJ Higgins Pty Ltd.

Finance

Council’s Loan Guarantee Policy requires Council’s loan guarantee commitment to be in in the order of 1.5% of the annual revenue from rates and charges and measured based on the outstanding balance of loans guaranteed by Council. The threshold based on the 2016/17 rates and charges budget is $1.280 million. Loan guarantees outstanding at June 2016 are $237k. If Council were to approve the loan guarantee the total commitment would be $937k which is below the policy threshold.


The loan guarantee application has been considered in accordance with Council’s Loan Guarantee Policy and Loan Guarantee application procedure.

Due to the changes in the funding model and a reduction in club fundraising targets the BSC contribution to construction is below the required amount stated in Council’s loan guarantee policy, which requires a minimum contribution of 20% of total project costs. The confirmed funding model details the BSC’s total club contribution of $825k (excluding external grants) or 16%.


Attachment 1




10.6 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND TRANSPORT PLANNING SERVICE REVIEW


Executive summary


This report presents key findings, issues and recommendations for discussion arising from the Strategic Service Review of Council’s Traffic Management and Transport Planning Service (Attachment 1).

This review is being undertaken as part of Council’s ongoing program of strategic service reviews, which will ensure that Council is delivering the most effective mix of services in an efficient way.

The review has been informed by community consultation, research and analysis and has considered the role and function of Traffic Management and Transport Planning at Bayside now and into the future to ensure the service is aligned to community needs, is operating efficiently and is delivering public value.

The traffic management and transport planning activities that have been examined in this review include:

Undertaking projects and initiatives to improve road safety and facilitate an increase

in public transport use, walking and cycling as alternatives to short vehicle trips,

Balancing residential amenity and parking demand through the implementation of

restrictions and issuing of residential parking permits;

Supporting a mix of integrated and sustainable transport options;

Managing the impact of increasing private development on traffic congestion and

available parking; and

Advocating on behalf of the community to external agencies regarding traffic

management and transport planning, particularly for arterial roads and public

transport.

The Traffic Management and Transport Planning service is one of two programs under the Sustainability and Transport Department and is delivered by an established staffing structure is 4 EFT plus one additional contractor and an annual (2016/17) budget of $683,262.

Key issues

Benchmarking data confirms that Traffic Management and Transport Planning at Bayside is a comparatively low cost service delivering value for money.

As part of the service review process, a detailed systems view of the service has been documented, key processes mapped, resource allocations confirmed and a number of improvement opportunities have been identified to increase efficiency and customer service experience.

In total 18 recommendations have been made which are designed to achieve improvements in the areas of:

A clear strategic vision regarding the management of parking supply and demand

Measuring and reporting the community benefits achieved from the implementation of the actions from the Integrated Transport Strategy



A better understanding of whether parking restrictions implemented achieve their desired outcomes

Better oversight and management by TM/TP of external traffic consultants used by Urban Strategy for advice for major projects, including planning scheme amendments and structure plans will ensure that resources are more effectively and efficiently deployed

An improvement in customer service particularly where traffic management advice is sought for planning applications and vehicle crossing permit assessment

Better visibility by the community of parking restrictions across the municipality (GIS) and Council’s policy position

A risk management approach being adopted for responding to requests by the community for parking restrictions and traffic management measures (only 25% of investigations lead to parking restrictions being implemented)

A more efficient procurement process where external traffic advice is required by Council

Recommendation

That Council notes the findings and operational improvements recommended in the Traffic Management and Transport Planning strategic service review.

Support Attachments

1. Attachment 1 - Traffic Management and Transport Planning Service Review Summary Report and Recommendations ⇩


Liveable community

Social

Traffic management and transport planning directly contributes to liveability through improved mobility for all members of the community of all abilities, enhanced residential amenity and improved safety for all road users.

Natural Environment

An increase in the use of public transport, walking and cycling as convenient alternatives to short private vehicle trips within Bayside will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality.

Built Environment

Infrastructure improvements recommended through traffic management or transport planning activities typically result in a change to the appearance of the streetscape. The design of these works aims to be sympathetic to existing street features such as trees, utility poles and residential driveway access.


No direct community engagement has been undertaken with respect to the recommendations in this report.



The development and implementation of policy and projects related to traffic management and transport planning involves varying degrees of community and stakeholder engagement that is undertaken in accordance with Council’s Community Engagement Framework. There is a strong customer service focus in order to respond to the high number of traffic management requests from the community.

Human Rights


Legal

In accordance with the Road Management Act 2004, Bayside City Council is the responsible road authority for all local streets in the Municipality. The Act requires that a responsible road authority must exercise its powers to manage traffic on roads in a manner that enhances their safe and efficient operation, and that it ensures:

the efficient and effective management and use of the road network and infrastructure to meet the needs of the community and road users;

the most efficient use of the resources available for road management; and

the public road network and infrastructure is as safe for users as is reasonably practicable.

Finance

Funding of the operation and ongoing administration of TM & TP is provided within existing budgets. The budget contains proposed allocation for new capital works future expenditure.


Service reviews are a key enabler of the Better Place Approach. They identify improvement opportunities, targets and measurable outcomes in relation to people, efficiency and service delivery that contribute to making Bayside a better place.

The ongoing program of service review responds to Strategy 7.1.4 of the Bayside Council Plan 2013-17 (2015 Review) by ensuring that Council is delivering the most effective mix of services in the most efficient way possible.

Options considered

This report provides the findings and operational improvements recommended in the Traffic Management and Transport Planning strategic service review. No other options were considered relevant to this report.


Attachment 1



Attachment 1



Attachment 1



Attachment 1



Attachment 1



Attachment 1



Attachment 1



Attachment 1



Attachment 1



Attachment 1



Attachment 1



Attachment 1



Attachment 1



Attachment 1



Attachment 1



Attachment 1



Attachment 1



Attachment 1



Attachment 1



Attachment 1



Attachment 1



Attachment 1



Attachment 1




10.7 AGE FRIENDLY VICTORIA DECLARATION - STATEMENT OF SUPPORT AND PARTNER ENDORSEMENT

City Planning & Community Services - Community Services File No: PSF/15/8765 – Doc No: DOC/16/195459

Executive summary


To present to Council a request from the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) to endorse and sign the Age Friendly Victoria Declaration.

The Declaration confirms a commitment by state and local government to working together to create age-friendly communities across Victoria.

The MAV President signed the Aged Friendly Victoria Declaration with the State Government on 14 April 2016.

The age-friendly communities’ direction, an initiative of the World Health Organisation (WHO) has been influencing how government and communities embrace and support their older populations. The WHO is a specialised agency of the United Nations that is concerned with international public health. It was established on 7 April 1948, with its headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland.

Victoria, through the MAV has been actively involved in the WHO direction since its inception. This has resulted in councils working with older people to improve local environments, facilities, infrastructure, supports and services to make them more age-friendly.

31 Victorian councils have signed the Age Friendly Victoria Declaration to date.

All Victorian councils are required under Section 263 of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act (2008) to develop a Municipal Public Health and Wellbeing Plan (MPHWP) within twelve months of council elections. Council’s Wellbeing for All Ages and Abilities Strategy (WAAA) 2017-2021 will be developed in accordance with the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008.

An Ageing Well Action Plan will be developed for inclusion in the WAAA 2017-2021. The information, tools and expertise available through the WHO will be utilised to develop a whole of organisation Ageing Well Action Plan.

Key issues

The State government has committed $2.2 million in grants over the next four years for age friendly projects led by councils. Council has previously been successful in attracting an age friendly grant to establish an inter-generational iPad training course for seniors with the training provided by local secondary students. Signing this Declaration would improve Council’s ability to attract further grants.

Council has been progressively implementing initiatives in recent years to support an age-friendly community. Some of the more significant projects include the establishment and ongoing support of a Bayside University of the Third Age, the establishment of a Mens Shed, the establishment of the Bayside Healthy Ageing Reference Group and the significant resources allocated by Council to assist older people to age in place and remain independent and safe in their homes.

Council is able to confirm its commitment to supporting an age-friendly community by signing the Age-Friendly Victoria Declaration.



The WHO Global Age-friendly Cities Guide notes that in an age-friendly city, policies, services, settings and structures support and enable people to age actively by:

• recognising the wide range of capacities and resources among older people;

• anticipating and responding flexibly to ageing-related needs and preferences;

• respecting their decisions and lifestyle choices;

• protecting those who are most vulnerable; and

• promoting their inclusion in and contribution to all areas of community life.

Recommendation

That Council:

1. confirms its commitment to supporting an age-friendly community by signing the Age-Friendly Victoria Declaration

2. develops an Ageing Well Action Plan for inclusion in the Wellbeing for All Ages and Ability Strategy 2017 - 2021

Support Attachments

1. Attachment: Age Friendly Victoria Declaration - Statement of Support and Partner Endorsement ⇩




Liveable community

Social

The Age-friendly Declaration provides a public demonstration of Council’s commitment to

creating an age-friendly city.

Natural Environment

There are no environmental implications associated with this report

Built Environment

There are no built environment issues relevant to this report, however consideration of the

built environment and how it can better support an older population will be relevant when

developing Council’s Age-friendly Action Plan.


There are no customer service or community engagement implications associated with this

report. Signing of the Declaration will provide a public demonstration of Council’s

commitment to supporting older people to lead healthy and active lives.

Human Rights



Responsibilities Act 2006. The Age-friendly Declaration commits Council to plan for and

consider actions that support an age-friendly community.

Legal

There are no legal implications associated with this report

Finance

There is no cost associated with this report.


Council has an Age-Friendly Strategy 2008 – 2018 which guides planning and service

provision for Bayside’s older community.

The Age-Friendly Victoria Declaration provides an opportunity to create positive responses to

the seven domains of liveability identified in the Community Plan 2025:

• Open Space

• Transport

• Local Economy and Activity Centres

• Housing and Neighbourhoods

• Environment

• Community Health and Participation

• Infrastructure.



Options considered

Option 1

Demonstrate a public commitment to older people living in the community by approving the signing of the Age-friendly Victoria Declaration.

Option 2

Continue to plan for and create an age-friendly community without providing a public commitment. Decline signing of the Age-friendly Victoria Declaration.


Attachment 1




10.8 CON/16/119 TULIP STREET BASKETBALL COURTS REDEVELOPMENT – DESIGN SERVICES

Environment, Recreation & Infrastructure - City Assets & Projects File No: PSF/15/8763 – Doc No: DOC/16/204668

Executive summary


The purpose of this report is to recommend the appointment of a lead design group for the Tulip Street Basketball Courts Redevelopment – Design Services under the proposed Contract CON/16/119.

The project proposes to expand the existing basketball stadium at Tulip Street from four courts to eight courts to meet community demand. The Southern Basketball Association (SBA) has 670 teams and 5,000 players and is currently needing to hire courts at other venues across the municipality. The additional four courts will allow all of the SBA’s basketball court use to be conducted from one location as well as allow for expected increases in basketball participation through to 2031.

Key issues

The following consultancies were invited to tender through a selective tender process utilising the State Government Construction Supplier Register. The following companies provided a submission:

Group GSA Pty Ltd

Hede Architects Pty Ltd

Katz Architecture Pty Ltd

Godfrey Spowers (Victoria) Pty Ltd

Williams Ross Architects Pty Ltd

The tendering process was undertaken in accordance with the Bayside City Council’s Quotation and Tendering Procedure and section 186 of the Local Government Act 1989. The result of the analysis can be found in Confidential Attachment 1 – CON/16/119 Tender Evaluation Matrix.

From the initial evaluation Katz Architecture Pty Ltd and Hede Architects Pty Ltd were shortlisted and invited to interview.

Katz Architecture Pty Ltd have a trading history with 14 years’ experience in similar projects. Katz Architecture Pty Ltd completed a $39M project in 2011, The AK Reserve – Basketball.

This building design was led by Paul Katz as project Director and is a major centre for basketball and netball.

Katz Architecture Pty Ltd demonstrated a good understanding of the project and committed to completing the works within the required timeframe.

Hede Architects have a solid trading history with 32 years’ experience of projects in all aspects of community organisations and services. They have completed a number of basketball court projects over the last five years, including East Kew Primary school and Emmaus College.



Hede Architects Pty Ltd also demonstrated a good understanding of the project and are committed to completing the work within the required timeframe. References checks for Hede Architects Pty Ltd were positive.

The Tender Evaluation Panel concluded that Hede Architects Pty Ltd offers the best value for money for this project.

Recommendation

That Council:

1. awards contract CON/16/119 Tulip Street Basketball Courts Redevelopment – Design

Services to Hede Architects Pty Ltd (ABN: 17 089 721139) for the lump sum price

$248,260.00 exclusive of GST and $273,086.00 inclusive of GST;

2. authorises the Chief Executive Officer to sign all necessary documentation related to

CON/16/119 Tulip Street Basketball Courts Redevelopment – Design Services to Hede

Architects Pty Ltd; and

3. advises the unsuccessful tenderers accordingly.

Support Attachments

1. Confidential Attachment 1 - CON/16/119 Tender Evaluation Matrix (separately enclosed) (confidential)


Liveable community

Social

The works at Tulip Street will improve the sporting infrastructure within the municipality and will provide four additional basketball courts for the community to meet basketball needs for many years to come. This project results in significant benefits to the Bayside basketball community and the Southern Basketball Association.

Natural Environment

The work under this contract will provide a design that will include Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) elements to manage overland storm water flow in the park and will also include landscape works to improve the amenity of an underutilised area of parkland.

The design is likely to require the removal of some vegetation and the landscape design will incorporate additional planting to offset this loss. The design will include energy and water efficiency elements.

Built Environment

The work under this contract will produce a design to enhance and improve the landscape features of the new basketball courts including paths, furniture and provide better access around the park. The design will address the scope of work agreed by the Sandringham Basketball Association.




The scope of the design has been agreed by the Southern Basketball Association. The Project Team will ensure all stakeholders and funding partners are included through the design and delivery process. The proposed design will be developed with input from the Southern Basketball Association as well as providing opportunities for the community to provide feedback for input to the design process. The proposed design will also likely require planning approval due to the removal of vegetation.

Human Rights

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

Legal

This Request for Tender was undertaken in accordance with the Bayside City Council’s Quotation and Tendering Procedure and section 186 of the Local Government Act 1989.

Finance

The Capital Works Budget for 2016/17 has an allocation of $400,000.00 (ex GST) for this project. The following table summarises the proposed distribution of the allocated budget including this work.

Contract Cost $248,260.00

Contingencies & Project Management Costs $30,000.00

Expected Design Phase Cost $278,260.00

The expected under expenditure will be forecast and reported as part of the monthly financial

report.


This project is consistent with the 2013/17 Council Plan as identified under Strategy 3.2.1: Ensuring community assets and infrastructure meet current and expected needs.

At the Council Ordinary Meeting on 22 March 2016 the motion was carried to allocate $400,000 towards the detailed design of four additional indoor basketball courts at the Sandringham Family Leisure Centre to Council’s 2016/17. The Resolution was 10.1 Stadium Facilities – Outcomes of Feasibility Studies.

This project is also aligned with the Recreation Strategy 2013-2022, in particular Priority Five: Addressing the growing demand for access to and significance of indoor sports to increase the availability and use of indoor sport and recreation facilities in Bayside.

Options considered

Not applicable to this report.



10.9 CON/16/125 BRIGHTON GOLF COURSE STORMWATER HARVESTING PROJECT


Executive summary


This project involves the construction of a stormwater harvesting system for the Brighton Golf Course and Dendy Park in Brighton. Works include diversion weir pit, a buffer storage, pump well rising main to storage lakes, two rain gardens, modification of two lakes, construction of a new lake, pump shed and pump system and rising main to Dendy Park and associated pits and pipe work.

Both the Brighton Golf Course and Dendy Park rely on potable water for maintaining the

sporting surfaces and flora. With the unit price of water rising significantly over the last couple

of years, alternative sources of sustainable water are needed. This project proposes to harvest

stormwater from a Melbourne Water drain, store it in existing but expanded dams on the

Brighton Golf Course and subsequently distribute to the irrigation systems in the golf course

and Dendy Park.

This project was developed to documentation level in 2011/12 but didn't proceed at the time

for a number of reasons, one of which was that the project had a 25 year payback period.

The lessee of Brighton Golf course has stated that without financial support it is unable to

maintain the golf course to an appropriate level because of high cost of water and therefore

patronage is declining. An update of the previous life cycle analysis has found that the current

payback period is now around ten years due to the increased cost of water.

At completion of the project, with a total storage capacity of 30.815 Mega litres (ML), on

average 87 ML of water per year will be available to meet the demand.

Key issues

A public Tender was advertised on Saturday 22 October 2016 and closed Monday 28 November 2016 with submissions from the following companies:

Contek Constructions Pty Ltd

Entracon Civil Pty Ltd

Ertech Pty Ltd

Simpson Construction Company Pty Ltd

This Request for Tender was undertaken in accordance with the Bayside City Council’s Quotation and Tendering Procedure and section 186 of the Local Government Act 1989. The result of the analysis can be found in Confidential Attachment 1 – CON/16/125 Tender Evaluation Matrix.

From the initial evaluation Entracon Civil Pty Ltd was shortlisted and invited for a tender interview.



At interview, Entracon Civil Pty Ltd demonstrated a detailed understanding of the project with careful consideration and are committed to completing the work within the specified timeframe. Entracon Civil Pty Ltd also identified a number of key, site specific risks to the delivery of the project and how these will be managed.

Entracon Civil Pty Ltd has completed a number of Council projects, specialising in earthworks, remediation works, civil structures and mechanical construction. In the last three years Entracon have completed stormwater harvesting projects for Glen Eira City Council, Knox City Council, Moreland City Council and Bayside City Council.

As shown in Confidential Attachment 1 – CON/16/125 Tender Evaluation Matrix, the tender evaluation panel concluded that Entracon Civil Pty Ltd offers the best value for money.

Recommendation

That Council:

1. awards contract CON/16/125 Brighton Golf Course Stormwater Harvesting Project to

Entracon Civil Pty Ltd (ABN: 35 118 370 077) for the lump sum price of $2,602,601.58

exclusive of GST and $2,862,861.74 inclusive of GST;

2. authorises the Chief Executive Officer to sign all necessary documentation related to

CON/16/125 Brighton Golf Course Stormwater Harvesting Project; and


Support Attachments



Liveable community

Social

The implementation of the works is aimed at improving amenities in the Brighton Golf Course and Dendy Park.

Natural Environment

The works under this contract include harvesting of stormwater from a Melbourne water drain and use that water for irrigation in the golf course and Dendy Park. Two rain gardens will also be used to naturally clean the harvested water.

Built Environment

The work under this contract will enhance and improve the landscape features including water bodies at the golf course.


The Lessee of Brighton Golf Course, Leisure Management Services Pty Ltd (LMS) and Brighton Golf Club have been consulted at every stages in the development of the project. Together with the contractor, Council will provide further advice prior to commencement of the work and maintain contact with key stakeholders during the construction period. The works will be implemented in accordance with the specifications and relevant statutory requirements.



Human Rights


Legal

This Request for Tender was undertaken in accordance with the Bayside City Council’s Quotation and Tendering Procedure and section 186 of the Local Government Act 1989.

Finance

The Capital Works Budget for 2016/17 has an allocation of $500,000 (ex GST) for this project. The foreshadowed budget for 2017/18 is $2.45M, with an overall proposed budget of $2.95M.

Consultant costs $160,000.00

Contract Cost $2,602,601.58


Project Cost $2,902,601.58

Overall Budget $2,950,000.00

Links to Council policy and strategy This project is consistent with the 2013/17 Council Plan as identified under Strategy 3.2.1:

Ensuring community assets and infrastructure meet current and expected needs.

Options considered

Not Applicable to this report.



10.10 CON/16/132 PLAYGROUNDS UPGRADE WORKS 2016/17


Executive summary


The purpose of this report is to recommend the appointment of a Contractor to undertake the Playground Upgrade Works (2016/17) in the City of Bayside under Contract CON/16/132. The works include playground upgrades at the following ten sites: 1. A.F. Peterson Reserve, 371 Highett Road, Highett – District Playground

2. Alexander Park, 41 Thomas Street, Hampton – Local Playground

3. Allambee Park, 123a Sandringham Road, Sandringham – Local Playground

4. Bamfield Street Reserve, 76-82 Bamfield Street, Sandringham – Local Playground

5. Basterfield Park South, 2A Dane Road, Hampton East – District Playground

6. Holyrood Street Reserve, 2A Holyrood Street, Hampton – Pocket Playground

7. Myrtle Road Reserve, 32-34 Sargood Street, Hampton – Local Playground

8. Pasadena Avenue Reserve, 10 Pasadena Avenue, Beaumaris – District Playground

9. Robert C. Grieve Park, 25 Burrows Street, Brighton – Local Playground

10. Wilson Reserve, 42-44 Middle Crescent, Brighton – District Playground

Pocket Playgrounds Pocket playgrounds provide for the immediate area. They generally have provision for smaller play facilities than local playgrounds.

Local Playgrounds

Local playgrounds are located within a neighbourhood and are small in size. They provide play experiences for the local area. Visits to local playgrounds are likely to be short in length. Local playgrounds are intended for local play, often equipment based with minor support facilities such as seating. District Playgrounds

District playgrounds provide for a cluster of neighbourhoods and, as such, will accommodate a range of different activities. District playgrounds are traditionally medium sized well developed playgrounds with a number of play elements. Some lower level support facilities such as picnic settings, shelter and seating can be expected.

Key issues

A public tender was advertised in The Age and released through TenderSearch on Saturday 15 October 2016. The Request for Tender closed on Wednesday 9 November 2016, with the following submissions:

Eden Landscape Construction and Design and Maintenance Pty Ltd

Wrigglesworth Enterprises Pty Ltd Trading As Melbourne Landscape Co

Red Centre Nominees Pty Ltd Trading As Exterior Concept Landscapes



Super Gardens Pty Ltd

UDL Group Pty Ltd

Yellowstone Landscaping Pty Ltd

This Request for Tender was undertaken in accordance with the Bayside City Council’s Quotation and Tendering Procedure and section 186 of the Local Government Act 1989. The result of the analysis can be found in Confidential Attachment 1 - CON/16/132 Tender Evaluation Matrix. From the initial evaluation, Red Centre Nominees Pty Ltd Trading As Exterior Concept Landscapes was shortlisted and invited for tender interview. Clarifications were sought regarding pricing, as well as proposed alternative products and cost savings opportunities. Red Centre Nominees Pty Ltd Trading As Exterior Concept Landscapes has been operating for 17 years, specialising in playground construction and redevelopment, concrete and asphalt works, streetscapes and upgrades, drainage, excavation, retaining walls, hard and soft landscape, paving, and street furniture installation. Red Centre Nominees Pty Ltd Trading As Exterior Concept Landscapes has successfully completed projects of similar scope for Bayside City Council, City of Casey, City of Melbourne, Darwin City Council, and Brimbank City Council. Red Centre Nominees Pty Ltd Trading As Exterior Concept Landscapes have demonstrated a good understanding of the project, and are committed to complete the work within the specified timeframe of early April 2017 to mid-June 2017 (11 weeks construction programme). The Tender Evaluation Panel concluded that Red Centre Nominees Pty Ltd Trading As Exterior Concept Landscapes offers the best value for money for this project.

Recommendation

That Council:

1. awards Contract CON/16/132 Playgrounds Upgrade Works (2016/17) to Red Centre

Nominees Pty Ltd Trading As Exterior Concept Landscapes (ABN: 55 084 274 411) for

the lump sum price of $777,380.69 excluding GST, $855,118.76 inclusive of GST;

2. authorises the Chief Executive Officer to sign all necessary documentation relating to

CON/16/132 Playgrounds Upgrade Works (2016/17); and


Support Attachments





Liveable community

Social

These works are aimed at improving the play experience and encouraging families to frequently visit playgrounds, as well as the use of nearby park amenities and open spaces. Playgrounds provide opportunities for children and families to socialise.

Natural Environment

The work under this Contract includes the protection of existing vegetation, as well planting more trees to provide natural shade.

Built Environment

The work under this Contract will enhance and improve the landscape features at the park including paths, play equipment, furniture and provide improved accessibility to the playground.


Together with the Contractor, Council will provide further advice to the community prior to commencement of work on site, and will maintain contact with the community during the construction period.

As part of the design phase, the community was consulted on two occasions. The first consultation was conducted in May 2016 to obtain initial ideas and thoughts which assisted the design scope (along with ‘playground improvement plan’ recommendations) and enabled designers to develop first round plans for each playground. The second round of consultations was conducted in September 2016 to display and consult the community on the final draft plans. Community consultation and engagement was also undertaken via an online survey and through social media to maintain a high level of engagement with the community throughout the design process.

Human Rights


Legal

There are no legal issues in relation to this report.

Finance

The Capital Works Budget for 2016/17 has an allocation of $965,000.00 excluding GST for this project. The following table summarises the expected total project cost.

Consultant costs $90,000.00

Contract Cost $777,381.00


Expected Project Cost $937,381.00

The expected favourable budget variance will be reported as part of the monthly finance

report.




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

This project is also consistent with the Council Playground Improvement Plan 2015-2025 which outlines a 10 year asset renewal program which will see generational change in the condition of Bayside’s playgrounds.

Options considered

Alternative products and cost implications have been considered for this project when defining the scope and deliverables, with a view to provide the best value for money outcomes for the community.



10.11 KERBSIDE RECYCLABLES COLLECTION CONTRACT EXTENSION


Executive summary


The purpose of this report is to present an offer from Solo Resource Recovery, Council’s kerbside recyclables collection contractor, for a cost reduction on the basis of a three year extension of the current contract until 2021. The report recommends approval of this extension.

Key issues

Solo Resource Recovery provide the kerbside garbage and recyclables collection services for Bayside under Contract No CON/12/64.

The current Kerbside Recyclables Collection Contract will expire in June 2019, unless Council executes an option for a three year extension. In August 2016, Council executed a three year extension of the Kerbside Domestic Waste Collection Contract No 111207C to Solo Resource Recovery at varied collection rates due to the additional travel distance to alternate landfill sites that will be required following the closure of the Cleanaway Landfill at Fraser Road, Clayton from 1 April 2017 to ensure a continuation of the existing services.

As part of Council’s negotiations with Solo to minimise collection costs, the contractor has identified cost savings and have offered Council a rebate for the remainder of the contract term if the three year extension is executed now. This amounts to a substantial saving to Council over the period of the contract. The reduced collection costs are available to Council immediately on a pro-rata basis.

The offer provided by Solo is outlined in Confidential Attachment 1.

As the Contractor is performing well and as no issues have been identified, it is recommended that the extension option be executed. This contract extension will align the expiry date of the kerbside recyclables collection contract and the kerbside domestic waste collection contract.

Recommendation

That Council:

1. executes the three year extension of the Kerbside Recyclables Collection Contract No. CON/12/64 available based on the cost reduction offer from Solo Resource Recovery shown in Confidential Attachment 1; and

2. authorises the Chief Executive Officer to sign all necessary contract documentation relating to the kerbside recyclable collection and disposal service.

Support Attachments

1. Confidential Attachment 1 - Solo Resource Recovery Recyclables Collection Cost Reduction Offer (separately enclosed) (confidential)




Liveable community

Social

Residential domestic waste and recycling services help residents to keep their property safe and hygienic through regular removal of waste, recycling waste and recycling services are a core Council service.

Natural Environment

The diversion of recyclables from landfill assists to keep the natural environment, including our beaches and waterways, free of environmental pollution caused by litter and waste. The Environmental Sustainability Framework sets waste reduction targets over the next 10 years.

Built Environment

The collection of waste and recycling is critical to building sustainable cities and urban areas,

in particular with regards to multi-unit developments.


Maintaining a regular kerbside waste collection service to the community is a core service of Council and any disruption would be highly undesirable. As the fortnightly household recyclables collection service is unchanged, there has been no need for community consultation.

Human Rights


Legal

There are no legal issues relevant to this matter. A current contract is in place for the collection of household recyclables and this report proposes extending the contract in accordance with the contract terms.

Finance

The impact of this report will be an overall decrease in cost for the fortnightly household recyclables collection service as outlined in Confidential Attachment 1.


The Council Plan 2013 - 2017 includes Goal 4 – A sustainable natural environment. Bayside will be a leader in environmental management and will be a greener, more sustainable city, Strategy 4.1.3 minimising the environmental impacts of Council operations by reducing waste and improving water and energy efficiencies.

The Bayside Environmental Sustainability Framework highlights the responsible management of waste by Council and collecting recycling is a required Council service.

The continuation of responsible management of household waste will assist Council to achieve these strategies.



Options considered

Option 1 - Recommended

Summary Council can benefit from reduced household recyclables collection costs offered by Solo Resource Recovery if the three year contract extension under the Recyclables Collection Contract is executed now.

Benefits This option will ensure a continuation of kerbside recyclables collection for the community at the best cost outcome for Council.

Issues This option results in a decrease in costs to the recyclables collection service and extends the collection contract for three years.

Option 2 – Not Recommended

Summary To forgo the offer from Solo Resource Recovery for reduce collection costs and maintain the status quo until the contract expiry date.

Benefits None identified.

Issues Any alternate option will be at a higher cost to Council.



10.12 REVIEW OF COUNCILLOR AND MAYORAL ALLOWANCES


Executive summary


To conduct a review of the Councillor and Mayoral allowances for the 2016-2020 term of office in accordance with Section 74 of the Local Government Act 1989.

Key issues

In accordance with the Local Government Act 1989, the Council is required to review its Councillor and Mayoral allowances within 7 months of a general election.

Further, Section 73B of the Act requires, amongst other things, that “The Minister must at least once every year, review the limits and ranges of Councillor and Mayoral allowances.

The Councillors and Mayoral allowances are required to be set within the range specified by an Order in Council. The Order published on 24 November 2012 (Victorian Government Gazette G47) gave effect to the new allowances which identifies 3 categories of Councils, based upon physical size, budget and population. Bayside City Council is deemed a Category 2 Council.

The allowances per category are set out below:

Councillor Allowances

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3

Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum

Allowances $8,324 $19,834 $10,284 $24,730 $12,367 $29,630

Superannuation @9.5%

$790 $1,884 $977 $2,349 $1,174 $2,815

Total payment $9,114 $21,718 $11,261 $27,079 $13,541 $32,445

Mayoral Allowance

Category 1 Up to Category 2 Up to Category 3 Up to

Allowance $59,257 $76,521 $94,641

Supperannuation @9.5%

$5,629 $7,269 $8990

Total payment $64,886 $83,790 $103,631



Councillors and the Mayor are currently being paid the amounts shaded in the tables above and it should also be noted that it is also a legislative requirement for a 9.5% superannuation contribution payable to Councillors and the Mayor.

Allowance payments are made one month in advance, and superannuation payments quarterly.

It should also be noted that:

1. A Mayor cannot receive the councillor allowance at the same time as receiving the mayoral allowance;

2. A Council does not have to pay an allowance to a Councillor or Mayor who does not want to receive an allowance

3. The amount of the allowance must be the same for each councillor (except the Mayor); and

4. A person is only entitled to receive an allowance while he or she hold the office of Councillor or Mayor.

The allowance levels during the four year period are subject to indexation reviews to be determined annually by the Minister for Local Government. Any indexation of the allowances is applied automatically.

As part of the review process for the Councillor and Mayoral allowances, Section 74(4) of the Local Government Act 1989 provides for public submissions to be made under Section 223 of the Act in respect of this review.

The submission process consists of:

Publication of a notice in The Age newspaper, Bayside Leader and Council’s website advising of the review and inviting written submissions;

The submission period must be open for at least 28 days from the date of the official public notice; and

All submissions received will be required to be considered by a Special Committee of Council appointed by Council for this specific purpose.

The table below outlines the process to be undertaken and timeframes:

Report to Council Meeting 20 December 2016

Official Public Notice in the Age newspaper and Council Website 22 December 2016

Public Notice in Bayside Leader 10 January 2017

Closing date of submissions (50 days) 17 February 2017

Special Committee to hear submissions 8 March 2017

Report to Council to review public submissions and the mayor and councillor allowances

28 March 2017



Recommendation

That Council:

1. commences the statutory process pursuant to section 74(4) of the Local Government Act 1989 to determine the councillor and mayoral allowances for the period 2016 to 2016, and give public notice of such review in accordance with section 223 of the Local Government Act 1989 based on the proposed allowances:

Proposed mayoral allowance be $76,521 per annum, being the maximum allowed for category 2 councils.

Proposed councillor allowance be $24,730 per annum, being the maximum allowed for category 2 councils.

2. establishes a Special Committee of Council consisting of all Councillors with a quorum of 4 Councillors, to hear submissions in relation to the determining of Councillor and mayoral allowances to be held on Wednesday 8 March 2017 at 6.30pm at the Council Chamber, Civic Centre, Brighton.

Support Attachments

Nil




Liveable community

Social

There are no social implications associated with this report.

Natural Environment

There are no natural environment impacts associated with this report.

Built Environment

There are no built environment implications associated with this report.


The Local Government Act 1989 requires that before the final decision is made on the level

of allowances there must be a public process of inviting public submissions on the quantum

of allowances. Given the public notice period expends over the Christmas and New Year

period the consultation period has been extended from 28 days to 50 days.

Human Rights




Legal

There are no legal or risk implications if Council complies with the legislative requirements in

determining the allowances.

Finance

As a category 2 Council, the cost to Council for mayoral and councillor allowances per

annum is approximately $224,901. This represents 0.23% of Council’s revenue in 2016 and

equates to approximately $29 per hour for the mayoral allowance based on 50 hours per

week and $19 per hour for the Councillor allowance based on 25 hours per week. An

allocation in the 2016/17 budget has been provided based on the proposed allowances.


The minimum and maximum levels of allowances are determined by legislation. Council is

required to determine allowances within the range set by the legislation. The superannuation

component is based on 9.5% of the allowance payable.



10.13 DEBT COLLECTION SERVICES - EXTENSION TO CONTRACT NO 1511/1212


Executive summary


To extend the contract for the provision of Debt Collection Services performed by ML&C Collections Pty Ltd for one year to 30 November 2017.

Key issues

ML&C Collections Pty Ltd has carried out debt collection services on behalf of Council in respect to rates and sundry debtors since May 2013. The contract was for 3 years plus 2 x 1 year options.

ML&C Collections charge Bayside City Council for these services in accordance with the Magistrates Court of Victoria scale of costs for all items relating to debt collection. These costs are fully recoverable form the debtor.

The current services provided by ML&C Collections Pty Ltd under the contract include

The preparation and issuing of solicitors letters

Liaison with ratepayers and debtors to ascertain a debtors ability to pay an outstanding account and negotiate payment terms

Effectively and efficiently locating ratepayers not at their original place or residence or business

Confirming payment arrangements in writing and recording terms of payment arrangements

Drafting and despatch of notices to ratepayers and debtors advising of non-compliance of account payment arrangements

In November 2015 Council exercised its right to extend the contract by 12 months to November 2016.

Procurement Australia who acts as tendering agent for the purpose of seeking tenders for the contract has taken up the second 1 year option and extended the contract until November 2017.

Procurement Australia will then call for tenders for the new Debt Collection contract covering the following:

The new contract will be for Debt Collection Services

The contract will commence on 1 December 2017

Contract term will be 3 years plus 2 x 1 year options

Scope will be a range of services under one category – Debt Collection Services



Recommendation

That Contract No 1511/1212 – Provision of Debt Collection Services be extended until 30 November 2017.

Support Attachments

Nil




Liveable community

Social

Council requires from the supplier an understanding of Local Government, corporate social

responsibility and a customer focus.

Natural Environment

There are no natural environment impacts associated with this report

Built Environment

There are no built environment impacts associated with this report.




Human Rights




Legal

Pursuant to Section 180 of the Local Government Act 1989, Council may recover unpaid

rates and charges.

Finance

Council’s 2016/17 Budget includes an amount of $123,000 for Debt Collection Services

which is fully recoverable from the ratepayer.


The Debt Collection Services Contract is consistent with the 2013-17 Council Plan as

identified in Commitment Goal 7 relating to Council’s intention to continue to be financially

responsible with good governance.



10.14 VALUATION SERVICES CONTRACT 2018


Executive summary


This report proposes to extend Contract No 1478 for Valuation Services for a period of two years from 1 December 2016 to 30 November 2018.

Key issues

Matheson Stephen Valuations, through a public tender process, were awarded the abovementioned contract for an initial period of two years from 1 December 2014 to 30 November 2016. The service included the delivery of general revaluation, supplementary valuations, asset valuations and valuation objections, enquiries and appeals.

A service level performance review was conducted following the recent completion of the 2016 General Valuation. A copy of the review is attached indicating a favourable performance when measured against each requirement of the contract specification.

The Service Levels Performance Report focused on all valuation services and was completed by the Manager Finance and Revenue & Valuations Coordinator.

The review indicates that Matheson Stephen Valuations have provided a highly satisfactory service mainly through the performance of the principal and her contract valuers.

All services were completed in accordance with the Valuer General’s Best Practice requirements for the completion of Stages 1-5 of the General Valuation and included a recommendation from the Minister for Planning that the 2016 General Valuation of Bayside is generally true and correct with respect to each of the bases of value.

The service review also included consultation with other users of valuation services including Properties and Planning Departments. Both departments provided positive feedback on the performance of the valuation contractors.

Matheson Stephen Valuations currently conducts valuation services for other councils including Whitehorse, Nillumbik, Darebin, Port Phillip and Boroondara.

The contract provided an option for Council, at its discretion, to extend the contract for a further term of two years. It is proposed to extend the valuation services contract for a period of two years to provide:

2018 General Valuation – Carry out valuations for all rateable and non-rateable properties, at the prescribed date of 1 January 2018.

2018 Objection, Inquiries and Appeals – Manage customer objections, inquiries and appeals to the 2018 General Valuation in the 2018/19 rating year.

2018 Supplementary Valuations – Undertake supplementary valuations as at the prescribed date of 1 January 2018.

2016 Objection, Inquiries and Appeals – Manage customer objections, inquiries and appeals subsequent to the completion of the 2016 General Valuation.



2016 Supplementary Valuations – Undertake supplementary valuations as at the prescribed date of 1 January 2016.

Asset Valuations for financial reporting – Undertake valuations of the Council’s owned/controlled assets and provide separate land and building values for financial reporting purposes as at the required dates, in accordance with relevant Accounting Standards.

Customer Service – Attend to all written, verbal and in person customer service requirements.

Software Support – Maintain Council’s valuation software (VM2020) including all relevant modifications to comply with the Valuation Best Practice Specifications.

Other Valuation Services – Provide other valuation services for insurance, acquisition or disposal of property and compensation valuations for public open space contributions.

Recommendation

That Council exercises its option to extend the valuation services contract provided by Matheson Stephen Valuations (Contract No 1478) for a period of two years from 1 December 2016 to 30 November 2018.

Support Attachments

Nil



SERVICE LEVEL PERFORMANCE REPORT

Service Level Performance Report – December 2014 to November 2016

Report Definition: This Report is a summary of the contractor’s performance against each performance criteria.

Target Performance Criteria Actual Performance %

Comments

Effective communications and liaison with the Contract Supervisor

100% Weekly meetings conducted with provision of periodic updates providing status of the biennial revaluation.

Project manage Valuation Processes

100% Timely completion of all stages (1 to 5) of the revaluation.

Computer skills to update and maintain VM 2020 valuation database

100% Timely and accurate maintenance of valuation database.

General Valuation – time lines 100% Revaluations completed 30 April 2016 to enable timely completion of the budget process.

Application of valuation principles and methodology

100% Certificates issued by Valuer General at the completion of each stage including 7A Certificate.

Supplementary Valuations 100% 4033 supplementary completed with billing of revenue maximised.

Valuation Objections 100% All objections 2015/2016 rate notices resolved satisfactorily.

Customer Service – Response time/Professional Image

100% Telephone and over the counter services provided in line with Council’s Customer Service Charter.

Ad hoc Valuations, insurance, public open space contributions

100% 15 ad hoc valuations, 83 public open space contribution valuations and 412 valuations for Council owned properties provided on time.




Liveable community

Social



Natural Environment

There are no natural environment impacts associated with this report.

Built Environment

There are no built environment impacts associated with this report.




Human Rights




Legal

Pursuant to the Valuation of Land Act 1960 it is a requirement for Council to complete

biennial property valuations.

Finance

Council’s 2016/17 Budget includes an amount of $240,000 for Valuation Services. A further

provision will be included in 2017/18 Budget.


The Valuation Services Contract is consistent with the 2013-17 Council Plan as identified in

Commitment Goal 7 relating to Council’s intention to continue to be financially responsible

with good governance.



10.15 OCTOBER 2016 FINANCIAL REPORT


Executive summary


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

The report is designed to analyse actual results against the 2016/17 Adopted Budget to ensure consistency and compliance with the Budget, and to measure Council’s overall financial performance.

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

Key issues

2016/17 Year to date operating Result

The October 2016 result is a surplus of $9.7M which is $3.8M favourable to budget.

2016/17 Forecast operating result

The current forecast for the year represents a surplus of $21M which is $1.3M unfavourable to Budget. The underlying forecast however is favourable to budget by $632k and excludes the following one off or timing related items:

($486k) Aged and Disability Regional projects expenditure for which funding was received in advance in 2015/16

($1.572M) Timing of capital grants and contributions received in advance or deferred to align with the expected completion of capital projects.

Cash and Investments

The cash position of $81.6M has increased by $6.4M from the 2015/16 ending balance of $75.2M.

The YTD favourable variance to budget of $17.7M is mainly due to:

$17.9M greater opening cash balance than budgeted:

o $6.8M capital works expenditure favourable and includes the Rollover of

2015/16 capital projects of $5.1M (to be spent in 2016/17)

o $11.1M Favourable operating result at June 2016 compared to the budget

forecast which includes $4M of additional developer contributions transferred to reserves, increased parking fines, interest income and grants received in advance.

There will be a significant drawdown on these cash reserves over the next 4 years to pay off debt and to fund a rapid expansion of major capital projects.



Victorian Auditor General’s Office (VAGO) Indicators

Current forecasts indicate that Council will achieve VAGO indicator targets.

Local Government Performance Reporting Framework (LGPRF) Indicators

Current forecasts indicate that Council will achieve LGPRF indicator targets.

Capital Result

The June 2017 forecasts indicate a favourable result of $2.2M for the year mainly due to the rollover of Banksia Reserve Beaumaris Pavilion Redevelopment and the Dendy Street Beach Masterplan projects which are expected to be completed in 17/18. Including the impact of the projects to be rolled over to 201718 the 2016/17 capital program is forecast to be unfavourable $726k.

Recommendation

That Council notes the operating and capital financial report for the four months to 31 October 2016.

Support Attachments

1. Bayside City Council Report October 2016 ⇩




Liveable community

Social

There are no social impacts associated with this report.

Natural Environment

There are no natural environmental impacts associated with this report.

Built Environment

There are no built environmental impacts associated with this report.


There are no impacts to customer service.

No community engagement has been undertaken in preparing this report.

Human Rights


Legal

Section 138 of the Local Government Act 1989 prescribes that, at least every three months, a

financial report of revenue and expenditure be presented to Council.

Finance

The year-end forecast operating result is a surplus of $21M which is $1.3M unfavourable to budget. Taking into account one off and timing issues the underlying operating result is favourable $632k.

The capital result forecast including the anticipated rollover of projects to 2017/18 is $726k unfavourable to budget.


The monthly financial report is identified within Goal 7 in the Council Plan 2013-2017

Strategic Objective 7.2.2- Reporting regularly to our community on Council’s performance.


Attachment 1



Attachment 1



Attachment 1



Attachment 1



Attachment 1



Attachment 1



Attachment 1



Attachment 1



Attachment 1



Attachment 1




10.16 COUNCIL ACTION AWAITING REPORT


Executive summary


This report presents to Council a schedule of actions pending for the period to 18 October 2016.

Key issues

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

Recommendation

That Council notes the Council Action Awaiting Report.

Support Attachments

1. Council Action Awaiting report - December ⇩


Attachment 1



Attachment 1



Attachment 1



Attachment 1



Attachment 1



Attachment 1



Attachment 1



Attachment 1



Page 199 of 200

11. Reports by Delegates

1. Association of Bayside Municipalities – Cr Evans

2. MAV Environment Committee – Director Environment & Infrastructure

3. Metropolitan Transport Forum – Director Environment & Infrastructure

4. Municipal Association of Victoria – The Mayor Cr del Porto

5. Inner South Metropolitan Mayors’ Forum – The Mayor Cr del Porto

6. Metropolitan Local Government Waste Forum – Cr Heffernan

12. Urgent Business


Page 200 of 200

13. Notices of Motion

13.1 NOTICE OF MOTION - 260 - KERB OUTSTANDS IN COCHRANCE STREET BRIGHTON


I Cr Alex del Porto hereby give notice that I intend to move at the Ordinary Council

Meeting to be held on 20 December 2016 at 7:00pm at the Council Chambers, Civic

Centre, Boxshall Street, Brighton the following Notice of Motion:

Motion

That Council refers a proposal to be considered as part of the 2017/18 Capital Works

budget for the redesign and reconstruction of the kerb outstands in Cochrane Street,

Brighton (at the intersections of Cowper Street/St James Park Drive and Rooding Street)

so that they are more visually attractive and effective

Cr Alex del Porto MAYOR

Support Attachments

Nil