Pro-Forma For Notice Paper Word 7 - City of Stonnington€¦ · Web viewPro-Forma For Notice Paper Word 7 Planning Applications planning application 0922/12 - 4 martin court, toorak

NOTICE PAPER

Monday 1 July 2013 at 7:00 p.m.

Council Chamber, Stonnington City Centre(enter off Glenferrie Road, Malvern)

RECONCILIATION STATEMENT

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

PRAYER

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

NOTE

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

Page 2

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

Council MeetingNotice Paper1 July 2013

Order of Business and Indexa) Reading of the Reconciliation Statement and Prayer;b) Apologies;c) Adoption and confirmation of minutes of previous meeting(s) in accordance with Section 63 of

the Act and Clause 423 of General Local Law 2008 (No 1);d) Disclosure by Councillors of any conflicts of interest in accordance with Section 79 of the Act1

e) Questions to Council from Members of the Public;f) Correspondence – (only if related to council business);g) Questions to Council Officers from Councillors;h) Tabling of Petitions and Joint Letters;i) Notices of Motion;j) Reports of Special and Other Committees; - Assembly of Councillorsk) Reports by Delegates;l) General Business;

1. PLANNING APPLICATIONS........................................................................................................................... 61.1. PLANNING APPLICATION 0922/12 - 4 MARTIN COURT, TOORAK - CONSTRUCTION OF TWO DWELLINGS ON

A LOT IN A RESIDENTIAL 1 ZONE..........................................................................................................61.2. PLANNING APPLICATION 0870/12 - 92 FINCH STREET, MALVERN EAST – PARTIAL DEMOLITION AND

SUBSEQUENT EXTENSION TO A DWELLING WITHIN A HERITAGE OVERLAY.........................................262. PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C167 – CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING PANEL

AND ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT................................................................................................................. 373. PLANNING ZONE REFORMS – IMPLEMENTATION AND CONSULTATION............................................................414. CONFIRMATION OF DELEGATIONS OF THE INNER MELBOURNE ACTION PLAN (IMAP) IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE...................................................................................................................................................... 465. DRAFT STONNINGTON CAR SHARE POLICY..................................................................................................516. CITY OF STONNINGTON ROAD MANAGEMENT PLAN – REVIEW 2013 – FORMAL REVIEW AS REQUIRED BY ROAD

MANAGEMENT ACT 2004........................................................................................................................... 567. EASTERN ALLIANCE FOR GREENHOUSE ACTION ; COUNCILLOR MEMBERSHIP................................................628. DOMESTIC ANIMAL MANAGEMENT PLAN......................................................................................................659. SHERIDAN PAVILION REDEVELOPMENT – PLAQUE APPROVAL.......................................................................6810. INTERNAL AUDIT STRATEGIC AUDIT PLAN 2013 - 2018...........................................................................7111. ACQUITTAL OF SEED FUNDING FOR DULDIG STUDIO.................................................................................7212. proposal to name a lane..................................................................................................................... 75

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

Page 3

m) Urgent Business; andn) Confidential Business.1. CONFIDENTIAL AMENDMENT C184……………………………………………………………..………….…782. STRATEGIES FOR CREATING OPEN SPACE………………………………………………………………..….783. REGIONAL KITCHEN PTY NON RENOUNCEABLE SHARE ISSUE………………………………………….…...78

Page 4

ADOPTION AND CONFIRMATION OF MINUTESOF PREVIOUS MEETINGS

1 JULY 2013

RECOMMENDATION

That the Council confirms the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Stonnington City Council held on 24 June 2013 and Minutes of the Confidential Meeting of the Stonnington City Council held on 24 June 2013 as an accurate record of the proceedings.

Page 5

GENERAL BUSINESS1 JULY 2013

1. PLANNING APPLICATIONS

1.1. PLANNING APPLICATION 0922/12 - 4 MARTIN COURT, TOORAK - CONSTRUCTION OF TWO DWELLINGS ON A LOT IN A RESIDENTIAL 1 ZONE

(ACTING STATUTORY PLANNING MANAGER: AUGARETTE MALKI)(GENERAL MANAGER: STUART DRAFFIN)

PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for construction of two dwellings on a lot in a Residential 1 Zone at 4 Martin Court, Toorak.

Executive Summary

Applicant: Paolo Pianezze ArchitectsWard: NorthZone: Residential 1Overlay: NoneDate lodged: 20/12/2012Statutory days: 55 Trigger for referral to Council:

7 objections

Number of objections: 14 objections from 7 different propertiesConsultative Meeting: Yes, held on 9 April 2013Officer Recommendation: Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit

BACKGROUND

The Proposal

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by Paolo Pianezze Architects and are known as Drawing No’s TP01-TP02 Council date stamped 20 December 2012, TP03-TP05 Council date stamped 17 April 2013, TP06-TP09 Council date stamped 11 June 2013, and a Landscape Plan Council date stamped 20 December 2012.

Key features of the proposal include: Demolition of the existing single storey dwelling. Construction of a three storey building comprising two dwellings (2 x 3 bedroom dwellings)

over a basement car park. The basement is to feature a car parking area with two car parking spaces allocated to Unit

1 and three car parking spaces allocated to Unit 2. Unit 1 is proposed at the ground level and will feature an open plan kitchen/living/dining

area, a laundry, two bedrooms with ensuites and one bedroom with a walk in robe and an ensuite.

Unit 2 is proposed at the first and second level and will feature an open plan kitchen/living/dining room, a laundry, two bedrooms with ensuites and one bedroom with walk in robe and an ensuite. At the second level, Unit 2 will have access to a day lounge and roof terrace.

The existing crossover is proposed to be altered for access to the proposed ramp leading to the basement car park.

Page 6


Pedestrian access will be provided via a designated pedestrian access to/from Martin Court.

Private open space serving Unit 1 will be provided in the form of a ground level courtyard to the north of the site and to the south of the site. Private open space serving Unit 2 will be provided in the form of a first floor balcony and a roof terrace.

The proposal incorporates a flat roof design and rendered finishes. The maximum height of the building above the natural ground level is proposed to be 11.59

metres at its highest point at the top of the roof terrace. This measurement is taken along the western elevation.

Site and Surrounds

The subject site is located on the south side of Martin Court, approximately 80 metres west of Orrong Road. The site has the following significant characteristics: The site is irregular in shape. The existing dwelling is not of heritage significance. The site has a frontage of approximately 15 metres to Martin Court and a maximum depth

of approximately 36 metres. The overall size of the lot is approximately 704 sqm and the site has a fall of approximately 1 metre across the site from east to west.

The site contains an existing single storey building constructed of brick with a tiled hipped roof. The existing building contains a large front setback, a driveway along the western boundary and a large area of private open space to the rear of the site. A garage is situated to the rear of the site.

There are no significant trees on the site. The surrounding neighbourhood is made up of large dwellings on relatively large lot sizes

and multi unit developments. There is a mix of double and three storey buildings with various architectural styles in the vicinity of the site. Examples of 3 storey forms can be seen at No.14 Martin Court and No. 693-697 Orrong Road to the east of the site at the end of the Court.

The site interfaces with adjoining properties as follows: No: 3 Martin Court abuts the site to the east. This site contains a large two storey building

which comprises two dwellings (one at each level). The building has a rendered finish and has a flat roof. This building has windows that face the subject site along its western interface. The private open space area to the ground level dwelling is located to the front of the building and a courtyard is also located to the west of the building, adjacent to the shared boundary. Private open space to the upper level dwelling is provided in the form of north and west facing balconies. The west facing balconies are all screened to a height of 1.7 metres.

No: 5 Martin Court abuts the site to the west. The site is occupied by a single storey brick dwelling. Private open space is provided to the rear of this dwelling and a driveway runs along the western boundary. The dwelling has windows on its eastern interface that face the subject site.

No: 4 Montalto Avenue abuts the site to the south. The site contains a large two storey dwelling. The large area of private open space to the rear of this dwelling abuts the subject sites southern boundary. This dwelling is included in Heritage Overlay 143 and is listed as an A2 graded building.

Previous Planning Application(s)

A search of Council records indicates the following relevant planning applications: Permit Application 239/08 for the construction of two dwellings over a basement car park at

No.7 Martin Court was refused by VCAT on 23 January 2009 following Councils refusal (under delegation) of the application. The proposal was for a three storey building. The

Page 7


application was refused as it was considered that the proposal would excessively and unreasonably dominate and overpower adjoining properties to the south and west.

The Title

The site is described on Certificate of Title Volume 08154 Folio 865 / Lot 19 on Plan of Subdivision 040708. There is an easement that runs along the rear (southern) boundary of the site. There are no restrictive covenants on the title and the applicant has signed a declaration to this affect.

Planning Controls

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

Zone Clause 32.01- Residential 1 Zone Pursuant to Clause 32.01-4 a permit is required to construct two or more residential dwellings on a lot. Development must meet the requirements of Clause 55.

Overlay(s)There are no overlays covering this site.

Particular ProvisionsClause 52.06 Car ParkingClause 55 Two or more dwellings on a lot and residential buildings

Relevant Planning Policies

Clause 15.01 Urban EnvironmentClause 15.02 Sustainable DevelopmentClause 16.01 Residential DevelopmentClause 21.01 Vision for the City of StonningtonClause 21.03 HousingClause 22.02 Urban design policyClause 22.06 Residential Character, Amenity, and Interface PolicyClause 32.01 Residential 1 ZoneClause 55 Two or more dwellings on a lot and residential buildings Clause 65 Decision Guidelines

Amendment C161

Amendment C161 seeks to provide a revised Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) and Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF). This is an update to the existing Local Planning Policy Framework, and includes a new Municipal Strategic Statement, and the deletion of a number of local policies. The review, rather than provide wholesale changes to the policy, seeks to rearrange existing policy such that the majority of this is provided within the MSS. The policy wording has been enhanced and the consolidation of policies assists in avoiding repetition.

The amendment has been exhibited, and the panel report has been recently released. The panel were generally supportive of the amendment subject to a number of changes. Those changes have been recently considered by Council who have adopted a modified version of the panel recommendations.

Although the amendment is a major change to the Planning Scheme, it is considered that the principal assessment criteria relating to this application is still largely unchanged.

Page 8


Page 9


Advertising

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

The site is located in the North Ward and 7 objections have been received. The objections highlight concerns regarding the following: Overdevelopment of the site Three storey form/height Car parking Traffic Overshadowing Overlooking Loss of light Loss of tranquillity Creation of a wind tunnel Visual Bulk Change of landscape character Removal of boundary fence Character/streetscape change Loss of privacy Precedent Restriction of views No roof plan submitted No detail of air-conditioning units No detail of the courtyard of No.3 Martin Court No shadow diagrams submitted for the hours of 11am, 12pm and 1pm

A Consultative Meeting was held on 9 April 2013. The meeting was attended by Councillor Koce, the applicant, representatives of the applicant, objectors and a Council planning officer.

Whilst no formal compromise was agreed at the meeting, the applicant has submitted revised plans which are Council date stamped the 17 April 2013. The differences between the advertised plans and the revised plans are as follows:

Increased setbacks to the western boundary (from 1.6m to 2.1m and 2.6m to 3.4m at the ground level, 3m to 3.2m, 1.6m to 2.6m and 2.6m to 3.4m at the first floor level and 4.7m to 5m at the second level).

Variation to setbacks along eastern boundary (from 2.1m to 2.2m, 3.6m to 3.3m and 5.4m to 4m at the ground level, 2.1m to 2.2m, 2.2m to 1.9m, 3.6m to 3.3m and 5.4m to 4.8m at the first floor level and from 7m and 8m to 6.8m and 7.6m respectively at the second level).

Reduction in height of the building (from 11.9m to 11.59m on the western elevation, from 11m to 10.7m on the eastern elevation and from 11.2m to 10.9m on the south elevation)

Increased front setback (from 5.9m and 8.4m to 6.2m and 8.5m respectively, and the balcony increased setback from 5.3m to 6.5m).

Deletion of bicycle spaces

The increased setbacks to the west allows for the building to be compliant with Standard B19.

The revised plans (Council date stamped 17 April 2013) were readvertised. Following advertising one additional objection was received. There were three further objections received from existing objectors which reiterated their original concerns.

Page 10


Referrals

Transport

Councils Transport Department assessment was made on the first set of advertised plans that are Council date stamped 8 February 2013 and 25 January 2013. It is noted that the internal basement layout and gradients remain largely the same. A summary of the comments are provided below:

The proposal is to provide five (5) parking spaces for the development, which exceeds the requirements of the Planning Scheme. The parking provision is satisfactory.

The traffic generation of the proposed development is considered reasonable and likely to have a minimal impact on the safety and operation of the surrounding road network.

The plans submitted include two wall mounted bicycle hooks at the base of the ramp. There is no statutory requirement for bicycle parking in a development of this size, however the inclusion of bicycle facilities generally accords with broad sustainability guidelines, and should be encouraged. It is recommended that the applicant revise the bicycle storage location to an area clear of vehicle movements.

The parking bays proposed are 2.9m x 4.9m with a 6.45m aisle, which exceeds the requirements of the Planning Scheme and can be generally supported.

The plans submitted do not detail the proposed floor gradients of the parking area. The minimum gradient of the parking area shall be 1 in 100 (1.0%) for outdoor areas and 1 in 200 (0.5%) for covered areas to allow for adequate drainage as per AS 2890.1.

A blind aisle is proposed at the east end of the parking aisle. An extension beyond the end parking bay of 0.98m is proposed, and the end bay is widened by 0.3m. This can be considered satisfactory.

The base of the ramp from the street enters the parking floor at one end of the access aisle, with sight distance between the ramp and the parking floor limited by the ramp wall. The applicant is to improve the sight distance to reduce the likelihood of conflicts on the ramp, and show this on the plans.

The access to the storage lockers is via the end of parking bays allocated to Unit 2. This may be appropriate for the Unit 2 store, but it is unclear how access will be maintained for the Unit 1 locker when vehicles are parked in the bay.

The applicant has provided a longitudinal section which indicates that the maximum permitted grade change for both sag and crest changes, 15% and 12.5% respectively, may have been exceeded. A crest change is shown at the property boundary, and the gradient of the ramp is 12.5% (the maximum for a crest). As the footpath is shown sloping away from the property boundary to the street, the maximum crest change must be exceeded by the proposed ramp. The applicant is to revise the plans to ensure these maximum changes are not exceeded.

The Planning Scheme states that the maximum gradient for the first 5m of the ramp is 1:10 (10%) which is exceeded in this design. The applicant is to revise the ramps to accord with these requirements.

The width of the ramp between walls is 3.6m, which accords with the requirements of the Australian Standard for a single width ramp, and as such can be considered satisfactory.

Page 11


The submitted plans do not show any indication of sight lines provided at the top of the ramp.

The submitted drawings show a vehicle crossing 6.1m wide at the street, which is greater than the standard vehicle crossing permitted under Council’s Vehicle Crossing Policy. A single crossing is to be 3m wide with 1.3m splays on either sides or 5.6m at the street. It is recommended that any revised design not reduce the distance between the proposed crossing and the crossing to the east to less than 6m, as this may impact on-street parking, or result in obstruction to vehicles exiting either the subject or neighbouring properties.

Council’s Vehicle Crossing Policy states that crossings are to be no closer than 1m from any utility infrastructure unless approval from the relevant authority/infrastructure manager is provided. Telstra pits are shown on the place to the west side of the proposed crossing, and with the introduction of splays to assist access it is anticipated that the crossover would be within 1m of the asset.

The above referral advice has been addressed via the revised plans (Council date stamped 17 April 2013) and will be discussed in detail in the car parking and traffic assessment.

Infrastructure

Councils Drainage Engineer assessment was made on the first set of advertised plans that are Council date stamped 8 February 2013 and 25 January 2013. A summary of the comments are provided below:

Could you please place a condition on the permit stating that a report for the legal point of discharge must be obtained from Council and a drainage design for the development must be prepared in accordance with that report prior to a building permit being issued. The drainage must be constructed in accordance with that design. Please do not state drainage design to satisfaction of Council, that is the responsibility of the relevant building surveyor to check and approve.

As always, we encourage the installation of water tanks for re-cycling which are extremely effective in reducing stormwater runoff particularly if they are connected to the toilets, and they also help address WSUD and sustainability issues.

Could you please place a condition that the existing vehicular crossing levels at the property line must not be lowered or altered (to facilitate the basement ramp)?

Landscape

Councils Arborist assessment comments were made on the first set of advertised plans that are Council date stamped 20 December 2012, 8 February 2013 and 25 January 2013. A summary of the comments are provided below:

There are no significant trees located at this site. Mature vegetation is located at the property and the Martin Court frontage makes a good contribution to the surrounding landscape.

There are 2 young street trees located in front of this property. Protection fencing must be afforded to both trees prior to demolition works occurring. Fencing must be at least 1.8m high, be of steel mesh construction, and form a 2m radius around the tree stem.

Page 12


No trees are scheduled to be planted on the western frontage of the property.

The trees scheduled to be planted on the southern boundary are small in stature in relation to the proposed size of the built form. Larger canopy trees should be installed to soften the southern elevation.

One single feature tree is proposed for the street frontage of the property. This specimen tree must be installed in a super-advanced size of 4-5m in height.

KEY ISSUES

The key issues with the proposal include whether the development respects the existing neighbourhood character and whether the proposal will have an adverse impact on residential amenity. These key issues as well as issues raised by objectors and Council officers are discussed in detail below.

State Planning Policy Framework

The State Policy objectives at Clause 18.01-2 encourages higher land use densities near railway stations, major bus terminals, transport interchanges, tramways and principal bus routes. This site is located within approximately 330 metres walking distance to a major tram line along Toorak Road which makes the site well serviced by public transport.

The site is also located within walking distance to the Toorak Village Shopping Precinct which is identified as a Neighbourhood Activity Centre (large) within Clause 21.01 (Vision for the City of Stonnington).

The State Policy Framework at Clause 11.04-2 includes specific direction for the encouragement of a diversity of housing types at higher densities in and around Neighborhood Activity Centres that is designed to fit the context and enhance the character of the area while providing a variety of housing options for different types of households. The proposed development is an example of higher density development.

State Policy support for appropriate residential intensification is also highlighted in Clause 16 (Housing). This includes strategies to increase the supply of housing in existing urban areas by facilitating increased housing yield in appropriate locations, and to increase the proportion of housing in Metropolitan Melbourne to be developed within established urban areas.

It is considered that there is strong State Policy support for the redevelopment and residential intensification of the subject site. The proposal is consistent with these policies in that it provides for residential development that represents a more efficient residential use of the site in an existing residential area and improves housing choice. The site will be able to take advantage of public transport links along Toorak Road and a number of community services and facilities in close proximity to the subject site including, the Toorak Village shopping precinct.

Page 13


Local Planning Policy Framework

It is considered that the proposal is consistent with the strategic direction outlined by the Stonnington Planning Scheme. The Local Planning Policies, like the State Planning Policy Framework, encourages medium density housing that makes better use of existing infrastructure and urban design in residential areas that respects the existing character of the area and protects the residential amenity of the surrounding properties.

Clause 21.03 (Housing) of the Municipal Strategic Statement encourages a range of dwelling types to meet the community’s needs and development that displays good design which reflects the surrounding scale, height, density, bulk, setbacks, style, form and character of buildings, fences, gardens and the streetscape. The development site is of a size that is capable of being developed with a second dwelling that respects the character of the area and which would not unreasonably impact on the amenity of adjoining property occupiers.

The local Urban Design Policy (22.02) includes objectives for the design and scale of new developments to make a positive contribution to the built form of an area and to be respectful to the existing character and streetscape. The Urban Design Policy generally encourages built form in residential areas that respects the one to two storey built form character of residential areas. However, this policy is balanced by the requirement for new buildings to be of a height and scale that is consistent with its particular setting and location. In this setting, it is considered that a higher built form would be generally consistent with the development found nearby, particularly given the larger two storey residential buildings opposite the site and to the east, as well as the three storey buildings further east at the end of the Court. In addition, it is noted that the proposed second level (third storey) comprises a day lounge and roof deck which is setback over 18 metres from the front title boundary. There will be limited views of this level from the street and as such, the building would present primarily as a two storey building.

A more detailed analysis of neighbourhood character, design, residential amenity and the requirements of Clause 55 are discussed below.

Built Form

Neighbourhood Character and Design Detail

The proposed development represents a more intensive use of the site and a larger building form than that of the existing dwelling. However, it is considered that the higher density proposal fits in with the character of the area which includes a number of examples of multi unit developments.

With respect to the concept of a three storey development in general, it must be noted that the predominant character of Martin Court comprises large double storey detached dwellings with examples of three storey mulit dwelling buildings towards the end of the Court adjacent to Orrong Road. It is not considered that the proposed three storey building will be out of context in this Court. The proposed third storey is a day lounge area with access to an open terrace. The day lounge is proposed to be setback over 18 metres from the street, 10 metres from the rear title boundary, 6 metres from the eastern title boundary and over 5 metres from the western title boundary. Given the large setbacks proposed and the size of the third level, the proposed development will appear predominately as a two storey built form from the street. It is not considered the development would be out of character or dominating in the Court.

It is worth noting that a three storey proposal was refused by VCAT for the property at No. 7 Martin Court (application No.239/08) in 2009. This application proposed a much larger three storey form which was considered to dominate the streetscape and have a detrimental impact on neighbouring properties.

Page 14


The current application on the subject site will be assessed further in terms of amenity impacts to adjoining properties. However, it is considered that the principle of this three storey form is suitable.

With respect to design detailing, it is considered that the proposal picks up on key design features of the streetscape and has been appropriately articulated and detailed so as to provide visual interest while maintaining the integrity of the area. The proposed render finishes and window proportions are considered to be in keeping with the character of the area where more contemporary forms of buildings can be seen. It is considered that the proposed modern built form will respect the existing streetscape and neighbourhood character.

A rendered solid front fence with a portico feature is proposed to the front of the site. The highest part of the fence is the portico feature which extends to a height of 2.2 metre. The fence ranges in height from 1.6 metres to 1.8 metres which is consistent with the height of the neighbouring fences and is considered acceptable. The portico, although extends higher than the fence is considered appropriate given that it is more of a feature that will be identifiable to pedestrians and will not dominate the frontage. High front fences are common in this Court.

Infrastructure

The proposed dwellings are located in an area where services are readily available. Council’s Development Engineer raised no concerns with the proposal however, requested a report for the legal point of discharge to be submitted and a condition that the levels at the property line must not be lowered or altered (to facilitate the basement ramp). These conditions can be included on any permit issued.

Street setback and Integration with the Street

In terms of its presentation to the street, the proposed built form is considered to be a sympathetic design response and will be compatible with similar built forms within the Court. The dwellings proposed will front Martin Court and the pedestrian access will maintain accessibility in accordance with Standard B5.

Given the positioning of the subject site in the street with existing buildings on both abutting allotments, the minimum front setback required should be the average distance of the setbacks of the front walls of the existing buildings on the abutting allotments. The front wall of the property to the west is setback between 7.5 metres and 10.4 metres from the front title boundary (average 8.95 metres). The front wall of the property to the east is setback between 5.8 metres and 6.9 metres (average 6.35 metres). The average setback required by Standard B6 is 7.65 metres. The proposed front setback of the building varies from 6.2 metres to 8.5 metres.

The proposed setback falls short of the Standard however, it is considered to meet the Objective of Standard B6. The Objective is to ensure that the setbacks of buildings from a street respect the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and make efficient use of the site. The front setbacks in the streetscape vary substantially given the position of the dwellings on the sites and the orientation of the sites around the Court. It is considered that the proposed front setback provides a suitable transition between the two dwellings on either side of the site and would not be detrimental to the streetscape character. It is considered that Objective B6 has been met and the setback proposed is appropriate.

Page 15


Height

The maximum building height of the proposed development extends to 11.59 metres (to the west of the site towards to rear) which exceeds Standard B7 under the building height Objective. It is noted that the maximum height is at the west of the site towards the rear where there is a drop in the land. To the east, the maximum building height is 10.7 metres and to the north it is 10.9 metres. In most contexts, Standard B7 usually provides a maximum height limit of 9 metres however, the Standard increases the maximum suggested height limit to 10 metres for any site that is affected by a natural ground level slope of 2.5 degrees or more for a cross section of 8 metres. Given that the site is affected by such a slope the 10 metre standard applies to this proposal. Although the Standard has not been met it is considered that the Objective has been achieved. The objective states ‘to ensure that the height of buildings respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character’. The proposed day lounge (third storey) is proposed to be 5.6 metres x 7.5 metres and as such, does not occupy an entire level of the building. It is also proposed to be setback over 18 metres from the street and as such, the building will read as a two storey form from the street and will not appear as a dominant three storey building. It is considered that a variation to the standard can be supported given that the proposal will respect the existing character.

Permeability, site coverage and energy efficiency

The proposed multi unit development will result in a site coverage of 64% which slightly exceeds Standard B8. This level of site coverage is considered acceptable in term of the character of the area, given that the existing neighbourhood character is made up of lots where the site coverage is high and in excess of the 60% ResCode requirement.

Permeability of the proposed development would achieve the 20% required by Standard B9 of ResCode. In addition a Water Sensitive Urban Design response has been submitted. A STORM Report detailing a minimum rating of 100% was submitted and a 10,000 litre rain water tank is detailed on the plans. The tank is detailed on the plans as being connected to toilets which meets the requirements of the draft Stormwater Management (Water Sensitive urban Design) Policy.

Energy Efficiency

The orientation of the site in a north direction allows for a substantial amount of northern exposure to both dwellings. The open plan kitchen/dining/living rooms provide for cross ventilation opportunities at both levels level. The proposed building has been located to make appropriate use of solar energy and to ensure that the energy efficiency of existing dwellings is not unreasonably reduced in accordance with Standard B10.

Solar panels are proposed on the first floor roof level. The shadow diagrams submitted show that the second level day lounge will overshadow all these panels in the morning between 9:00am and 10:00am and will overshadow some of the panels between 2:00pm and 3:00pm in the afternoon. A further manual shadow assessment was conducted which shows that the solar panels will be completely overshadowed up until 1:00pm. From 1:00pm some of the panels will be overshadowed. This is not considered to meet the Objective of Standard B10 as the solar panels are not in a position to be energy efficient. A condition will be placed on any permit issued requiring that the solar panels be relocated to a more energy efficient location that will not have a detrimental impact on any adjoining neighbours.

Page 16


Amenity Impacts

Visual bulk

No walls are proposed to be built on the boundary and as such, the key visual bulk assessment is Standard B17 of Clause 55.04-2 (Side and Rear Setbacks).

Assessment of visual bulk impacts to each interface is provided below as follows:

East Interface:The wall height at the ground level extends to a height of 4.2 metres requiring a setback of 1.18 metres from the eastern boundary. A setback of between 920mm and 3.3 metres has been provided. The non compliance occurs at the northern corner of the lobby. The minor non compliance occurs given the shape of the site. It is noted that it will just be the roof structure that is non compliant given that it extends further north. It is not considered that the minor non compliance will be detrimental to the adjoining residential neighbour. It is noted that the existing single storey dwelling on the subject site is located 500mm from the title boundary. As such, there will be little differences in term of visual bulk created by this aspect of the proposed development. It is considered the Objective has been achieved.

At the first floor level, the wall height ranges between 8.4 metres and 8.5 metres at the living room. The required setback ranges between 3.49 metres and 3.59 metres respectively. The setback proposed ranges from 2.2 metres to 3.1 metres which falls short of the standard. It is considered the proposed setback meets the objective as the non compliance is adjacent to a driveway and will have minimal amenity impacts on the adjoining property.

The remaining part of this level ranges in height from 7.9 metres to 8.1 metres. The required setback ranges from 2.99 metres to 3.19 metres. The only part of non compliance is at the northern part of bedroom 3 where the setback proposed is 1.95 metres instead of the required 2.99 metres. The non compliance is not considered detrimental given it is adjacent to a neighbouring boundary wall for most part. Approximately 1 metre of the wall will extend past the boundary wall of the neighbouring site and opposite a secondary courtyard to this property. It is not considered that setback proposed will create unreasonable amenity impacts on this property given that is adjacent to a very small portion of the courtyard. It is also worth noting that this dwelling is afforded a large area of private open space area to the north.

The second level extends to a height of 10.7 metres which requires a setback of 5.7 metres. A minimum setback of 5.7 metres is proposed which extends to a setback of 7.6 metres. This meets the standard.

South Interface:The proposal complies with the setback requirements of Standard B17 at all levels on this interface.

West Interface:At the ground floor level the setback requirements of the standard have been achieved.

At the first floor level there is some non compliance with the Standard. The dining room extends to a height of 9.2 metres which requires a setback of 4.29 metres. A setback of 3.2 metres has been provided which falls short of the Standard. It is considered the shortfall is acceptable in this location given that it is adjacent to the front garden of No.5 and will have no impact on any habitable room windows. It is considered there will be limited amenity impacts and the objective is considered to have been satisfied.

Page 17


The wall height extending from the kitchen to the robe rises to a height ranging from 7.5 metres to 7.8 metres which requires a setback ranging from 2.59 metres to 2.89 metres. A setback ranging from 2.5 metres to 2.6 metres has been provided. This minor level of non compliance occurs to the south of the robe for a very small section given the slope of the land. It is not considered that the minor shortfall will be detrimental to the existing dwelling to the west.

Given the design of the built form, the wall extends above the kitchen and robe to a height of between 8.7 metres to 8.9 metres. This requires a setback of between 3.79 metres to 3.99 metres. The setback proposed is 3.4 metres. The shortfall is not considered to be detrimental given that there will be minimal views from the property to the west to this proposed part of the building given the high boundary fence which extends to 1.9 metres with a 700mm trellis on top of it.

The day lounge (third storey) ranges in height from 11.3 metres to 11.59 metres requiring a setback ranging from 6.39 metres to 6.69 metres. The setback proposed is 5 metres. The shortfall is not considered to be detrimental given that the lower levels will restrict views of this part of the built form.

It is considered that the Objective of the Standard has been achieved and the proposed setbacks are appropriate.

Impact on Windows and Daylight to New Windows.

The key assessment tool to determining impacts to neighbouring windows with regard to light obstruction is the Daylight to Existing Windows Objective, Standard B19.

Eastern InterfaceThe dwelling at No. 3 Martin has a series of west facing windows. Compliance with Standard B19 is achieved comfortably on this interface for all levels.

Southern interfaceThe dwelling at No.4 Montalto Avenue contains north facing windows which face the site. These windows are located over 9 metres from the title boundary. Compliance with Standard B19 is achieved on this interface for all levels.

Western interfaceThe dwelling at No.5 Martin Court contains a series of east facing windows which face the subject site. Compliance with Standard B19 is achieved on this interface for all levels.

All habitable room windows within the development will receive sufficient light in accordance with the requirements of Standard B27.

Overshadowing open space

The Overshadowing Objective is to ensure that buildings do not unreasonably overshadow existing secluded private open space. Standard A14 states that the existing sunlight to secluded private open space of an existing dwelling should not be further reduced if less than 40sqm of the private open space receives 5 hours of sunlight between 9:00am and 3:00pm on the 22 September. The Standard has been achieved.

No.5 Martin CourtIn the morning, the shadows cast will fall to the west and as such on the site of No.5. The shadow diagrams submitted by the applicant detail that the shadow will fall along the eastern elevation of No.5 which includes a setback area. There will be no shadow cast on any area of recreational private open space. The standard has been met.

Page 18


No. 3 Martin CourtIn the afternoon, the shadows cast will fall to the east of the site and as such No.3 Martin Court will encounter additional shadows. At the ground level there is a courtyard area adjacent to the shared boundary. Compared to the shadow cast by the existing fence and the existing single storey dwelling on site, the additional shadow will be minor and is not considered to be detrimental. It is also noted that the balcony of the first floor dwelling is situated partially over this courtyard and the main area of private open space to this dwelling is located to the north side of the building.

It is considered that the Objective has been satisfied.

4 Montalto AvenueBetween the hours of 9:00am and 2:00pm there will be a minor level of overshadowing cast by the proposed development. Compared to the shadow already cast by the existing fence, the additional shadow is very minor and not considered to be detrimental. In addition, given the large area of private open space afforded to this dwelling, at least 40sqm of private open space will not be impacted upon and the Standard has been met.

Overlooking and internal views

The key assessment tool to determine unreasonable overlooking is the Overlooking Objective, including Standard B22. The standard provides a 9m 45 degree angle arc that determines unreasonable overlooking, and windows or balconies that are located in such a position must be screened to a height of 1.7m above finished floor level accordingly. Assessment of overlooking impacts to each interface is provided as follows:

South

To the south of the subject site the ground level is raised 560mm above the natural ground level. A new 2.1 metre high boundary fence is proposed with 450mm lattice on top. It is considered that this fence will restrict overlooking into the private open space of No.4 Montalto Avenue at the ground level.

It is noted that the standard does not apply when the finished floor level is not located more than 800mm above the natural ground level and there is a visual barrier of 1.8 metres.

At the first floor level there are is one window that faces the property to the south. This is the east facing window of Bedroom 1. This window has not been screened given that the 9 metre 45 degree arc falls over the existing garage on the site to the south. There will be limited views into any area of secluded private open space.

At the second level, the proposed windows are not within 9 metres of the private open space of this property. The Standard has been satisfied.

East

To the east, on the ground floor there is an existing boundary fence of 1.7 metres. Opposite bedroom 3 and the lobby a lattice of 450mm is proposed on top of the fence. This is considered appropriate to limit overlooking from these areas. It is noted that directly opposite bedroom 3 is a boundary wall. It is noted that lobby is not considered a habitable room and as such, the standard does not technically apply to this part of the building.

Page 19


With respect to the first level, it is noted that the windows that have the potential to overlook have been screened with obscure glazing to a minimum height of 1.7 metres above the floor level with the exception of the north facing window of bedroom 3. A condition will be placed on any permit issued requiring this window to be screened in accordance with Standard B22. An additional condition will be placed on the permit ensuring that all screening devices (whether it is obscure glazing or not) be fixed.

It is noted that the standard does not apply when the finished floor level is not located more than 800mm above the natural ground level and there is a visual barrier of 1.8 metres.

The second level windows are screened with obscure glazing. The terrace area is setback over 9 metres from any habitable room windows. The ground level courtyard of No.3 is within 9 metres of the terrace however, views down into this courtyard will be restricted by the lower levels proposed as well as the existing boundary fence on the boundary. It is considered that no unreasonable overlooking opportunities will be created by this proposed development.

West

To the west is the single storey dwelling of No.5. At the ground level, windows which have the opportunity to overlook have been screened with obscure glazing. The living and dining room windows will have an outlook into the front garden of No.5 Martin Court. The front garden is not a secluded area of private open space and as such, Standard B22 does not require these windows to be screened.

At the first floor level the proposed kitchen and pantry windows are not detailed to be screened and do not appear to have a sill height of 1.7 metres. These windows have the potential to overlook the neighbouring habitable room windows. A condition will be placed on any permit issued requiring these windows to be screened in accordance with the standard to prevent overlooking. All remaining windows on this level which have the potential to overlooking have either been screed to a height of 1.7 metres or have a sill height of a minimum 1.7 metres in accordance with the standard. It is noted that the windows of the living and the dining room will only have outlook into the front garden of No.5 Martin Court which is not a secluded area of private open space. As such, screening is not required to these windows

The top level proposes windows which will have a sill height of 1.7 metres and as such, accords with Standard B22. The terrace will not allow for any views into the secluded private open space of No. 5 given that it is located towards the front of the site adjacent to the front garden of No.5.

Internal Overlooking

The proposed design has sought to ensure that internal overlooking will be minimal. The proposal is considered to comply with Standard B23.

On site Amenity

Internal Amenity

The proposed dwellings feature all attributes for comfortable living.

Page 20


Dwelling Entry and safety

An entrance is provided to each dwelling via a shared pedestrian path from Martin Court. The entrance is not obscured by dense vegetation and passive surveillance opportunities exist from the ground and first floor windows facing the Street. It is considered Objectives B12 and B26 have been met.

Private Open Space

Each unit will have private open space in excess of the requirements of standard B28 Private Open Space which states the following:

‘a dwelling or residential building should have private open space consisting of:

An area of 40 square metres, with one part of the private open space to consist of secluded private open space at the side or rear of the dwelling or residential building with a minimum area of 25 square metres, a minimum dimension of 3 metres and convenient access from a living room, or

A balcony of 8 square metres with a minimum width of 1.6 metres and convenient access from a living room, or

A roof-top area of 10 square metres with a minimum width of 2 metres and convenient access from a living room.’

Unit 1 is proposed to have a 44sqm courtyard to the front of the site as well as a 110sqm courtyard to the rear. Unit 2 is proposed to have a 6sqm north facing balcony at the first floor level and 25sqm terrace at the second level. The proposed areas of private open space are in accordance with Standard B28 and are considered appropriate.

Landscaping

Replacement landscaping

There are no significant trees proposed to be removed from the site. The vegetation that is proposed to be removed is not considered significant under Councils Local Laws. A landscape plan was submitted which proposes planting within the front setback and along the side and rear boundaries of the site. However, it is noted that no planting is proposed on the western side along the small strip adjacent to the ramp and adjacent to the kitchen and ensuite of dwelling 1. This is not considered appropriate. In addition Councils Arborist raised concerns with the planting on the southern boundary given that they are considered small in nature in comparison to the built form proposed. It is considered appropriate to place a condition on any permit issued requiring large canopy trees to be installed to soften the built form. It is also considered appropriate to place a condition on any permit issued requiring the submission of a revised Landscape plan that specifies these details including vegetation along the western boundary. Subject to this condition the proposed level of landscaping is considered to respond to the existing neighbourhood character of the area and will provide a safe, attractive and functional environment for residents in accordance with Standard B13.

Tree protection

With respect to the protection of trees, Councils Arborist requires tree protection measures for the two street trees adjacent to this site. A condition will be placed on any permit issued requiring tree protection measures.

Page 21


Car Parking and Traffic

Parking provision and Location

The proposal includes 5 car parking spaces in a basement car park. A total of 3 car parking spaces are proposed to be allocated to Unit 2 and a total of 2 car parking spaces are proposed to be allocated to Unit 1. This exceeds the requirements of Clause 52.06-5 which stipulates a requirement of two car parking spaces per each dwelling with no visitor spaces required given that the proposal is for less than five dwellings.

The car parking spaces proposed are to be 2.9 metres wide x 4.9 metres long. These dimensions exceed the requirements of Clause 52.06.

The access to the storage areas were originally located at the end of the parking bays allocated to Unit 2. Following, access concerns raised by Councils Transport Department with this arrangement the revised plans detail one of the car parking spaces allocated to Unit 1. It is considered that there will be appropriate access to these storage areas.

Access and headroom clearance

Vehicle access to the ramp is proposed via Martin Court. The access is proposed to be 3.6 metres wide leading to a basement ramp with an initial gradient of 1:8 for the first 2 metres followed by a transition gradient of 1:5.5 for 11.8 metres and a final gradient of 1:8 for 2 metres.

Council’s Transport Department assessed the original advertised plans and raised concerns with the proposed ramp and the grades being exceeded at the top of the ramp. The applicant submitted revised plans (Council date stamped 17 April 2013) detailing the footpath area at the top of the ramp. The ramp complies with the Australian Standards and is considered appropriate. A minimum headroom clearance of 2.2 metres has been provided within the basement and at the access point which satisfies the standards. Councils Transport Department advised that it is a requirement for the first 5 metres of a ramp to be 1:10. It is noted that this requirement applies to accessways serving more than 3 dwellings.

The existing crossover to the site is proposed to be altered and a new 3 metre wide crossover proposed. The revised plans submitted (Council date stamped 17 April 2013) amended the crossover to be in line with Council’s Crossover Policy. The proposed and existing crossover is detailed on the revised plans. A condition will be placed on any permit issued requiring the proposed crossover to be detailed on the plans and the existing crossover deleted from the plans. The distance between the proposed crossing and the other crossing to the east has not been reduced as a result of the proposal.

It is noted that the splay of the proposed crossover is located 1 metre away from an existing Telstra pit. If there are any relocation requirements necessary this will be at the cost of the application and consent will be required from the relevant assessing authority. This will be reinforced with a condition on any approval issued.

Council’s Traffic Engineer raised concerns with the proposed sight distances at the top of the basement ramp. The applicant submitted revised plans (17 April 2013) which detail a splay in the courtyard wall to the east of the ramp. In addition, the ramp is set off the western boundary 655mm. It is considered the proposed layout provides appropriate sight distance lines for vehicles exiting the site. It is also worth noting that there are no formal footpaths on the south side of the Court adjacent to the subject sits and as such, the likelihood of pedestrians walking along the immediate frontage is minimal given the presence of the grass verge.

Page 22


Concerns were also raised by Council’s Transport Department with the sight distance between the base of the ramp and the parking area given the presence of the ramp wall. The revised plans submitted (Council date stamped 17 April 2013) detail the eastern wall of the ramp finishing before the end of the ramp which improves the visibility for vehicles entering the carpark. This arrangement is considered appropriate.

The revised plans (Council date stamped 17 April 2013) have deleted the proposed bicycle racks. It is also noted the floor gradients have been detailed satisfactorily on the plans.

Traffic

With respect to traffic generation, it is not considered that an increase of one dwelling on the site will result in unreasonable additional traffic on Martin Court and the surrounding area.

Common Property and Site Services

The basement car park and access ramp, the lobby and lift/stairs are the only areas of common property. The layout and location is considered to be functional and capable of efficient management consistent with Standard B33. Further, the proposal provides areas for all the necessary site services. These will be adequate and accessible and satisfy the intentions of the Objective.

Water Sensitive Urban Design

The application proposes to install a 10,000 Litre rainwater tank that will be connected to toilets and is located underground along the east boundary of dwelling 1. A STORM Report was submitted that details a minimum rating of 100% with this rain water tank. The proposed tank will result in compliance with the best practice performance objective, set out in the Urban Stormwater Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines, Victoria Stormwater Committee 1999.

Objections

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

Loss of tranquility and noise. It is not considered that the proposed residential development will lead to noise above and beyond what is expected with a normal residential building. Roof decks are not uncommon with dwellings or apartments.

Boundary fence. The owner of No.4 Montalto has objected to the removal of the existing boundary fence. The removal of the rear boundary fence does not require planning permission and as such, the assessment of its removal is outside the planning regulations. It is the responsibility of the two owners to come to an agreement on the boundary fence. It is noted that the applicant was advised that Council would have no issue with built form over the easement to secure the existing fence, subject to the applicant entering into a Section 173 agreement for building over an easement. The proposed fence is considered suitable and appropriate in order to restrict views from the subject site into No.4 Montalto Avenue.

Loss of views. There is no legal right to a view and there is no requirement in the planning scheme under which this application is to be assessed to consider impacts of loss of views on amenity.

Precedent. It is not considered a negative precedent will be set. All new applications are assessed on the merits of the proposal submitted.

Wind tunnel. It is not considered that allowing this development will create a wind tunnel effect in the Court.

Page 23


No detail of air-conditioning units. A planning permit is not required under Clause 62.02-2 for an air conditioner unit or hot water system. Nevertheless, it is noted that the air-conditioning units are shown on the ground floor plan to the east and west of the building. A condition will be placed on any permit issued requiring that the noise of such systems be in accordance with State Environment Protection Policy.

No roof plan submitted. The second level plan provides sufficient detail for the assessment of the application.

Shadow diagrams not submitted for 11am, 12pm and 1pm. The applicant is not required to submit drawings for every hour of the equinox. The shadow drawings submitted are appropriate to provide a full assessment of the application.

No inclusion of western courtyard of No.3 Martin Court on the plans. Council is aware of the Courtyard to No.3 Martin Court and have determined on the plans where this location is.

Human Rights Consideration

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

CONCLUSION

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

The proposal respects the existing neighbourhood character Subject to conditions the proposal will not create unreasonable adverse amenity outcomes

on neighbouring properties. Subject to a revised landscape plan, the proposal will respect the landscape character of the

area.

RECOMMENDATION

That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 922/12 for the land located at 4 Martin Court , Toorak be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for construction of two dwellings on a lot in a Residential 1 Zone subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the commencement of the development, three (3) copies of plans drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with the revised plans Council dated 17 April 2013 but modified to show:

a) The plans to detail the proposed crossover clearly and remove all reference to the existing crossover to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

b) The west facing kitchen and pantry window of Unit 2 on the first floor must be screened in accordance with Standard B22 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

c) The north facing bedroom 3 window on the first floor must be screened in accordance with Standard B22 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

d) The solar panels to be relocated to a position where they will have greater exposure to sunlight to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority

e) A revised Landscape Plan in accordance with Condition 3.

Page 24


2. The development must be in accordance with the endorsed plans unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority.

3. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a revised landscape plan must to be prepared by a landscape architect or suitably qualified or experienced landscape designer which is generally in accordance with the Landscape plan submitted in December 2012 (prepared by John Patrick) and be approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the landscape plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The landscape plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The landscape plan must show:

a) A survey (including botanical names) of all existing vegetation to be retained and removed.

b) Details of surface finishes of pathways and driveways.c) A planting schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers, including

botanical names, common names, pot sizes, sizes at maturity, and quantities of each plant.

d) Additional trees along the western side of the dwelling in the strip adjacent to the ramp and kitchen/ensuite of dwelling 1.

e) Larger canopy trees to the south of the site to soften the south elevation.f) The tree in the front setback must be installed in a super-advanced size of 4-5m

in height.

4. Before the occupation of the development, the landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Landscaping must then be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced.

5. Before the development (including excavation and demolition) starts, a tree protection fence must be erected around the two street trees outside the site. The fencing must form a 2 metre radius around the tree stem. The fencing must be at least 1.8 metres high and must be of steel mesh construction to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The tree protection fence must remain in place until all construction is completed. The ground surface of the Tree Protection Zone must be covered by a 100mm deep layer of mulch before the development starts and be watered regularly to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

6. The existing vehicular crossing levels at the property line must not be lowered or altered (to facilitate the basement ramp).

7. Any poles, service pits or other structures/features on the footpath required to be relocated to facilitate the development must be done so at the cost of the applicant and subject to the relevant authority’s consent.

8. The project must incorporate the Water Sensitive Urban Design initiatives detailed in the endorsed site plan and/or stormwater management report.

9. Air-conditioning and other plant and equipment installed on the subject buildings shall be so positioned and baffled so that no noise disturbance is caused to occupiers of adjoining properties to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Page 25


10. Noise emanating from the subject land must not exceed the permissible noise levels when determined in accordance with State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade) No. N-1, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Any works required to ensure and maintain the noise levels from any proposed air conditioner units or hot water systems are in compliance with this policy must be completed prior to the commencement of the use or occupation of the site and maintained thereafter, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

11. Prior to a building permit being issued, a report for the legal point of discharge must be obtained from Council and a drainage design for the development must be prepared by a suitably qualified Engineer in accordance with that report.

12. Prior to the occupation of the building, all screening devices designed to limit overlooking hereby approved must be fixed to a height of 1.7m and have no more than 25% openings or an alternative to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

13. All utility services to the subject land and buildings approved as part of this permit must be provided underground to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority by completion of the development.

NOTE:

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.

Attachments - Locality Plans, Site Plan, Floor Plans, Elevations etc.

Page 26


1.2. PLANNING APPLICATION 0870/12 - 92 FINCH STREET, MALVERN EAST – PARTIAL DEMOLITION AND SUBSEQUENT EXTENSION TO A DWELLING WITHIN A HERITAGE OVERLAY

(Planning Appeals Coordinator: Gareth Gale)(General Manager: Stuart Draffin)

PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for part demolition and buildings and works to a dwelling on a lot in a Heritage Overlay at 92 Finch Street, Malvern East.

This item was considered at the Council meeting of 24 June 2013. The application is now re-presented to Council for further consideration.

Executive Summary

Applicant: James Cameron & Emma QuigleyWard: EastZone: Residential 1Overlay: Heritage Overlay (Schedule 133)Date lodged: 27/11/2012Statutory days: 108Trigger for referral to Council:

Councillor call up.

Number of objections: 6Consultative Meeting: Held on 16 April 2013.Officer Recommendation: Issue A Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit

BACKGROUND

The Proposal

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by Peter Jackson Design Pty Ltd and are known as Sheets 1 – 15. The plans are Council dated 25 February 2013.

Key features of the proposal are:

Demolition of:

The rear portion of the dwelling featuring the laundry, store, bathroom and garden room at ground floor, and portions of the rear walls associated with the store and bathroom at first floor.

The windows located within the projecting bay window associated with the dining room at ground floor.

The shed to the rear of the dwelling. The recessed fence and gate located within the northern portion of the property frontage;

and A portion of the fence located within the southern section of the property frontage.

Page 27


Construction of:

A double storey addition to the rear of the dwelling. At ground floor the extension features living areas, pantry, multi-purpose room, laundry, powder room, outdoor living areas and a 5 car garage. At first floor the extension features an extended bedroom 4 and a studio with associated amenities. The extension has been designed in a mock heritage design and will feature slate roofing and face brickwork construction. The extension will feature design details to match the existing dwelling such as rendered bands, long narrow windows and stucco roof gables.

An entrance to the dwelling located in place of the bay window located along the southern facade of the dwelling.

A pool and associated fencing to the north of the dwelling. New crossover located near the southern boundary of the property frontage; and Alterations to the front fence.

It is noted that the above constitutes a revised design, which sought to respond to the comments made by Council’s Heritage Advisor. These revised plans were not readvertised given it was considered that no further material detriment would arise.

Site and Surrounds

The site is located on the eastern side of Finch Street, Malvern East. The site has the following significant characteristics:

A frontage to Finch Street of 35.05 metres, a depth of 45.42 metres and an overall area of 1591 square metres.

The site is occupied by a two storey Queen Anne dwelling that is afforded an A2 heritage grading.

The site is well vegetated and features three significant trees within the southern portion of the site.

A 2.1 metre high galvanised iron fence is constructed along the frontage to Finch Street. A crossover is located within the northern portion of the frontage to Finch Street and

provides vehicle access to the site; and A 1.22 m wide easement is located along the southern edge of the site.

The site is interfaced by:

A series of attached two storey ungraded dwellings at 86 – 90 Finch Street, Malvern East are located to the south of the site. In terms of heritage significance, the dwellings are ungraded.

A large two storey Victorian villa that occupies the property to the north, 98 – 100 Finch Street, Malvern East. In terms of heritage significance, the dwelling is graded B.

The site and immediate surrounds are located with the Gascoigne Estate heritage precinct. The precinct is characterised by its prominent period style architecture and generous Queen Anne era dwellings.

Previous Planning Application(s)

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

Planning Permit 0870/06 issued on 29 November 2006 allowed partial demolition and subsequent alterations and additions to a dwelling on a lot within a Heritage Overlay. The

Page 28


permit was extended by the Tribunal until 29 November 2010. The permit has expired and was not acted on.

Planning Permit 300/11 issued on 23 August 2011 allows part demolition and buildings and works to a dwelling in a Heritage Overlay. The permit has not been acted on.

Planning Permit 880/12 issued on 15 March 2013 allows part demolition, buildings and works and the construction of a crossover to a dwelling on a lot in a Heritage Overlay. The permit has not been acted on.

The Title

The site is described on Certificate of Title Volume 10283 Folio 336 as Lots 1 and 2 on Title Plan 102512R. The land is burdened by a 1.22m wide easement that runs along its southern edge.

Planning Controls

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

Zone

Clause 31.01 – Residential 1 ZonePursuant to Clause 32.01-3, a planning permit is required to construct or extend a dwelling on a lot of less than 500sqm. Given the site area is greater than 500sqm, a permit is not required under the Zone.

Overlay(s)

Clause 43.01 – Heritage OverlayPursuant to Clause 43.01-1, a planning permit is required to demolish or remove a building, to construct a building or construct or carry out works.

Relevant Planning Policies

The following provisions of the Scheme are relevant to the assessment of this proposal:

Clause 15.03 HeritageClause 21.06 Reference Document (Heritage Guidelines & Heritage Overlay Citations)Clause 22.04 Heritage PolicyClause 43.01 Heritage OverlayClause 65 Decision Guidelines

Advertising

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

The site is located in East Ward and objections from 6 different properties have been received. Issues raised in the objections include:

Visual bulk Tree removal Loss of views Overlooking Overshadowing

Page 29


Light/noise pollution Neighbourhood character concerns Heritage concerns Loss of birdlife

A Consultative Meeting was held on 16 April 2013. The meeting was attended by Councillors Davie, McMorrow and Stubbs, representatives of the applicant, objectors and a Council planning officer.

At this meeting the permit applicant stated that they would look into the provision of a setback to the ground floor eastern boundary wall to allow for landscaping (and thereby the reduction in visual bulk). However, following a review of this aspect the Applicant has stated that they are not willing to do so, mainly because it already complies with ResCode (noting that this provision is not applicable in this instance).

Referrals

Heritage (original (advertised) application)

The current proposal raises only minor heritage issues. Some original fabric to the rear of the building and visible in the MMBW plan of 1908

building would be lost. This is incorrectly described as ‘an addition’ in the applicant’s planning report. This notwithstanding, fabric in this area contributes in a reasonably modest way to the character and significance of the building and its demolition can be supported.

The only issue in terms of demolition relates to an original bay window to the southern elevation. This would be demolished and replaced with a secondary entry.

While we might support the loss of a window to the sideage of a lesser graded building it cannot be supported on this occasion. The window forms a part of the original architectural design and contributes to the important garden elevation of the building. It is visible from the street by way of the wide view corridor along the drive way and adds to the character, integrity and significance of the dwelling.

The greater part of the proposed works comprises the construction of a new studio and garage arrangement to the southeast of the retained dwelling. These works adopt a mock historical demeanor reproducing details from the façade of the early building. This approach is generally discouraged. However, on this occasion, the outcome is offset by the substantial setback from the street to the addition and the presentation of the garage/studio as a separate volume. While a less literal reproduction of detailing found on the original dwelling is preferred, the addition can be supported on this occasion in its current form.

Heritage (Revised – provided 25 June 2013)

As discussed, I have reviewed plans relating to this property dated 27 April 2011, 21 November 2012 and 21 February 2013. I have had regard to the various proposals to alter the projecting bay window along the southern elevation of the building.

27 April 2011 (Application No 300/11) A permit was issued in August 2011 allowing the existing window to be replaced with a new

door and sidelights. A small amount of brick work was to be removed to accommodate these works.

21 November 2012 (Application No 870/12) A second permit was sought in 2012. Along with other works, this application sought the

complete demolition of the projecting bay window and its rebuilding to a larger footprint. My response at that time noted,

Page 30


The only issue, in terms of demolition, relates to an original bay window to the southern elevation. This would be demolished and replaced with a secondary entry. While we might support the loss of a window to the sideage of a lesser graded building it cannot be supported on this occasion.

21 February 2013 The applicant has provided revised plans. The full demolition of the projecting bay noted above

is no longer proposed. The new design still proposes changes to the joinery and brickwork in the projecting bay. However, unlike the arrangement approved in response to the 27 April 2011 drawings, original sidelights would be retained and a less intrusive outcome generally would be achieved.

The current proposal would produce a better outcome from a heritage point of view than that approved under the earlier permit.

Parks

Three significant trees are located along the southern boundary of the property. The trees are a Lophostemon confertus (Queensland Brushbox), a Platanus x acerifolia (London Plane), and a Corymbia maculata (Spotted Gum).

Council would agree to the Spotted Gum removal subject to a landscape plan being submitted, which shows trees with a mature height of 10-12m included in the planting schedule.

A juvenile Quercus robur (English Oak) street tree is proposed to be removed to facilitate the construction of a vehicle crossover. This will be carried out by Council after receiving a removal and replacement fee of $550.00 from the applicant.

A Tree Management Plan must be submitted to manage the retained trees.

KEY ISSUES

Given the only trigger for the planning permit is the Heritage Overlay, the key issues are considered to be whether the proposed demolition and subsequent buildings and works are appropriate in light of the significance of the heritage place and precinct.

In considering the impact the proposal will have on the heritage significance of the street, it is recognised that the dwelling that occupies the site is A2 graded. Dwellings of this grade are considered to be of regional or metropolitan significance, and stand out as important milestones in the architectural development of the metropolis.

Clause 22.04 – Heritage Policy of The Stonnington Planning Scheme seeks to ensure that additions, alterations and replacement buildings are sympathetic to the heritage area and / or surrounds. The proposal’s compliance with this objective will be explored through an assessment of the proposed demolition and subsequent works.

Proposed Demolition

In regards to demolition, Council’s Heritage Guidelines state that partial demolition/removal of a graded property may be approved when the section of the building to be demolished is not visible from the street. In this instance, it is proposed to demolish the rear portion of the ground floor of the existing dwelling featuring the garden room, bathroom, store and laundry, and a minor amount of the rear of the first floor. These rooms are setback approximately 15 metres from the front of the dwelling, and approximately 34 metres from front property boundary.

Page 31


Due to the screening provided by the remaining dwelling, the substantial setbacks from the street, and the screening provided by the fences and vegetation on site, it is considered that the portion of dwelling to be demolished would contribute in a negligible manner to the heritage significance of the dwelling as perceived from Finch Street. It is noted that Council has no control over internal demolition.

It is also proposed to demolish a portion of the dining room projecting bay window located along the southern side of the facade. Whilst Council’s Heritage Advisor has raised concerns regarding this aspect of the proposal, it is noted that this window is setback approximately 12 metres from the front of the dwelling along its southern frontage. In addition, it is proposed to retain the original walls that frame the bay window.

Lastly, demolition of this portion of the dwelling has been supported by Council on two separate occasions (Planning Permits 300/11 and 870/06). The current proposal is easily the most sympathetic alteration to the bay window.

For these reasons this component of the application is considered to be appropriate.

Other proposed demolition, such as the removal of the shed, path/driveway and the recessed gate/fence element will not adversely affect the heritage precinct.

Proposed Works

Due to the size of the subject site and the existing dwelling, it must be noted that the site has the capacity to accommodate a generous extension without degrading the significance of the heritage place.

The proposed addition will extend the existing dwelling towards the eastern and southern property boundaries. Included within the extension at ground floor will be an open living, kitchen and family area, a walk in pantry, a multi-purpose room, powder room and a five car garage. At first floor (hidden within an attic storey) the extension features a studio and associated amenities. The proposed extension will be largely located to the rear of the existing dwelling, and is designed in a mock-historical manner. Other elements, such as the carport, will be setback approximately 14 metres from the front of the dwelling, and approximately 32 metres from the front site boundary. Due to the large setbacks, the location/scale of the front and side fences and the onsite vegetation, views to the southern wing of the extension will be largely obstructed. Whilst visible from Finch Street, the proposed extension will be identifiable as a separate built volume from the original dwelling, an outcome encouraged by Council’s Heritage Guidelines.

The proposal seeks to relocate the crossover and fence gate to a location near the southern allotment boundary. Given the proposal does not seek to introduce a new crossing, this is not considered unreasonable. Further, the front fence and gate will be repaired/installed with materials that match those of the existing fence in design and scale.

Other proposed works, such as the installation of the swimming pool to the north of the dwelling, the path/driveway and the installation of the rainwater tank will not impact the heritage precinct.

For these reasons, the extension will not adversely impact the manner in which the A2 graded dwelling presents to the street, thus preserving its significance.

It is noted that the construction of the boundary wall associated with the garage will require the demolition of a portion of the 1.8 metre high brick wall currently developed along the eastern property boundary. This demolition is not illustrated on the proposed demolition plans that form part of this application.

Page 32


To rectify this, the applicant has consented to planning permit condition (should a permit issue) requiring the submission of a revised demolition plan illustrating the demolition of a portion of this fence to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Impact to Trees / Landscaping

The proposal involves the relocation of a street tree (an English Oak) to allow for the installation of the new crossover, and the removal of mature vegetation to allow for the proposed extension. Council’s Parks department identified three significant trees within proximity of the proposed works including a Queensland Bushbox, a Spotted Gum and a London Plane. It is proposed to remove one of these trees, the Spotted Gum.

Council’s Parks Department has consented to the removal of the Spotted Gum subject to two replacement mature trees (to the satisfaction of Council in terms of species/planting location) being planted. This is considered to be a positive outcome as it will result in a net increase of mature vegetation on site. In accordance with the Parks advice provided, a number of conditions will be included on the planning permit (should one issue) to offset the vegetation removal, and to allow the relocation of the English Oak street tree and to manage the significant trees that are being retained.

Water Sensitive Urban Design

The proposal includes an underground water tank to be installed to the north west of the existing dwelling. A formal Water Sensitive Urban Design Response will be sought as a condition of permit (should one issue) to ensure the proposal’s compliance with Council’s draft Water Sensitive Urban Design policy.

Objections

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

Amenity based concerns are not addressed in this report as the assessment is limited to heritage matters only.

Light/noise pollution is expected to be within the normal realms of a dwelling and is generally not a valid planning consideration. It is noted that there are EPA Regulations that occupants of the dwelling will need to comply with.

Loss of wildlife due to development is not a valid planning consideration given the lack of any statutory control affecting the land.

The loss of views/outlooks is not a valid planning consideration given the application is ‘Heritage only’.

Human Rights Consideration

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

Page 33


CONCLUSION

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

The proposed demolition will not impact the heritage values of the site and setting unreasonably.

The location, bulk, form and appearance of the proposed extension will not adversely affect the significance of the heritage place or precinct.

RECOMMENDATION

That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 870/12 for the land located at 92 Finch Street, Malvern East be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for part demolition and buildings and works to a dwelling on a lot in a Heritage Overlay subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the commencement of the development three (3) copies of plans drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with the revised plans Council dated 25 February 2013 but modified to show:

a) Demolition of a portion of the 1.8 metre high rear fence to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

b) Any changes required by Condition 6.c) Any changes required by Condition 9.

2. The development must be in accordance with the endorsed plans unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority.

3. Prior to the commencement of development, a landscape plan to be prepared by a landscape architect or suitably qualified or experienced landscape designer, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the landscape plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The landscape plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The landscape plan must show:

a) A survey (including botanical names) of all existing vegetation to be retained and/or removed

b) Buildings and trees (including botanical names) on neighbouring properties within three metres of the boundary

c) Details of surface finishes of pathways and driveways.d) A planting schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers,

including botanical names, common names, pot sizes, sizes at maturity, and quantities of each plant

e) Landscaping and planting within all open areas of the site.f) Replacement planting featuring 2 canopy trees (minimum 3-4 metres tall

when planted and a mature height of 10-12 metres) located to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Page 34


4. Before the occupation of the development, the landscaping works as shown on the landscape plan must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Landscaping must then be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced.

5. All existing vegetation shown on the endorsed plans to be retained must be suitably and clearly identified before any development (including demolition and excavation) starts on the site and that vegetation must not be removed, destroyed or lopped without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

6. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a tree management plan prepared by a suitably qualified arborist must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the tree management plan will form part of this permit and all works must be done in accordance with the tree management plan.

The tree management plan must detail measures to protect and ensure the viability of the mature Lophostemon confertus (Queensland Brushbox) and the Platanus x acerifolia (London Plane) located to the south of the existing dwelling.

Without limiting the generality of the tree management plan it must have at least three sections as follows:

a) Pre-construction – details to include a tree protection zone, height barrier around the tree protection zone, amount and type of mulch to be placed above the tree protection zone and method of cutting any roots or branches which extend beyond the tree protection zone.

b) During-construction – details to include watering regime during construction and method of protection of exposed roots.

c) Post-construction – details to include watering regime and time of final inspection when barrier can be removed and protection works and regime can cease.

Pre-construction works and any root cutting must be inspected and approved by the Parks Unit. Removal of protection works and cessation of the tree management plan must be authorised by the Parks Unit.

7. No vehicular or pedestrian access, trenching or soil excavation is to occur within the Tree Protection Zone without the written consent of the Responsible Authority. No storage or dumping of tools, equipment or waste is to occur within the Tree Protection Zone.

8. All costs for the removal and the replacement of the street tree ($550) are to be borne by the permit holder and paid prior to the commencement of works associated with the installation of the crossover. All works relating to the removal of the street tree will be undertaken by Council.

9. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, the applicant must provide a Water Sensitive Urban Design Response addressing the Application Requirements of the draft Stormwater Management (Water Sensitive Urban Design) Policy to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Page 35


10. The project must incorporate the Water Sensitive Urban Design initiatives detailed in the endorsed site plan and/or stormwater management report.

11. Prior to occupation of the building or commencement of use, any existing vehicular crossing made redundant by the building and works hereby permitted must be broken out and re-instated as standard footpath and kerb and channel at the permit holders cost to the approval and satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

12. The crossover must be constructed to Council’s Standard Vehicle Crossover Guidelines unless otherwise approved by the Responsible Authority.

13. 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.

The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or within three months afterwards.

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.

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

This permit application was not assessed against the provisions of Clause 54 – One Dwelling on a Lot (ResCode) of the Stonnington Planning Scheme. As such, it is the responsibility of the applicant/owner to appoint a Registered Building Surveyor to determine compliance of the endorsed plans associated with the issue of this Planning Permit against Part 4 of the Building Regulations 2006. Non-compliance with any Regulation will require dispensation from Council’s Building Control Services Department.

Nothing in this permit hereby issued shall be construed to allow the removal of, damage to or pruning of a significant tree (including the roots) without the further written approval of Council.“Significant tree” means a tree:

a) with a trunk circumference of 180 centimetres or greater measured at its base; or b) with a trunk circumference of 140 centimetres or greater measured at 1.5 metres

above its base; orc) listed on the Significant Tree Register.

Page 36


Please contact the Council Arborists on 8290 1333 to ascertain if permission is required for tree removal or pruning or for further information and protection of trees during construction works.

The crossover must be constructed to Council’s Standard Vehicle Crossover Guidelines unless otherwise approved by the Responsible Authority.

Attachments - Locality Plans, Site Plan, Floor Plans, Elevations, Objector Map

Page 37


2. PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C167 – CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING PANEL AND ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT

Acting Manager: Susan PriceExecutive Manager: Karen Watson

PURPOSE

The purpose of the report is for Council to consider the recommendations of the Planning Panel on Amendment C167 – Hornby and McIlwrick Streets Heritage Precinct and consider adopting the amendment with or without changes.

BACKGROUND

This Amendment is part of the ongoing implementation of Council’s Heritage Strategy adopted in 2006. The Strategy and implementation plan provides Council with a framework for a comprehensive and coordinated review of the existing heritage places and the assessment of new places. A review of existing heritage precincts and citations is progressively taking place.

Council commissioned John Statham Urban Conservation to complete a review of the existing Hornby & McIlwrick Streets Precinct (HO138). A review of historical themes and significant heritage places within the area was completed and then refined, followed by the preparation of the revised heritage citation for this precinct.

Exhibition

# Amendment C167 was placed on public exhibition between 15 November and 17 December 2012 (refer Attachment 1). A full copy of the proposed Amendment C167 documents and heritage citations were available for viewing at the Prahran Town Hall and on Council's and on the Department of Planning and Community Development’s website. A notice of the preparation of the amendment appeared in the Stonnington Leader and the Government Gazette on 13 November and 15 November 2012 respectively. A letter was also sent to the affected owners and occupiers, prescribed authorities and public authorities on 9 November 2012 which included the offer of one-on-one meetings.

As a result of exhibition, one non-objecting and three objecting submissions were received. Council reviewed all submissions and after further investigation by Council’s Heritage Advisor a number of changes were recommended. These changes included:

The removal of properties at 6/8 and 2/4 McIllwrick Street, Windsor from the area proposed to be included in the extended HO138.

Minor additions and alterations to the heritage citation relating to specific heritage elements within the precinct.

# Council adopted this position and the revised heritage citation for Panel at its meeting on 4 February 2013. Refer to Attachment 2 for a map of presenting as adopted for Panel.

Additionally, Council received a letter from the National Trust of Australia (Victoria) dated 26 April 3013 advising that a tree within the grounds of the Presentation College, Windsor has been classified by the National Trust. The National Trust recommends that the tree be protected by the Overlay controls of the Planning Scheme such as the Environmental Significance Overlay of the Vegetation Protection Overlay.

Page 38


Attached to the letter was a copy of the Classification Report, including a Statement of Significance, for the Moreton Bay Fig tree within the Presentation College grounds prepared by the National Trust.

Panel

A Directions Hearing was held on 18 April 2013, at this time Council and one other submitter had made requests to be heard at a Panel hearing. Following the Directions Hearing this submitter withdrew their request to be heard at the Panel hearing and made a subsequent written submission to the Panel. As Council was the only party wishing to he heard the Panel directed that the matter would be considered ‘on the papers’ and a Panel hearing was not held. The Panel report has been prepared on the basis of the submissions and other background material supplied by Council.

# The Panel report was received by Council on 21 May 2013 (refer Attachment 3). Under the provisions of section 26 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, Council has 28 days from its receipt to release the Panel report to the public. On 3 June 2013, Stonnington's website was updated to include the Panel report. Letters were sent to all submitters to the amendment on 3 June 2013, advising them of the availability of the Panel report on Council's website.

DISCUSSION

Council must now formally consider the Panel's recommendations before deciding how to proceed with the Amendment. The Panel report recommends approval of the amendment as exhibited subject to minor changes to the heritage citation

The Panel Report, recommends that the Amendment be adopted as exhibited subject to the following recommendations:

(a) The boundaries of HO138 should remain as 13 ‐ 25 Elm Place (east side); 12 ‐ 22 Elm Place (west side); 9 ‐ 29 McIlwrick Street (north side) and 2 ‐ 24A McIlwrick Street (south side).

(b) The incorporation of minor amendments and corrections included in the Revised Citation adopted by Stonnington City Council at its meeting on 4 February 2013.

(c) That reference to inter‐war industrial development and the close association of home and work in the precinct be included in the Statement of Significance under Why is it Significant?

The recommended changes to the HO boundary are consistent with the Heritage Overlay boundary as exhibited. The recommended boundary captures all places of heritage significance as originally proposed.

Incorporation of minor amendments and corrections, and the inclusions of the reference to ‘inter-war industrial development’ is supported.

# Refer to a copy of the Heritage citation updated as per Panel’s recommendations at Attachment 4.

Page 39


In its report, the Panel addressed the suggestion made by Submitter 2 that the significant trees in the Presentation College grounds be protected by the application of tree controls to the HO area. The Panel stated its view was that the protection of trees and landscaping would best take place as an outcome of more comprehensive studies. The assessment of the Moreton Bay Fig tree has been undertaken by the National Trust and the Classification report prepared.

Due to its size, the subject tree is already protected under Council’s Local Law ‘Protection of Trees’, which requires a permit to lop or prune a significant tree. The Local Law does not protect the tree from being adversely affected by buildings or works undertaken in the surrounding area. As such it is considered appropriate that the tree be included as part of any future studies of significant trees.

Adoption of Amendment

Ministerial Direction 15 sets out timeframes for completing steps in the planning scheme amendment process. The Ministerial Direction states Council should make a decision to abandon an amendment under section 28 or adopt an amendment under section 29 of the Planning and Environment Act within 40 business days of the date it receives the Panel’s Report. To comply with this Ministerial Direction Council should make a decision on Amendment C167 by 22 July 2013 or seek an exemption from the Minister from the need to comply with the timeframe requirement of Ministerial Direction 15.

It is recommended that Council adopt Amendment C167 with the changes as recommended by the Panel

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The proposed Amendment C167 is consistent with the following Council Plan (2009-2013) strategy:

“Preserve Stonnington’s heritage architecture and balance its existing character with complimentary and sustainable development.”

It is also consistent with Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement Clause 21.02-3 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme which seeks to:

“Identify, assess and protect places with architectural, cultural or historical significance.”

FINANCIAL AND RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS

The proposal was included in the budget of Council's Strategic Planning Unit for 2012/2013.

LEGAL ADVICE AND IMPLICATIONS

All affected parties have been given the opportunity to make submissions on Amendment C167 and be heard by a Planning Panel.

Oct 2012 Nov / Dec 2012 April 2013 Jun 2013 Aug 2013Authorisation Exhibition Panel Adoption Approval

CONCLUSION

Page 40


C167 proposed a review and extension of the Hornby and McIlwrick Streets Heritage Precinct. The Panel report on Amendment C167 recommends adoption of the Amendment as exhibited subject to a number of minor changes to the heritage citation. It is considered that Council accept the Panel’s recommended changes and adopt the Amendment as exhibited with these minor changes. The revised heritage citation (HO138) for adoption is attached (Attachment 4)

HUMAN RIGHTS CONSIDERATION

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

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Notes the release of the report of the Planning Panel which recommends adoption of Amendment C167 – Hornby and McIlwrick Streets Heritage Precinct

2. On considering the Panel report, adopts Amendment C167 to the Stonnington Planning Scheme and the revised Heritage citation (HO138) as attached.

3. Submits the adopted Amendment C167 documents to the Minister for Planning for approval, in accordance with Section 31(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

4. Advises all submitters of Council’s decision in relation to the proposed Amendment C167.

Page 41


3. PLANNING ZONE REFORMS – IMPLEMENTATION AND CONSULTATION

Acting Manager: Susan PriceExecutive Manager: Karen Watson

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to update Council on the next steps in the process of consulting on and implementing the residential planning zone reforms.

BACKGROUND

State Government Planning Zone Reforms

In July 2012, the Minister for Planning released proposed zone reforms representing significant changes to the Victorian Planning System. Public comment was sought by the Minister on the reformed zones by 28 September 2012. During this time Council adopted a submission in response to the release of those reformed zones. The Minister for Planning appointed an Advisory Committee (the Committee) to consider all submissions to the proposed zones.

The Committee provided a progress report to the Minister for Planning on the review of the proposed residential zones on 14 December 2012 and this was followed by a progress report on the commercial and industrial zones on 28 February 2013. The final residential zones were released on 6 March 2013 and the final commercial and industrial zones were released on 6 May 2013.

Residential Zones

From July 2013 Council has 12 months to apply the new residential zones across the Municipality. If, after this period a Council chooses not to implement the new residential zones to residential land within their municipality, the General Residential Zone will be applied to all residential land. A Council Report on the implications of the new residential zones was considered on 8 April 2013.

Commercial, Industrial and Mixed Use Zones

From July 2013, land currently zoned Business 1, Business 2 and Business 5 will automatically change to the new Commercial 1 Zone and changes will be made to the existing mixed use and industrial zones. Councillors were updated on the implications of applying the new Commercial 1 Zone, amended Mixed Use Zone and amended Industrial Zone within the Municipality on 11 June 2013. Owners and occupiers within the Business 1, 2 and 5, Industrial 3 and Mixed Use Zones will be advised of the changes via a mail out.

Page 42


Revised Local Planning Policy Framework including Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) - Amendment C161

Amendment C161 ‘New Local Planning Policy Framework (including MSS)’ has been submitted to the Minister for Planning for approval. The Minister for Planning has exempted himself from the forty day approval timeframe prescribed in Ministerial Direction 15. A decision is now not expected until after 1 July 2013. The purpose of the amendment was to implement the recommendations of Council’s Planning Scheme Review 2010 and provided a more comprehensive MSS with an improved framework for managing future land use change and development within Stonnington.

# The revised MSS has put in place a strategy to ensure the majority of new housing development is directed to locations with the highest level of accessibility to both activity centres and the Principal Public Transport Network (PPTN) within the Stonnington Municipality. The 2010 Planning Scheme Review identified that direct implementation of the state policy criteria (Melbourne 2030) which allowed for higher density development within any area 400 metres from the PPTN was not considered appropriate to the City of Stonnington as this resulted in the majority of the Municipality being identified for high density. The new Strategic Framework Plan (Attachment 1) which has been revised in accordance with DPCD recommendations, shows a conceptual representation of the vision for Stonnington.

The review recommended a more refined approach and as such the revised MSS provides the basis to identify more specific locations for medium and higher density development. For principal and major activity centres these areas are defined in Structure Plans. For small neighbourhood centres, the MSS defines these areas as land in, beside or opposite the neighbourhood centre.

Metropolitan Planning Strategy

The State Government is preparing a new Metropolitan Planning Strategy for Melbourne which will set the broader framework for the new planning zones. The draft Metropolitan Planning Strategy is expected to be released in July this year.

Neighbourhood Character Policy (Amendment C175)

Authorisation from the Planning Minister is currently being sought on the preparation of Amendment C175 to introduce a new neighbourhood character area local planning policy. The purpose of the project is to identify and introduce preferred neighbourhood character statements and design guidelines into the Planning Scheme. Once the neighbourhood character areas are finalised, these design guidelines may be able to be translated into the new schedules to the residential zones.

DISCUSSION

Consultation process

Given the potential implications regarding the introduction of the new residential zones, it is proposed to undertake consultation with the Community in a staged approach. This is suggested as follows: Stage 1 : Release of information on new zones Stage 2 : Initial consultation (including draft maps applying Residential Growth Zone,

General Residential Zone and Neighbourhood Character Areas as identified in Amendment C175)

Page 43


Stage 3 : Option for Ministerial Amendment to apply the Residential Growth Zone and General Residential Zone

Stage 4 : Application of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone Stage 5 : Potential future work

Stage 1 – Release of information on new zones

# As outlined above, the amended MSS housing strategy and criteria will be used to define the most appropriate areas to apply the new residential zones. For the purposes of applying the Residential Growth Zone in particular, these criteria have been scruitinised and clarified where their application was not clear. The full criteria are outlined in Attachment 2.

To ensure the community will have reasonable time to understand the criteria that will be used to apply the new residential zones and to prepare for the introduction of the maps (see Stage 2), it is proposed to disseminate the criteria to the community for information purposes only. Before this occurs, officers will distil the criteria as outlined in Attachment 2 into key messages for the community. This information will then be disseminated via Residents Groups, a media release and an advertorial in the Stonnington Leader. The community will also be informed of the timeframe for initial consultation at this time.

Stage 2 – Initial Consultation including draft map of municipality

Following the release of the amended MSS housing strategy and criteria, officers have applied these principles to residential areas across the Municipality. The purpose of the new Residential Growth Zone is to enable new housing growth and diversity in appropriate locations. The SPPF outlines that these appropriate locations consist of areas close to activity centres, employment corridors and at other sites that offer good access to services and transport. As such, the amended MSS directs the majority of new housing development to locations with the highest level of accessibility to both an activity centre and the principal public transport network (PPTN).

The purpose of the new General Residential Zone aligns with the amended MSS criteria in relation to incremental change areas. These are the medium density residential areas outside the Heritage and Neighbourhood Character Overlays and contain low rise character with lots that are capable of accommodating multi-unit development (2-3 storeys). The General Residential Zone encourages development that respects the neighbourhood character of the area, provides a diversity of housing types and moderate housing growth in appropriate locations, and allows a limited range of non-residential uses such as recreational facilities to serve the local community in appropriate locations. The General Residential Zone retains a discretionary height limit of nine metres for residential development.

# A draft map of the municipality indicating the location of the Residential Growth Zone and the General Residential Zone areas will be released for initial community consultation and the community will be able to comment via a variety of methods. The Consultation Plan is attached as Attachment 3.

It will be clear during this initial consultation that the application of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone will be considered at a later date following consultation of Amendment C175 (Neighbourhood Character Policy). This is to ensure that the purpose of the zone can be achieved. The Neighbourhood Residential Zone is considered to be more restrictive than the General Residential Zone and relies upon identification of areas of clear recognised neighbourhood character.

Page 44


Through this initial consultation all areas will need to be considered on a case by case basis to ensure that the future rezoning represents the most common sense approach.

Officers will bring a report to Council following the close of the initial consultation period. The report will consider the initial consultation responses and provide options for the Planning Scheme Amendment.

Stage 3 – Amendment

Following the initial consultation outlined in Stage 2, there is an option to undertake a Ministerial Amendment to apply the Residential Growth Zone and General Residential Zone. The amendment would be informed by the initial consultation period in Stage 2 and ensure there is a level of certainty in place for the community more quickly. A Ministerial Amendment does not require notification of owners and occupiers as in the normal amendment process. This option will be made clear in the Stage 2 consultation process.

Stage 4 – Application of Neighbourhood Residential Zone

As outlined above, the Neighbourhood Residential Zone is considered to be a more restrictive zone than the General Residential Zone. The Neighbourhood Residential Zone allows for Councils to tailor the zone to suit the character of the neighbourhood by allowing Councils to specify limits within a schedule to the zone. These limits relate to height, minimum lot size, the planning permit threshold to construct or extend one dwelling on a lot, the maximum number of dwellings allowable on a lot, and key residential siting and design requirements which can be varied for different neighbourhoods. Should Council not specify any limits within the zone schedule, the maximum building height for a dwelling or residential must not exceed 8 metres, the number of dwellings on a lot must not exceed two and a planning permit is required to construct or extend a dwelling on a lot less than 300sqm.

It is important that the application of this zone is enforced with a robust understanding of its context and as such it is considered appropriate to allow for consideration of a neighbourhood character area local planning policy in the first instance. Application of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone can then be considered in this context and consultation can be undertaken to inform its application.

Stage 5 – Potential Future Work

The programme of development and implementation of Structure Plans for selected centres and railway stations (including surrounds) will continue in order to guide the future use and development of these areas.

Next Steps

Stage 1 (release of information) and 2 (initial consultation) in the consultation process will progress in accordance with the Consultation Plan. Following the initial consultation stage, officers will collate the feedback and report back to Council.

Page 45


POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Council has commissioned consultants to conduct a study of all Stonnington’s activity centres to guide the development of a future Activity Centre Strategy. The Strategy will help to inform the hierarchy, role and preferred land use and zoning of retail and activity centres. The Activity Centre Review work will be important in informing future Structure Plans particularly in defining the preferred mix of uses and role of each centre. Hawksburn and High Street/Glenferrie Road Activity Centres are scheduled to commence in 2013/14.

As outlined above, the draft Metropolitan Planning Strategy is to be released for consultation in July this year. A future report will be brought to Council to consider the draft Strategy and prepare a submission to State Government.


Initial consultation will incur costs associated with advertising and materials. Additional resources have been engaged to assist in the implementation of the Residential Zones in the interim. These are to be covered under the Strategic Planning Operating Budget.


None required at this stage.

CONCLUSION

Council will have 12 months from July 2013 to implement the new residential zones. It is considered the approach to consultation as outlined in this report and the Consultation Plan will ensure the community has time to consider the implications of the new residential zones and provide a greater degree of certainty.



RECOMMENDATION

That Council endorse the consultation approach as outlined in this Report.

Page 46


4. CONFIRMATION OF DELEGATIONS OF THE INNER MELBOURNE ACTION PLAN (IMAP) IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE

Author: Elissa McElroy, IMAP Executive OfficerExecutive Manager: Karen Watson, Sustainable Future

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to confirm the Governance structure for Council’s participation in IMAP (Making Melbourne More Liveable - the Inner Melbourne Action Plan (IMAP)).

BACKGROUND

The Inner Melbourne Action Plan contains 11 Strategies and 57 Actions. Approved in 2006, it is now in its seventh year of the implementation program.

IMAP is a unique partnership between the Cities of Melbourne, Stonnington, Yarra and Port Phillip with four Section 86 Special Committees meeting as one, bound by identical Council Delegations and Terms of Reference; and with formal MoUs in place for Procurement protocols and joint Intellectual Property matters. Its primary function is to oversee the implementation of Actions through cross council teams and associated partners.

The IMAP Committee has included the Maribyrnong City Council as an Associate Member since August 2011 as its potential for development, increased growth and high density on the western boundary of the IMAP area identifies it as essentially facing similar issues to the Inner Melbourne councils. The Maribyrnong City Council has indicated their interest in becoming full members of IMAP and, to date, have contributed some funding and staff time towards projects of interest i.e. tourism (Strategy 11), signage, and transport projects.

The Inner Melbourne Action Plan Implementation Committee has recommended the inclusion of the Maribyrnong City Council as a full committee member. The four founding IMAP Councils (the Cities of Melbourne, Yarra, Stonnington and Port Phillip) in March 2013 passed resolutions to change the Terms of Reference of their IMAP Special Committees to include “new members” and resolved to invite the Maribyrnong City Council to become a partner Council in the Inner Melbourne Action Plan from July 2013 and to contribute to IMAP on an equal basis.

At its meeting on the 19 March 2013, the Maribyrnong City Council resolved that it:

a. Supports, in-principle, Maribyrnong City Council becoming a full member of the Inner Melbourne Action Plan.

b. Authorises the Chief Executive Officer to take further steps to investigate the opportunities and benefits of Maribyrnong City Council becoming a full member of Inner Melbourne Action Plan.

c. Notes that subsequent Council approval will be sought prior to Maribyrnong City Council formalising full membership of the Inner Melbourne Action Plan.

The IMAP Executive Officer has now written to the Chief Executive Officer, Maribyrnong City Council extending an invitation to Maribyrnong City Council to become a full member of IMAP under the same terms and conditions as are presented in this report.

Page 47


DISCUSSION

Under Section 86 (6) of the Local Government Act,” the Council must review any delegations to a special committee in force under this section within the period of 12 months after a general election”.

This renewal of delegations now includes the City of Maribyrnong as a full member of the IMAP partnership. The City of Stonnington must:

reaffirm the establishment and funding of the IMAP Implementation Committee as a special committee of Council with the same Terms of Reference and Delegations as exists for the five member councils;

reaffirm Membership of the Council’s Special Committee;

confirm Delegations for the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer to be the Council’s representatives on all 5 special committees; and

exempt all members of the special committee who are not councillors and officers of the City of Stonnington Council from being required to submit a primary return or an ordinary return under section 81(2A)and (2B) of the Local Government Act. (This provision is to reduce duplication and meet requirements of audit).

All five Councils will adopt identical, revised Delegations and Terms of Reference for all five Inner Melbourne Action Plan Special Committees for a further term to establish this extended partnership.

# The Instrument of Delegation and Schedule is appended (refer Attachment 1).

# The Terms of Reference of the IMAP Committee is also appended (refer Attachment 2).

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The IMAP Plan includes a number of projects which directly address issues incorporated in the Council Plan.


The funding for operation of the IMAP Committee in the 2013/14 financial year will be met by the five member Councils as outlined in the attached Terms of Reference document.


The Instrument of Delegation is structured in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1989.

Page 48


CONCLUSION

That Council affirm the establishment of the IMAP Special Committee and adopt the Instrument of Delegation and Terms of Reference documents as attached.


There are no human rights implications with the proposal.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Revokes the current Instrument of Delegation to the Inner Melbourne Action Plan Implementation Committee authorised by a resolution of Council on 22 June 2009, effective immediately following the passing of this resolution by Council;

2. Reaffirms the establishment of a Special Committee called the Inner Melbourne Action Plan Implementation Committee (“Special Committee”), pursuant to section 86 of the Local Government Act 1989 (“the Act”);

3. By Instrument of Delegation pursuant to section 86 of the Act, delegates to the Special Committee, the powers, duties and functions relevant to the Inner Melbourne Action Plan Implementation Committee governance arrangements in accordance with the Instrument of Delegation and Schedule in Attachment 1;

4. Authorises the Instrument of Delegation to be signed and sealed;

5. Authorises the Instrument of Delegation to come into force immediately once the common seal of Council is affixed to the Instrument, and to remain in force until Council determines to vary or revoke it.

6. Adopts the Terms of Reference for the Special Committee as detailed in Attachment 2;

Page 49


7. Appoints as members of the Special Committee the persons from time to time holding the positions of:

Chairman of the City of Melbourne Future Melbourne (Planning) Committee

Mayor, City of Port Phillip

Mayor, City of Stonnington

Mayor, City of Yarra

Mayor, Maribyrnong City Council

Director City Planning & Infrastructure, City of Melbourne

Chief Executive Officer, City of Port Phillip

Chief Executive Officer, City of Stonnington

Chief Executive Officer, City of Yarra

Chief Executive Officer, Maribyrnong City Council;

8. Approves the appointment of the Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer to the Inner Melbourne Action Plan Implementation Committees of the:

City of Melbourne

City of Port Phillip

City of Yarra

Maribyrnong City Council; and

9. Pursuant to section 81(2A) and (2B) of the Local Government Act 1989, resolves to exempt the non City of Stonnington council members of Council’s Inner Melbourne Action Plan Implementation Committee from being required to submit a primary or an ordinary return.

Page 50


5. DRAFT STONNINGTON CAR SHARE POLICY

Manager: Ian McLauchlanGeneral Manager: Simon ThomasAuthor: Tom Haysom

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s:

Endorsement of the Draft Stonnington Car Share Policy and Background report. Approval to place the Draft Stonnington Car Share Policy and Background report on

public exhibition in the form of a ‘Green Paper’ for a period of four weeks.

BACKGROUND

Car Sharing is a service that provides access to a fleet of cars for members, to rent by the hour or by the day, thus providing an alternative to personal car ownership or the need for a second car. It reduces car dependency and encourages walking, cycling and the use of public transport.

The City of Stonnington has been actively pursuing Car Sharing since 2010 when, in partnership with the City of Melbourne, it commissioned GHD to undertake research into the industry.

Council considered the recommendations of the GHD Report in October 2010 and agreed to undertake a 12 month trial of the car share scheme from Council owned and operated car parks. A single parking bay was dedicated in each the Darling Street, Princes Street, Cato and Windsor car parks.

The 2011-2012 Car Share Trial had proven to be a success, both in terms of the number of local residents and businesses it attracted and associated use of provided vehicles; as well as in terms of the level of satisfaction with the service provided by the operator and minimal operational issues, which were easily resolved. The results of the Trial were reported to Council in July 2012 which led Council to resolve to:

1. Note the results of the car share trial.

2. Support car sharing on an on-going basis, by providing two (2) spaces in each of the Darling Street, Princes Street, Cato and Windsor Council car parks, resulting in a total of eight (8) car share spaces.

3. Agree that the right to operate the eight (8) car share spaces is to be subject to an open tendering process, on the basis that a commercial return is sought for use of the spaces.

4. Approve the extension of the Car Share Trial Agreement between Flexicar and City of Stonnington for the duration of the tendering process.

5. Approve the development of a Stonnington Car Share Policy.

Page 51


This report deals with Council resolution relating to the development of the Car Share Policy. The details of the open tender for the right to operate two (2) spaces in each of the Darling Street, Princes Street, Cato and Windsor Council car parks, will be the subject of a separate Council report.

Following Council’s resolution Council Officers appointed GHD consultants to develop the Policy. The following section will give a brief summary of the Car Share Policy and the background document.

DISCUSSION

The Purpose of the PolicyCar Sharing is an expanding industry offering an innovative form of transport that fulfils an important role in an integrated and sustainable transport system by filling the mobility gap for journeys that cannot be undertaken by walking, cycling and public transport. However, car parking is a finite resource, this is particularly evident in the Western end of municipality such as South Yarra and Prahran where demand is outstripping supply. This has placed pressures on both the Car Share Operators (CSO’s) and Councils in establishing an efficient service, particularly surrounding issues of the allocation of car parking spaces to CSO’s. With that in mind, the Draft

# Stonnington Car Share Policy (Attachment 1) has been designed to outline:

The Principles of Dedicating car Parking Spaces to CSOsThe Policy contains a strict set of qualifications to ensure that car parking locations are only dedicated to genuine CSO’s.

The Policy then outlines that the allocation of car parking spaces for Car Sharing use will occur through a competitive tendering process, which will be open to existing and new CSOs who meet the criteria outlined in the Policy and supplementary

# background paper (Attachment 2). This maintains Councils current position of ensuring the equitable provision of car parking, including mitigating any loss of revenue from off street Council car parks.

The Process of Identifying Potential Car Share Parking LocationsCouncil will consider dedicating car parking spaces for the exclusive use of an authorised Car Sharing vehicle where a CSO can demonstrate:

There is existing demand for Car Sharing in a specific location; There is community support for Car Sharing; and The proposed location is appropriate and meets the standard traffic

engineering requirements.

Furthermore, when determining whether to dedicate on-street car parking spaces for the exclusive use of an authorised Car Sharing vehicle a CSO must provide:

A detailed plan indicating the location of the proposed space(s) that would meet all the relevant policy and technical requirements for approval;

A photograph indicating the location of the proposed space(s); and Confirmation that the abutting property occupiers (within 10 to 15 metres of the

proposed space) have either been spoken to and have approved the proposal, or have been written to and have not provided any objection to the proposal.

Page 52


Finally, the Policy recognises the value of providing access to Car Sharing facilities within private developments as a form of sustainable transport. As such, the City of Stonington will:

Support (where appropriate) the provision of Car Sharing facilities and services as part of new residential and/or mixed use developments;

Provide parking rate reductions for new developments with Car Sharing facilities and services; and

Encourage the provision of Car Sharing facilities in existing developments where feasible, safe and upon agreement with the owner’s corporation.

The Intended Outcomes of Providing Car SharingThe benefits of car sharing are multi-layered and include economic, environmental and social gains. Beneficiaries range from the individual, a business, to the collective communities of a city. The following section presents a summary of the evidence-based benefits of car sharing:

More efficient use of car parkingIt is no longer sustainable to provide for increasing car parking demand without making significant economic, environmental and social compromises. Car Sharing enables a much more efficient use of existing parking space, allowing a single vehicle to be used frequently by a large number of individuals, households or businesses (e.g. in the City of Melbourne, there are 48 Car Sharing users for every space). Reducing demand for car parking eases the burden placed on existing on-street car parking in residential areas and activity centres.

Lowers emissionsIn general, car sharing vehicles are smaller, more fuel-efficient and have lower emissions than standard household cars. For example, many CSOs now provide electric and hybrid powered vehicles. Car Sharing can make an important contribution to healthy and liveable communities across Stonnington.

Supports local businessesCar Sharing helps local businesses to simultaneously reduce operating costs and increase revenues. Most small to medium sized businesses, which comprise the majority of businesses, suffer most from the financial burden of owning and maintaining one or a number of vehicles. They have limited capacity to invest in and maintain a dedicated fleet of vehicles. Such costs can inhibit new enterprise and slow the growth of start-ups. Car Sharing offers a solution to this problem by providing access to a vehicle when needed, without the financial burden. This means employees do not have to use private cars for business purposes, which in turn helps to reduce the impact of further traffic on the road and demand for car parking. At the same time Car Sharing also enables companies to downsize or eliminate an existing fleet of vehicles, helping to reduce the cost of doing business in Stonnington.

A further benefit of Car Sharing for local businesses is from the additional local spending from other Car Sharing users. Globally, Car Sharing users shop more locally as they are less likely to drive to other activity centres.

Reduces household expensesTransportation represents a significant cost to Australian households, with an estimated 18% of household income spent on transport costs. Car Sharing, by reducing the financial burden of buying and maintaining a private car or a second or third one, significantly reduces the proportion of income families have to spend on transport.

Page 53


Reduce congestionCar sharing has proven to reduce car use. In the review of Car Sharing in the City of Melbourne, every Car Sharing vehicle replaced almost 8 private cars, as users were able to avoid buying a car at all, forgo buying a second or third car or sell one they already owned. The end result is less cars on the road.

Policy LayoutThe Stonnington Car Share Policy is a ‘snapshot’ document which summarises the supplementary background report. This method reflects a consistent framework of Stonnington’s Transport Policies, with the umbrella policy, the Sustainable Transport Policy and subsequent policies which sit under this document such as the Walking Policy produced in the same style.

Producing policy documents in this manner allows for the simplification of lengthy policy documents into easily digestible information sources. This permits community members and other interested parties to access a quick summary of Stonnington’s Transport Policies, and if further information is required on specific areas these are contained within the background documents.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Endorsing a Stonnington Car share Policy is supported by the Council Plan, by Council Strategies and Policies, and by the Inner Melbourne Action Plan.


There are minor financial and resource implications associated with publicly exhibiting the Draft Stonnington Car Share Policy. These will include advertising and mail out costs as well as Council staff time involved in the assessment and reporting of the public response.


There are no legal implications associated with exhibiting the Draft Stonnington Car Share Policy.

The current Car Share Trial Agreement between Flexicar and the City of Stonnington has been extended, pending the conclusion and implementation of the tendering process associated with dedicating two (2) spaces in each of the Darling Street, Princes Street, Cato and Windsor Council car parks to car sharing. This is to ensure that the local residents and businesses currently using the service in South Yarra, Prahran and Windsor are able to continue to do so until Council formally awards the tender. This tender process will occur following the adoption of the Stonnington Car Share Policy. This allows CSO’s to familiarise themself with Councils requirements concerning the facilitation of a Car Sharing service within the municipality.

Page 54


CONCLUSION

The concept of Car Sharing as a sustainable transport mode is supported by all of the key Council Policies and Strategies that recognise the value of reducing private car use, minimising car parking demand and benefiting the local economy that comes with car sharing. The development of a Car Share Policy is a necessary step towards: Supporting car sharing as a sustainable transport choice.

Defining the principles of dedicating car parking spaces to car share providers.

Ensuring equitable and transparent allocation of parking facilities to CSO’s, in balance with competing parking demands.

Outlining the process of identifying potential car share parking locations.

As such, it is recommended that Council endorse the Draft Stonnington Car Share Policy and agree to having it placed on public exhibition in the form of a ‘Green Paper’ for a period of four weeks. It is recommended that this be done by issuing a Public Notice in the Stonnington Leader, as well as on Stonnington Website; at Council Service Centres and Public Libraries; that formal letters inviting comments be sent to key stakeholders, including: current car share members residing or operating a business in Stonnington, known car share operators, local business groups; and neighbouring Councils.


Providing on-going support for car sharing does not limit rights as defined by the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The Draft Stonnington Car Share Policy be endorsed.

2. The Stonnington Car Share Policy be released for public exhibition for a period of four weeks by:

a. issuing a Public Notice in the Stonnington Leaderb. placing the documents on the Stonnington Website; c. providing copies of the documents for viewing at Council Service

Centres and Public Libraries; and,d. sending formal letters inviting comments to key stakeholders,

including: current car share members residing or operating a business in Stonnington, known car share operators, local business groups; and neighbouring Councils.

3. A further report be prepared for Council consideration, following the conclusion of the above consultation.

Page 55


6. CITY OF STONNINGTON ROAD MANAGEMENT PLAN – REVIEW 2013 – FORMAL REVIEW AS REQUIRED BY ROAD MANAGEMENT ACT 2004

Author: Tze-Sian HorManager: Ian McLauchlanGeneral Manager: Simon Thomas

PURPOSE

To inform Council of the outcomes and results from the formal review of Council’s Road Management Plan 2009, as per the requirement in the Road Management Act 2004 (RMA).

To approve the revised Road Management Plan 2013 (RMP) and to adopt the # # # Register of Public Roads Policy submitted with this report as attachments.

BACKGROUND

Stonnington City Council has an established RMP under the RMA. The RMP is an infrastructure asset management plan that details the inspection frequency, defect intervention levels and the defect repair response times for all road, footpath and kerb & channel assets in the Stonnington network.

Compliance with the RMP limits Council’s public liability to legal action from claims for damages for incidents attributable to the use of these assets. A sound RMP provides a reasonable level of policy defence. This ensures Council is not liable for an act or omission, which has been undertaken in accordance with an approved plan of the municipality (provided it does not constitute a wrongful act or failure to act). The policy defence is limited to the extent that it must not be so unreasonable that no municipal council in that position acting reasonably could have made that policy.

The RMA has a number of associated regulations that impose requirements on Council. The Road Management (General) Regulations 2005, r301 states:

“A road authority that has a road management plan must conduct a review of that plan” and “conduct a review of its road management plan within the period referred to in section 125 (1) (b) of the Local Government Act 1989”. Meaning “each incoming council must review its road management plan during the same period as it is preparing its Council Plan under the Local Government Act 1989”. A Council “must prepare a Council Plan within the period of 6 months after each general election or by the next 30 June, whichever is later.”

“In conducting a review of its road management plan, a road authority must ensure that the standards in relation to, and the priorities to be given to, the inspection, maintenance and repair of the roads and classes of road to which the plan applies are appropriate.”

The RMP and Register of Public Roads have been provided as attachments along with this report. To clarify the procedures involved in delivering the RMP and

# producing a Register of Public Roads, a Register of Public Roads Policy has been developed and is provided as an attachment.

Page 56


DISCUSSION

The Purpose of the Review is to ensure that the RMP identifies the responsibilities, maintenance standards and inspection regimes implemented in order to manage Council’s road assets. The roads that Council is the responsible road authority for are identified in the Register of Public Roads, and this is a supporting document of the RMP.

The RMP review has been conducted to ensure that the document is aligned with Council’s current policies and procedures, and that the maintenance standards and intervention levels are supported in Council’s long term Resource Management Plan.

A. REVIEW PROCESS

The review process has undertaken the following steps in accordance with the RMA and subordinate regulations:

1. Initial Report to Council on the RMP reviewA report was submitted to Council on 16 February 2013, this report recommended:

The adoption of the formal review process; Confirmation that the review process began in 2013; and Delegation to the Chief Executive Officer and General Manager of City Works to

conduct the review, consider submissions and submit a written report upon the completion of the review to Council for consideration/adoption.

2. Review NoticePublic notice was given from 7 February 2013 stating and describing:

The purpose of the review; The roads and classes of road to which the RMP applies; Where a copy of the current RMP may be obtained or inspected; and That any person may make a submission on the proposed review to Council within

the period specified in the notice, being not less than 28 days after the date on which the notice is given.

A notice under this regulation was published in the Government Gazette on 7 February 2013 and in the Age and Stonnington Leader newspapers. The review has been successful with no submissions received by the close date.

3. Submissions on the RMP ReviewSubmissions by any person were allowed until 15 March 2013 as per legal advice that written submissions be called pursuant to section 223 of the Local Government Act to ensure a manageable process for the review. In this case, any person submitting a written submission would be given the right to speak to a submission at a properly convened meeting attended by at least one councillor.

No public submissions were received as of the expiration of the submissions period, 5:00pm on 15 March 2013, which was over 30 days after the RMP Review public notification date.

An internal review of the RMP has been conducted and adjustments have been made to ensure Council meets its obligations under the RMA and is acting reasonably. These changes are discussed in detail in the review section of this report. Independent review advice has also been sought from Russell Kennedy Lawyers and independent consultant Terry Alford Consulting Pty Ltd.

Page 57


4. Review completion requirementsFollowing the completion of the review, compliance with the RMA is met by:

Producing a written report summarising the findings and conclusions of the review; and

Making this report available for copying or inspection at the place where the RMP may be inspected or obtained.

Council’s RMP has been available on the website since its adoption in August 2004 and the updated RMP will be uploaded to the website at the completion of this review.

B. COMPONENTS OF THE RMP REVIEW

The components of the review are outlined below.

Code of Practice for Road Management PlansThis review has been completed in accordance with the Code of Practice for Road Management Plans.The Road Management (General) Regulations 2005, R 302 Conduct of reviews of road management plans states:“ (1) In conducting a review of its road management plan, a road authority must ensure that the standards in relation to, and the priorities to be given to, the inspection, maintenance and repair of the roads and classes of road to which the plan applies are appropriate.”The Stonnington City Council’s Road Management Plan contains schedules of intervention levels and inspection frequencies for the various road classes, and these have been evaluated in the review. The review has found improvements can be made to ensure Council meet its obligations under the RMA. This report will highlight the procedures that have been modified to achieve these improvements.

Roads and Classes of RoadsThe road and pathway network has been categorised into a Road and Pathway Hierarchy as per the schedules of the RMP and the review has found the existing classifications to meet the current requirements of the RMP.The Unconstructed Laneway classification has been reviewed to provide clarification that this classification includes laneways not constructed to Council standards.A Register of Public Roads Policy will clarify the procedures and principles of declaring and decommissioning public roads and will ensure that Council’s Register of Public Roads is kept up to date, as per the RMA requirements.

Inspection and Intervention RegimeThe RMP details schedules of intervention levels and inspection frequencies for Council’s various road classes. These levels and frequencies have been in effect since the inception of the RMP and are audited when the RMP is reviewed.To ensure due process when reviewing the service levels, consultation with relevant stakeholders has been undertaken. The intervention levels have been compared to surrounding municipalities and Stonnington was found to have similar intervention levels as its neighbouring councils. The review has determined that the current intervention levels are sustainable and allow Council to remain compliant with the RMP. The only substantive change has been to the Shopping Centres Footpath Intervention Level, RMP Appendix 2. The intervention level has been adjusted from 25 mm to 20 mm as it has been deemed that this is more appropriate for Council’s service levels in these areas which have higher pedestrian traffic and higher expected levels of service. This increase in service level can be met by the existing resource levels.

Page 58


Asset Inspection and Defects HistoryRoad assets are inspected at the specified intervals set out in the RMP and a database has been established which is used to assess trends and test the effectiveness of the intervention and maintenance levels. The RMP sets out a scheduled inspection regime for all road assets from which a database is created and used to assess trends and determine the effectiveness of intervention and maintenance levels. The review has considered service level auditing and inspection in three main areas:

1. Residential areas - East of Glenferrie Road;2. Residential areas - West of Glenferrie Road;3. Shopping Centres and Main Roads.

A summary of the defects history since the last RMP Review has been provided in Appendix 1. The results show a decrease in total defects over time, indicating that the inspection regime and intervention levels are improving the road conditions. The service levels are considered appropriate given the available resources and budget. The main roads and shopping centres are inspected every 6 months, the residential areas are inspected every 12 months and the laneways every 3 years. This is to account for the higher volumes of vehicular and pedestrian traffic in these areas and the associated increased public risk. Analysis of the total number of defects and the total number of interventions indicates a decrease in both, indicating that the RMP is effective in improving the condition of the roads and pathways, as shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1 : Total Defects History

RMP Response times to notified defectsThe response time for the repair of defects is defined as the time taken from when a defect is reported to Council to the time that defect is repaired or “made safe” so that the defect is no longer greater than intervention levels. The RMP specifies the response time for the following assets:

Road surfaces 7 working days Footpaths in shopping centres and along main roads 7 to 14 working days Footpaths in residential areas 14 to 28 working days

Page 59


These response times have been compared to surrounding municipalities and Stonnington was found to have similar response times as its neighbouring councils. The only substantive change was the addition of an exceptional circumstances clause, which the internal review has determined to be necessary to limit Council’s exposure to risk. This provides intervention levels with a certain level of tolerance to allow Council to remain compliant with the RMP. This change has been made to the RMP Appendix 2.


The review of the RMP is part of Council’s general ongoing operational costs. The defect inspections for Council are undertaken by an independent annual supply contractor specialised in road data collection, who map each defect to a position on Council’s GIS mapping system with a database, which is essential in providing short duration information critical to compliance with the RMP response times.

The maintenance costs for “make safe” repairs of the defects is $150,530 for 2011/12, this is the sum of the Footpath Repair/Renewal works and Road Safety Works operating costs. The costs associated with compliance to the requirements of the RMP are considered appropriate as this compliance with the RMP provides Council with a public liability defence for claims within the road network. The modifications to the RMP do not have any impact on the current resource provision.


By undertaking this review, Council meets its obligations under the Local Government Act (1989) and the Road Management Act (2004). Independent legal advice has been sought from Russell Kennedy Lawyers and Terry Alford Consulting.

CONCLUSION

The RMA requires a review of the RMP every 4 years. The requisite notices have been published in the Government Gazette, and The Age newspaper accordingly as per the requirements of the review, and Council has called for submissions from the public through a formal S223 process (Local Government Act 1989). There have been no formal or informal public submissions regarding the RMP. Comments on the revised RMP have been sought internally and the plan amended as appropriate.

The Review of the Stonnington RMP has found: An “exceptional circumstances clause” will bring the Plan in line with Council’s Risk

Policies as advised by Council’s Risk Department; A Register of Public Roads Policy will clarify the procedures and principles of

declaring and decommissioning public roads; and The majority of the RMP is being complied with and changes have been made

based on internal recommendations and these modifications can all be incorporated within the current resources allocation.

The analysis of the audit data for intervention levels and inspection frequencies for the various road classes indicates that interventions and defects are trending downwards. This indicates that the current intervention levels and inspection frequencies of the plan are appropriate and achieving improvements in service levels.

Page 60


The current RMP levels and costs indicate the plan continues to provide satisfactory maintenance levels for the road assets and that those funds expended are being efficiently utilized.

The overall effectiveness of the current RMP is confirmed by the fact that no particular asset class is showing an increase in defect levels. Considering that funding for both maintenance and inspection has not been increasing for the life of the RMP, intervention levels appear to be satisfactory.


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

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The outcomes and results from the formal review of the Road Management Plan, as per the Road Management Act 2004 (RMA) be noted.

2. The revised Road Management Plan 2013 (RMP), Register of Public Roads Policy, and Register of Public Roads be adopted.

3. The adopted Road Management Plan 2013 (RMP), Register of Public Roads Policy, and Register of Public Roads made available at the Stonnington Service Centre at Malvern Town Hall and on Council’s website.

Page 61


7. EASTERN ALLIANCE FOR GREENHOUSE ACTION ; COUNCILLOR MEMBERSHIP

General Manager: Simon Thomas

PURPOSE

To appoint a Councillor from the City of Stonnington to the Eastern Alliance for Greenhouse Action (EAGA) Executive Committee.

BACKGROUND

The EAGA Group originally began in 2008, formed by eastern Councils in response to concerns by the community about climate change and a desire to drive environmental sustainability initiatives in a coordinated manner regionally.

The Group has had some success in attracting funding regionally for various sustainability projects.

The Alliance involves member Councils including the Cities of Boroondara, Knox, Maroondah, Monash, Whitehorse and Yarra Ranges.

More recently the Group has appointed a Coordinator to manage the work of the Alliance. The cost to the member Council’s is around $15k annually to support the Coordinator role. The Coordinator is employed by the City of Maroondah.

With the appointment of the Coordinator, the governance structure and Terms of Reference for the Alliance have also been formalised. The governance structure is based on a similar model operating with the Northern Alliance for Greenhouse Action which has been operating successfully for many years with member Councils from the northern suburbs.

Briefly the governance structure is outlined below;

Representation Meeting Frequency

Brief Summary of Roles

EAGA Executive Committee

1 Councillor or senior staff member from each Council

Quarterly Strategic direction Budget Advocacy Overview of strategic

planEAGA Steering Committee

I Officer from each member Council

Monthly Develop strategic plan & annual plans

Project development Report on working group

projects Assist with advocacy

submissions Share resources and

knowledge

Informal Working Groups

As required As required Project specific work

Page 62


# # The Terms of Reference and Strategic Plan for the Alliance are included as attachments 1 & 2.

DISCUSSION

At this stage the membership of the Executive Committee is as follows;

City of Boroondara Adam Hall, Manager Environment and Sustainable LivingCity of Knox Cr John MortimorCity of Maroondah Phil Turner, Director City DevelopmentCity of Monash Ossie Martinz, Director Infrastructure ServicesCity of Whitehorse Cr Bill BennettShire of Yarra Ranges Cr Maria McCarthy

At this stage Executive Committee held its inaugural meeting on 3 April 2013. The meeting was attended on behalf of Stonnington by Simon Thomas, General Manager City Works. The next meeting is scheduled for early July 2013.

Given that 3 of the 7 municipalities are represented on the Executive Committee by Councillors there would be an opportunity for Stonnington to also nominate a Councillor representative for membership of the Committee.


The ongoing commitment for Council to support the group is approximately $15k annually as part subsidy of the EAGA Coordinators salary. Beyond that the commitment from the nominated Committee representative would amount to approximately 2hrs quarterly to attend the Executive Committee meetings, plus some incidental reading in preparation for the meetings.

CONCLUSION

The Eastern Alliance for Greenhouse Action provides a strong platform for member municipalities to leverage funding, and advocate at a regional level for action to support sustainability, and greenhouse action initiatives.

The Alliance has recently formalised its activities, developed a governance structure, terms of reference and employed a Coordinator to manage the work of the group.

Stonnington makes a small contribution of $15k annually to subsidise the coordinators salary, and to cover some administrative costs.

Three of the seven Councils on the Alliance are represented on the Executive Committee by Councillors. There is an opportunity for Stonnington to nominate a Councillor as its representative on the Alliance Executive Committee.

Page 63




RECOMMENDATION

1. That Councillor Sam Hibbins be nominated as the Stonnington City Council representative on the Eastern Alliance for Greenhouse Action (EAGA) Executive Committee.

2. That the EAGA Executive Committee be advised accordingly.

Page 64


8. DOMESTIC ANIMAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

Manager: Penny PavlouGeneral Manager: Connie Gibbons

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to present the Domestic Animal Management Plan (DAM Plan) as required by the Domestic Animals Act 1994 (the Act), and request that Council endorses the DAM Plan.

BACKGROUND

The Act requires all Councils to prepare a DAM Plan. The aim of the DAM Plan is to improve the management of the domestic animals across Victoria and to increase the profile of Animal Management Unit within Councils.

Section 68A of the Act requires every Council to prepare a three-year DAM Plan, which is to be reviewed annually and which outlines programs and services for:

to promote animal welfare and encourage responsible pet ownership; to minimise the risk of attacks by dogs; to address overpopulation and high euthanasia rates; to encourage registration; to minimise the potential for animal nuisance; and to effectively identify all dangerous dogs, menacing dogs and restricted breed

dogs so as to ensure that those animals are kept in compliance with the Act.

# The DAM Plan also reviews existing orders and Local Laws made under the Act. A copy of the DAM Plan is provided for Councilors’ information.

DISCUSSION

The DAM Plan sets out the strategic and operational direction of the delivery of Animal Management services within Stonnington for the next three years, after which a new plan has to be prepared. The DAM Plan formalises many of Council’s existing Animal Management services and lists a number of initiatives to be developed over the life of the Plan.

The Animal Management Unit undertook the development of the DAM Plan and the previous Plan was reviewed in light of the activities that have taken place over the past three years. The Plan covers the following:

Demographic profile of Stonnington (including people, animals and animal ownership and Council staffing structure)

Vision and mission statements The Stonnington Pound operations Strategic direction for animal management in Stonnington Performance monitoring and evaluation

Page 65


Consultation was conducted with the Stonnington Survey Group that provided input by providing comment and responding to a series of questions including:

Pet ownership On and off leash parks Monitoring and surveillance of parks and local streets Community education programs on responsible pet ownership Dog aggression and wandering of dogs off leash in public places Dog faeces in parks and on nature strips Signage regarding keeping dogs on leashes on public streets

Key actions for 2013-2017 in the Plan include:

Develop a dog park at the Windsor Siding Reserve. Evaluate the current trial of the off-leash time-share agreement at Chris Gahan

Reserve. Support and encourage schools to introduce the Bureau of Animal Welfare's

Responsible Pet Ownership in Schools program. Purchase portable technology to enable Animal Management Officers to check

registration details and record infringements in the field. Lease the Stonnington pound facility to Save-A-Dog Scheme (subject to advertising) to

use as a shelter and re-homing centre. Advocate to the State Government to strengthen laws that regulate puppy breeding

businesses. Consider ways to encourage pet store owners to stop selling puppies and kittens in

retail outlets, or at least to stop encouraging impulse buying of puppies and kittens. Develop an Animal Management and Enforcement Policy. Introduce the placement of temporary signage in parks and reserves to remind owners

of leash and dog waste requirements. Create a special focus and program to encourage dog obedience training within the

community. Introduce a reduced fee for dogs that have undergone obedience training to new dog

registration applications. Develop a new protocol for dealing with barking dog issues. Develop a communications/media strategy on dangerous, menacing and restricted

breed dogs. Sponsor all Animal Management Officers to undertake Certificate IV in Animal

Regulation and Control. Conduct skills audit of all Animal Management staff and provide further training to

address any areas for improvement. Implement a reporting system with information collected through Shelter Buddy. Review existing KPIs for the Animal Management Unit. Develop evaluation methods for Animal Management programs and activities.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Initiatives identified in the DAM Plan have been included in the draft Council Plan.


Page 66


A statement is required to advise whether the recommendation complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

CONCLUSION

The Domestic Animal Management Act requires all Councils to prepare a DAM Plan. The DAM Plan sets out the strategic and operational direction of the delivery of Animal Management services within Stonnington for the next three years. The DAM Plan formalises many of Council’s existing Animal Management services and lists a number of initiatives to be developed over the life of the Plan.

Council officers conducted community consultation with the Stonnington Survey Group. Information gained from the consultation was used to inform the DAM Plan.

The DAM Plan will be reviewed annually enabling Council to continually update the Plan in light of changing community attitudes and legislation.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council endorses the Stonnington Domestic Animal Management Plan 2012 to 2016.

Page 67


9. SHERIDAN PAVILION REDEVELOPMENT – PLAQUE APPROVAL

(Author: Jackie Grieve)(General Manager: Connie Gibbons)

PURPOSE

This report seeks approval from Council to install a plaque to commemorate the completion of the Sheridan Pavilion Redevelopment.

BACKGROUND

A new pavilion is being built to replace the old Sheridan Pavilion, located on Basil Reserve (Darling Park) that will meet the current and future sporting needs of the Stonnington community.

The redevelopment of Sheridan Pavilion commenced in August 2012 and will be completed early July 2013 for a total cost of $1,825,000.

Sheridan Pavilion was ranked as the second highest priority for redevelopment in the Pavilion Redevelopment Strategy (2009) and Council, at its 20 February 2012 Council Meeting, endorsed the completion of the detailed design and tender process for the redevelopment of Sheridan Pavilion.

The design includes:

Flexible home and away change rooms and social/meeting space to allow multi-purpose use by a range of community groups;

Separate umpires room/accessible changeroom;

Public male and female accessible toilets;

Storage areas;

Kiosk; and

First Aid room.

In addition, the proposed design incorporates a number of Environmentally Sustainable Design best practice initiatives including:

6-star gas-boosted continuous hot water system to support roof-mounted solar panel hot water preheat system;

5KW photovoltaic solar panel electricity generation system;

Operable windows to achieve low to high cross flow ventilation;

Summer shading over northern windows and minimal window area on eastern, southern and western elevations;

Double glazed windows;

Security/shading shutters;

Page 68


Insulated solar tubes/skylights to negate the need for artificial light during daylight hours;

20KL rainwater collection and re-use system for toilet flushing; and

Use of recycled aggregate in concrete, recycled content steel products and recycled or plantation timber products, where possible.

The new pavilion is located on the same site as the old pavilion.

DISCUSSION

An official opening for the new Sheridan Pavilion is planned for 12.30pm on Sunday 28 July 2013 to coincide with club activities. The official unveiling will take place just prior to the first junior football game on the day.

The decision to install a plaque was made in recognition of the complete rebuild of the pavilion and the significant capital investment made by Council to fund the project.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Nil

FINANCIAL AND RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

The plaque will cost approximately $600 and will be funded out of the capital works budget for this project X9123.



CONCLUSION

In recognition of the works undertaken and to commemorate the completion of the Sheridan Pavilion Redevelopment, it is recommended that a plaque be displayed at the front of the new pavilion.

Page 69


The plaque will read:

SHERIDAN PAVILION REDEVELOPMENT

Opened by His Worship the Mayor, Cr Matthew Koce,on 28 July 2013

Cr John Chandler Cr Erin Davie Cr Sam Hibbins Cr Jami Klisaris Cr John McMorrow Cr Melina Sehr Cr Adrian Stubbs Cr Claude Ullin

Chief Executive Officer, Warren Roberts

The City of Stonnington logo will appear on the plaque.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council approves the display of the following plaque at Sheridan Pavilion to mark the completion of the redevelopment.

SHERIDAN PAVILION REDEVELOPMENT

Opened by His Worship the Mayor, Cr Matthew Koce,on 28 July 2013

Cr John Chandler Cr Erin Davie Cr Sam Hibbins Cr Jami Klisaris Cr John McMorrow Cr Melina Sehr Cr Adrian Stubbs Cr Claude Ullin

Chief Executive Officer, Warren Roberts

The City of Stonnington logo will appear on the plaque.

Page 70


10. INTERNAL AUDIT STRATEGIC AUDIT PLAN 2013 - 2018

(Author and General Manager: Geoff Cockram)

PURPOSE

To submit to Council the Internal Audit Strategic Audit Plan 2013-2018.

BACKGROUND

Council’s current Strategic Audit Plan 2012-2013 includes reviews planned up to 30 June 2013.

Strategic Audit Plan 2013-2018

# The Strategic Audit Plan 2013-2018 plan (attached) has been developed following discussions involving the Internal Auditors, Chief Executive Officer, General Manager Corporate Services, Manager Risk and Contracts Compliance and Risk Management Coordinator and other key staff.

The plan addresses a range of risks identified in Council’s Strategic Risk Register and revisions were made where appropriate according to changed or emerging risks and/or Audit Committee requests.

The new plan has been endorsed by the Executive Management Team.

Audit Committee Endorsement

The Strategic Audit Plan 2013 – 2018 was endorsed by the Audit Committee at its meeting on 16 May 2013.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council notes the Internal Audit Strategic Audit Plan 2013-2018.

Page 71


11. ACQUITTAL OF SEED FUNDING FOR DULDIG STUDIO

Manager: Jan Jacklin Executive Manager: Karen Watson

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to update Council on the outcomes of the pilot visitation program developed by Duldig Studio, using seed funding provided by Council.

BACKGROUND

In July 2011 Council approved seed funding of $20,000 to be given to the Duldig Studio to assist the house museum to increase visitation.

In approving the seed funding, Council requested that key performance indicators be developed for the pilot program, that the program be assessed in 12 months and a report brought back to Council for review.

Seven key performance indicators were developed as part of the funding agreement.

The Duldig Studio agreed to: Invest in volunteer guides Develop a marketing strategy Monitor visitor numbers Undertake market research Diversify funding sources General administration tasks Work towards opening for walk in visitation

The Duldig Studio is a house museum and gallery located at 92 Burke Rd, Malvern, devoted to sculpture. The property comprises the original residence, garden and studio of sculptor Karl Duldig (1902-1986) and his wife, Slawa Duldig (1902 – 1975). The museum houses a collection of sculptures, paintings, drawings and decorative arts by Karl and Slawa Duldig.

In 1996, the Duldig home was opened to the public, by appointment, by the artists’ daughter Eva de Jong-Duldig. A curator lives on the premises in a private part of the house.

The governing body of the Duldig Studio is the Duldig Gallery Inc, a not-for-profit incorporated association with an independent Committee of Management. It is endorsed as a charitable institution.

Page 72


DISCUSSION

The pilot program to increase visitation was delivered and the Duldig Studio has provided a report on the program, this has been forwarded to Councillors as an attachment previously.

Highlights from the pilot program include: The production of a comprehensive volunteer handbook for guides Recruitment of additional volunteers who were trained as guides A 54% increase in visitors (according to Duldig figures) from 493 to 760 A marketing strategy was developed Administrative tasks outlined in the KPIs were achieved

Council officers have reviewed the report and note the following: A number of KPIs were not reflected as measurable actions as part of the report provided

by the Duldig Studio. The marketing strategy did not include measures to evaluate the success of initiatives

undertaken. There was no evaluation of the strategies undertaken to increase visitor numbers. Visitor numbers could not be independently verified. Market research was limited. From the documents provided, it was unclear how the seed funding was specifically

expended. The Duldig Studio provided estimates of budget allocation; not actual expenditure.

20% of the grant was allocated to general administrative expenses. The Duldig Studio was confident that a commitment of seed funding from the City of

Stonnington would be the catalyst for other funding from sponsors to further develop the pilot program. No new ongoing funding partnerships were established, however, the forward budgets assume the current level of funding will be maintained by Council.

Limited work has been undertaken to show how the Duldig Studio is working towards opening for walk in visitation. The Duldig Studio is confident that it can build on the pilot program but requires ongoing funding from Council to achieve this.

Acknowledgement of Stonnington’s support of the Duldig Studio was a specific condition of the contract. There was no placement of the Stonnington logo and associated recognition on key materials including the annual report, marketing strategy or the website. The section of the website referring to the Malayan Bungalow Exhibition from July 12 displays the logo, but is not accompanied by the required statement of support as specified in the contract. As a funding partner, acknowledgement and the logo should be prominently placed on the website home page and other collateral.

In summary, the $20,000 in seed funding provided by Council generated limited outcomes. In contrast, funding for Duldig’s ‘Clay for Kids’ program through Council’s Arts and Cultural sponsorship works well. Because the funding is tied to measurable outcomes, there are excellent results for the Stonnington community.


The Duldig Studio is seeking a continuation of the funding arrangement at the same level for a further three years, and this has been assumed in the forward budget.

Council has made no commitment to further funding.

CONCLUSION

Page 73


The provision of $20,000 of seed funding to the Duldig Studio to increase visitation has had limited outcomes. Further funding is not recommended.



RECOMMENDATION

1. That Council notes the report on the outcomes of seed funding to increase visitation to the Duldig Studio.

2. That no further funding be provided by Council to extend the pilot visitation program.

Page 74


12. PROPOSAL TO NAME A LANE

Author: Fabienne ThewlisGeneral Manager: Geoff Cockram

PURPOSEThe purpose of this report is to determine the name of the lane located at the rear of 85 – 131 Chapel Street Windsor.

BACKGROUNDThis unnamed laneway between Union and Green Streets has been cleaned up and becoming known to street artists with major artwork now prominent along the lane. Given the iconic nature of this work local artists and traders have called for the formal recognition and naming of the lane.

Subject lane

DISCUSSIONThe subject lane is not listed in the VICNAMES Register and is not a private road.

Both the Road Management Act 2004 and the Local Government Act 1989 allow for the Council to name a road and publish gazette notices informing of official road naming, However in all instances the road authority (Council) must act in accordance with the Guidelines for Geographic Names 2010.

In accordance with the Guidelines for Geographic Names the name selected should be relevant to the area and should not be named after a living person or a commercial enterprise. Further to avoid potential confusion in readily locating the property for deliveries, visitors, emergency vehicles etc. it is appropriate that the laneway be now named.

This request for naming of the laneway was generated from the owners/occupiers of abutting properties, to recognise the unique character of the lane, it is suggested that Artists Lane or Alley be considered.

Page 75


Artists Lane/AlleyThere are no other such street name within the 5 kilometre radius of this lane or in fact in the Melbourne area.

Council at its meeting of 22 April 2013 supported this proposal. An advertisement canvassing submissions on the matter was placed in the Stonnington Leader as community consultation and support is a necessary and important part of this process. Articles in the press have already highlighted the issue.

Submissions were invited and open for a minimum of 28 days – while not covered by section 223 process ot the Local Government Act Council must still ensure it follows a formal process. Thes closed on 7 June 2013 with three submissions received as follows:

One submitter from Malvern suggested the following names although there is no reasons given for the suggestions- Luxery Lane- Stonnington Studios- Findings Way- Treasure Terrace- Rainbow Parade

A second submitter from Armadale suggested - Memory Lane as there is so much history in Windsor- Mail Alley or Laneway as the first contractor of mails from Sydney to Melbourne was

delivered there and his name was EB Green which is how Green Street was named The third submitter from Windsor supported the name Artists Lane or Alley but not Aerosol

Laneway – she also asks that the bluestone not be painted over.

While comment was sought on the proposed name of Artists Lane or Alley or suggested alternatives, two of the above proposals do not give full reasons for the names they have proposed. Further given that the proposal is community generated from local traders abutting the laneway and the art work that stimulated this, it is considered that the Council proposal is the most appropriate.

HUMAN RIGHTS CONSIDERATIONThe naming of this lane will not impact on any person or place or access of this area and it has been considered that it does not impact on the Charter of Human Rights.

CONCLUSIONCouncil has been required to to name this lane, and given current interest and unique character of the lane, it is recommended that Council name the laneway Artists Lane.

Page 76


RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. the laneway situated at located at the rear of 85 – 131 Chapel Street Windsor between Union and Green Streets be named Artists Lane;

2. the Registrar of Geographic Names be advised of the decision;

3. an advertisement be placed in the Stonnington Leader in the ‘Public Notices’ section advising the decision;

4. the following bodies shall be notified of this decision: Melway Publishing Pty Ltd Melbourne Water South East Water Address Management Metropolitan Fire Brigade The Divisional Returning Officer Boral Energy 21 Universal Press Metropolitan Ambulance Service State Electoral Office Victoria Commissioner of Land Tax Telstra Australia Post Office of Geographical Names Prahran Historical Society Vic Roads – Metropolitan South Eastern Region City Power United Energy

Page 77


n) Confidential Business

1. CONFIDENTIAL AMENDMENT C184

(Author / General Manager: Karen Watson)

Confidential report circulated separately.

2. STRATEGIES FOR CREATING OPEN SPACE

(Author / General Manager: Karen Watson)


3. REGIONAL KITCHEN PTY NON RENOUNCEABLE SHARE ISSUE

(Author / General Manager: Connie Gibbons)


Page 78

Documents

Pro-Forma For Notice Paper Word 7 - City of Stonnington€¦ · Web viewPro-Forma For Notice Paper Word 7 Planning Applications planning application 0922/12 - 4 martin court, toorak