€¦ · Web viewVehicular access to 1331-1335 High Street is gained via two existing single width crossovers to the MacArthur Street frontage. One crossover is located to the north

Council MeetingNotice PaperMonday 15 October 2018 at 7pm

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

Vision

Stonnington will be an inclusive, healthy, creative, sustainable and smart community.

Council’s vision will be implemented through four key pillars:

Community: An inclusive City that enhances the health and wellbeing of all residents, where people can feel safe, socially connected and engaged.

Liveability: The most desirable place to live, work and visit. Environment: A cleaner, safer and better environment for current and future

generations to enjoy. Economy: A City that will grow its premier status as a vibrant, innovative and

creative business community.

These pillars reflect the shared priorities of our community and Council, and are consistent with our history and vision for a liveable future. For each pillar, there is a framework for our strategies, actions and measures which outline the key services and projects to be delivered to our community.

The Strategic Resource Plan sets out how Council will provide the resources needed to implement strategies and actions within the Council Plan.

Councillors

Cr Steven Stefanopoulos, MayorCr Glen AtwellCr Marcia GriffinCr Jami KlisarisCr John Chandler Cr Sally DavisCr Judy HindleCr Matthew KoceCr Melina Sehr

Page 2

NOTESCouncil business is conducted in accordance with Part 4 Division 3 of the Meeting Procedure section of Council’s General Local Law 2018 (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.

Councillors carry out the functions, powers, authorities and discretions vested with them under the Local Government Act 1989, and any other relevant legislation. Councillors impartially perform the Office of Councillor duties, in the best interests of the City of Stonnington residents to the best of their skills and judgement.

Councillors must formally declare their conflicts of interest in relation to any items listed on the agenda at the start of the meeting and immediately prior to the item being considered, in accordance with Sections 77 to 79 of the Act.

READING OF THE 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.

READING OF THE AFFIRMATION STATEMENT

We are reminded that as Councillors we are bound by our Oath of Office to undertake the duties of Councillor in the best interests of the people of the City of Stonnington and to faithfully and impartially carry out the functions, powers, authorities and discretions vested in us under the Local Government Act and any other relevant Act

Page 3

Welcome

Welcome to a Stonnington City Council meeting. These meetings are an important way to ensure that your democratically elected Councillors work for you in a fair and transparent way.

About this meeting

The first page of tonight’s agenda shows the different parts to the meeting, some of these are administrative and are required by Stonnington’s Local Law.

In the agenda you will also find a list of all the items to be discussed under ‘General Business’. Each report is written by a council officer and outlines the purpose of the report, relevant information and a recommended decision for councillors.

Council will consider the report and either accept, reject or make amendments to the recommendation. Council decisions are adopted if they receive a majority vote from the Councillors present at this meeting.

Arrangements to ensure meetings are accessible to the public

Council meetings are held at the Malvern Town Hall, corner High Street and Glenferrie Road (entry via Glenferrie Road by the door closest to the Malvern Police Station).

The Malvern Town Hall has an entrance ramp and elevators to ensure that the Council Chamber is accessible to the public. Fully accessible toilet and bathroom facilities are also available.

If you require translation, interpreting services or a hearing loop set up, please contact Council’s civic support on 03 8290 1331 to make appropriate arrangements before the meeting.

To ensure that people in the chamber can follow the meetings’ proceedings, proposed alternate resolutions, also known as ‘yellows’, are displayed on a screen and microphones are used during debate.

Live webcasting

Council meetings are webcast live via Council’s website, allowing those interested to view proceedings without attending Council meetings.

This gives people who may otherwise be unable to attend access to Council decisions and debate. A recording of the meeting is available on our website after the meeting (usually within 48 hours).

Only Councillors and Council officers seated around the Council table are visible on film. People in the public gallery will not be filmed, but if you speak, you will be recorded. Visit stonnington.vic.gov.au for more information.

Page 4

Members of the galleryIf you choose to attend a council meeting as a member of the public gallery, you should note the role of the Chairperson and your responsibilities under the City of Stonnington General Local Law 2018(1).

Extracts from the Local Law:

81. Gallery to be Silent

(1) Visitors must not interject or take part in the debate.(2) The gallery must be silent at all times during any Council Meeting.(3) The ring tones of mobile telephones and other devices must be turned off by people

in the gallery at all times.

88. Recording or Filming Proceedings

(1) A person must not operate an audio tape, mobile telephone or other recording or transmitting equipment or film ('a device') at any Council Meeting without first obtaining the consent of the Chairperson.

(2) Consent given under sub-clause (1) may be revoked by the Chairperson at any time during the course of a meeting.

(3) If a device is operated, or suspected of being operated, in contravention of sub-clause (1), the Chairperson may:(a) order the person operating, or suspected of operating, the device to produce

the device to the Chairperson; and(b) arrange for any matter that has been recorded on the device in contravention of

sub-clause (1) to be deleted, erased or otherwise removed from the device.(4) Subject to sub-clause (5), the Chairperson shall return any device that has been

produced to him or her pursuant to sub-clause (3) at the conclusion of the relevant Council Meeting.

(5) If the Chairperson has been unable to arrange for the matter that has been recorded on the device in contravention of sub-clause (1) to be deleted, erased or otherwise removed from the device, the device shall be returned to the person as soon as practicable after the deletion, erasure or removal has been carried out.

84. Removal from Chamber of a Councillor or Member of the Public

The Chairperson, or Council in the case of a suspension under clause 82, may ask any Authorised Officer or member of Victoria Police to remove from the meeting (including the gallery):(1) any person who the Chairperson has ordered to be removed under clause 82(3); or(2) any Councillor who has been suspended under clause 82 and who has not

immediately left the Council Meeting.

Page 5

50. Questions to Council from Members of the Public

(1) Questions to Council from members of the public will be considered as part of the order of business of an Ordinary Meeting only when submitted in the format outlined below:(a) Questions must be in writing and lodged at the office of the Chief Executive

Officer by 12 noon on the day of the next scheduled Ordinary Meeting.(b) A limit of five (5) questions per questioner applies.(c) Questions must include the name and address of the questioner and the date of

the question. Questions by facsimile or email are acceptable.(2) Within four (4) working days of receiving a complying question to Council from a

member of the public, the Chief Executive Officer will dispatch a notice to the member of the public who submitted the question, advising that the question has been received.

(3) At a meeting at which a question is to be considered:(a) The Chairperson will acknowledge that a question or questions have been

received from a (named) person and ask if that questioner is in the gallery. (b) If the questioner is present in the gallery, a summary of the subject matter of the

question(s) will be read out by the Chairperson and the questioner advised that a written reply to the question(s) will be issued within 14 days of that meeting date.

(c) If the questioner is not in the gallery, Council will respond to the question(s) in accordance with any standard correspondence to Council.

(4) The Chairperson has the discretion to allow a question to be asked and/or answered at the meeting that is in variance with the procedure in this Local Law.

(5) The Chairperson may refuse to acknowledge a question if, in the opinion of the Chairperson, the question is, or is potentially, defamatory, indecent, offensive, abusive, objectionable in language or substance, irrelevant, trivial, aimed at embarrassing a Councillor or a member of Council staff, outside Council’s powers or functions, has been asked at a previous Council Meeting and a reply issued, or relates to matters that come under section 89(2) of the Act.

(6) Any question relating to electoral matter during an Election Period will not be considered at any Council Meeting.

(7) A copy of the questions and responses will be tabled and inserted into the minutes of the following Council Meeting.

47. Open Meetings

(1) Subject to sub-clause (2), Council Meetings must be open to members of the public pursuant to section 89(1) of the Act.

(2) Council may resolve, under section 89(2) of the Act, that a meeting be closed to members of the public if Confidential Business is to be discussed.

Your cooperation is appreciated, we hope you enjoy the meeting.

Mayor and Councillors, Stonnington City Council

Page 6

Council MeetingNotice Paper

Monday 15 October 2018Order of Business and Index

a) Reading of the Reconciliation Statement and Affirmation Statementb) Introductionsc) Apologies d) Adoption and confirmation of minutes of previous meeting(s) in accordance with Section 93

of the Act and Clause 49 of General Local Law 2018 (No 1)1. MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 1 OCTOBER 2018....................................................

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

f) Questions to Council from Members of the Public (Clause 50 of General Local Law 2018 (No 1)

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

1. DRAFT MASTERPLAN FOR PERCY TREYVAUD MEMORIAL PARK......................................................2. PLANNING APPLICATION 310/17- 1331-1335 & 1337 HIGH STREET, MALVERN VIC 3144 -

CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI-DWELLING DEVELOPMENT (10 DWELLINGS) IN A GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE, ALTERATION OF ACCESS TO A ROAD ZONE CATEGORY 1 AND REMOVAL OF EASEMENTS.............................................................................................................................

3. PLANNING APPLICATION 0342/18- 252 WAVERLEY ROAD, MALVERN EAST VIC 3145 – CONSTRUCTION OF THREE, THREE-STOREY DWELLINGS.................................................................

4. ANNUAL REPORT 2017/18............................................................................................................5. POSITIVE AGEING STRATEGY 2018-21 ACTION PLAN....................................................................6. GLENFERRIE ROAD SHOPPING PRECINCT - CHANGES TO OFF-STREET PARKING

RESTRICTIONS..............................................................................................................................7. PROPOSAL TO RENAME VIVA STREET RESERVE............................................................................8. LOW REZ : COMMUNITY GRANT 2018-2019 ..............................................................................

n) Urgent Businesso) Confidential Business

1. YOUTH SERVICES REVIEW...........................................................................................................

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 7

ADOPTION AND CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS

15 OCTOBER 2018

RECOMMENDATION

That the Council confirms the Minutes of the Council Meeting of the Stonnington City Council held on 1 October 2018 and Minutes of the Confidential Meeting of the Stonnington City Council held on 1 October 2018 as an accurate record of the proceedings.

Page 9

GENERAL BUSINESS15 OCTOBER 2018

m) General Business

1. DRAFT MASTERPLAN FOR PERCY TREYVAUD MEMORIAL PARK

Manager Urban & Infrastructure Projects: Rick Kwasek General Manager Assets & Services: Simon Thomas

PURPOSE

This report is provided as an update on the progress of the Masterplan for the Percy Trevaud Memorial park and seeks approval to proceed to further community consultation on the Draft Masterplan proposal.

BACKGROUND

At its meeting of 30 November 2017 Council resolved to proceed with the development of a new multipurpose sport and recreation facility at Percy Treyvaud Memorial Park. The new facility is to be built to host; four indoor sports courts; Chadstone Bowls Club; Chadstone Tennis Club; Chadstone Recreation and Civic Club; and summer and winter season users of the sportsgrounds including the Chadstone Lacrosse Club and Cricket Club.

On 5 February 2018, Council resolved to implement a formal governance structure which is represented in the following diagram and was established as a communication and decision making framework around the development of the masterplan and delivery of the project.

Figure 1. Governance Structure

Page 11


PROJECT DIRECTOR & PROJECT MANAGER

STONNINGTON COUNCIL

STEERING COMMITTEEPurpose; To provide strategic oversight for the project - (refer terms of reference).Membership; Councillors, and Council Officers, others as necessary.

WORKING GROUPPurpose; Accountable to the Steering Group for implementation of the project - (refer terms of reference).Membership; Council Officers, Consultants, others as necessary.

DESIGN TEAM PROFESSIONAL ADVISORS CONSULTANTS

STAKEHOLDER GROUPPurpose; Provide input on the project for the Steering Committee on behalf of stakeholders (refer terms of reference).Membership; Councillors, Officers, Stakeholder representatives.

As part of the governance structure Council resolved that a Stakeholder Group be established comprising:

One Councillor as chair of the group (Councillor Atwell)

General Manger Assets & Services – Simon Thomas

Manager Urban & Infrastructure Projects – Rick Kwasek

Manager Advocacy Performance & Improvement – Tracey Limpens

Project Support

Council Officers as necessary

Representatives from each of the Stakeholder Groups (1 representative, 1 alternate)

Chadstone Civic and Recreation Club (CRCC)

Bowls Club

Tennis Club

Lacrosse Club

Cricket Club

Prahran Netball Association

Basketball Victoria

Traders from Chadstone Road strip shops

Three residents appointed through an expression of Interest

Page 12


The Stakeholder Group was to meet monthly during the masterplan process with the main focus outlined in the points below;

Participate in the development of the Masterplan for the Percy Treyvaud Memorial Park.

Help inform the Steering Committee by providing representative and balanced input into the project on behalf of stakeholders.

Assist the process by identifying, assessing, and prioritising stakeholder interests to achieve a balanced outcome having regard to the overall project objectives.

To ensure transparency the agenda for each of the Stakeholder Group meetings and the resulting notes were posted on line on the project portal.

Williams Ross Architects were appointed by Council as principal design consultants on 4 June 2018 and have been working on developing a masterplan for the park that carefully responds to the site context. As part of the process a number of concept options were developed for the above facility.

DISCUSSION

Masterplan Initial Community Engagement

As part of the Masterplan development, a series of community engagement activities took place in July-August 2018. This particular round of engagement was specific to the masterplan with the survey asking a number of questions about how people use the park and proposed improvements to the park. The survey also asked a number of questions relating to the new facility. A survey was posted on the Connect Stonnington website and three drop-in sessions were held at the park on:

Wednesday 25 July 2018

Friday 28 July 2018

Saturday 29 July 2018.

Dates and times for the drop-in sessions were agreed in consultation with the Stakeholder Group and Council engaged Capire Consulting Group to assist at the drop-in sessions and to independently report on the results.

Community members were invited to attend the drop-in sessions by letter to local residents, onsite signage, local print media, social media and via the Stakeholder Group.

Drop-in sessions were staffed by members of the project team from Council, Williams Ross Architects, and Capire. This enabled participants to ask questions of the masterplan and design process.

Participants provided feedback on two specific areas:

1 They were able to comment on the project principles established by the Stakeholder Group.

2 Invitation to complete the online survey in relation to the masterplan

The survey was accessible online via Connect Stonnington to allow people unable to attend a drop-in session to have their say. A number of respondents who opposed the development failed to answer the specific questions on the proposed facility indicating that they ‘did not want a new facility’. This will be reflected in the tabulated results.

The final report will compile the results of both the online and drop-in sessions and will be considered by Council as part of a future report on the masterplan.

Page 13


Development of Site Options

The first stage of the masterplan process was for the Stakeholder Group to arrive at a set of principles to help guide the assessment of options. These were developed over a number of Stakeholder Group meetings and helped to set some clear guidelines and project aspirations. A workshop was run with stakeholders in which the principles were further developed and refined. Stakeholders were ultimately asked to assess options presented to them against the project principles. (See Attachment A – Project Principles)

In order to start the design process the architects and council officers met with each of the stakeholder representatives to ascertain their specific requirements for the proposed facility and their current and future wants and needs. This information helped to develop a functional design brief which would inform the final building design. The functional design brief includes information on such things as change room requirements, floor areas and specific and essential sporting needs required by the peak body and the associated codes. In addition to the meetings with the sporting clubs specific meetings were also held with each of the resident representatives and the CRCC.

From this initial information the architects undertook a spatial analysis and developed a number of ‘mud maps’ that were presented to the Steering Committee for initial review prior to the Stakeholder Group. (See Attachment B – Mud Maps). The ‘mud maps’ were further developed into three site options for consideration by both the Stakeholder Group and Steering Committee. The merits of each option were presented by the project Architect to the Stakeholder Group for their consideration.

The stakeholders were asked to assess the specific merits of each option against the project principles. A general discussion followed, which further explored stakeholders views on the respective options. Based on the outcome of the process support was demonstrated from the majority of stakeholders for site option 3.

The Steering Committee met on 24 September to review the options and to consider the feedback from the Stakeholder Group. Based on these considerations the Steering Committee also expressed support for site option 3, and requested that this option be further developed by the design team. (See Attachment C –Options Summary Report)

The design team has undertaken further meetings with each of the sports clubs to help more fully define the operational needs and requirements of each of the sporting groups in order to further develop the functional design.

At the September meeting of the Stakeholder Group, concerns were raised by resident representatives regarding the location of the proposed indoor stadium in closer proximity to Quentin Road and requested a meeting be arranged with Quentin Road and Abbotsford Avenue residents – refer below.

Stakeholder meeting held on Wednesday 3 October

Based on the preference of both the Stakeholder Group and the Steering Committee the concept design for site option 3 was further developed and presented at the most recent Stakeholder meeting held on Wednesday 3 October.

At this meeting resident representatives made clear that local residents were keen to see all three options that had been considered as part of the community consultation process.

Given the level of interest from the community it is proposed to commence community consultation, as outlined below.

It should be noted that other investigative reports are currently underway including; traffic, geotechnical ground conditions and arboriculture. An open space area calculation has been

Page 14


undertaken and is included in Attachment D. These reports will inform the masterplan and will be brought back to council in a future report on consideration of the final masterplan.

Resident Meeting 9 October 2018

A meeting was held on 9 October 2018, with residents from Quentin Road and Abbotsford Avenue (and others) – being directly adjacent to the site. At that meeting the project architects presented the three site options and sought feedback from those in attendance.

Some of the key issues raised during consideration of the options included;

Traffic and parking in the local street network.

The proximity of the facilities to Quentin Road.

Location of car parking abutting Quentin Road.

Entry and exit arrangements to the under croft car park from Chadstone Rd.

Safety and antisocial behaviour – concerns were specifically raised with the north/south link proposed in concept site option 3.

Amenity issues such as noise/light spill/ ongoing upkeep.

Access to public toilets.

Location of the playground

The 3 Councillor members of the Steering Committee, Cr Steve Stefanopoulos (Mayor), Cr Glen Atwell (Chair of the Stakeholder Committee), and Cr Matthew Koce, also attended the meeting to hear residents’ views first hand.

Engagement Process – Site Options

To assist Council in the masterplan development process, it is proposed to consult the community on the 3 concept site options previously presented to both the Stakeholder Group and the Steering Committee.

During this phase of engagement there will be a number of ways for the community to provide comment and feedback on the proposed masterplan. Written submissions will be sought on the masterplan and will be able to be submitted on line, by email or in written letter.

At this stage it is anticipated that the consultation process could commence in late October and run for 3 weeks.

The intention of this consultation process combined with the earlier Stakeholder Group and Steering Committee processes, and the further technical reports will be for Council to develop a single masterplan option which best addresses the project principles.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Page 15


Stonnington Recreation Strategy 2014-224 includes Equitable Provision as one of its six priorities. The need for additional resources for court sports (both indoor and outdoor) such as tennis, netball and basketball has been identified as a priority area for Council.

The Council Plan 2017-2021 identifies the key challenges that Council is facing. The Multipurpose Sports Facility project supports strategies to:

Increase participation in physical activity through long term recreation planning and service delivery.

strategically invest in open spaces, sporting fields and community facilities, and optimise use according to community needs.

An objective of the Municipal Public Health and Wellbeing Plan 2017-21 is to increase physical activity across all life stages, and to ensure the built environment supports residents to lead active and healthy lives.

FINANCIAL AND RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS

The preliminary budget and funding sources are detailed in the following table.

Table 1.

Financial Year

Funding

2018/19 Council $2.0m

2019/20 Council $10.2m

2019/20 Possible External Funding – State Government (to be sourced) $3.0m

2020/21 Council $17.2m

2020/21 External Funding – Federal Government (confirmed) $4.0m

Total $36.4m

External funding of $4m was announced for the indoor stadium as part of the last federal election. Potential State Government funding of $3m is still to be sourced.

It should be noted that a detailed cost estimate will be developed for the preferred option and presented for consideration by Council in a future report on the masterplan.

LEGAL ADVICE & IMPLICATIONS

Legal advice is being sourced in consideration of a number of property matters being resolved as part of the project.

CONCLUSION

Page 16


At its meeting of 30 November 2017 Council resolved to proceed with the development of a new multipurpose sport and recreation facility at Percy Treyvaud Memorial Park. The new facility is to be built to host; four indoor sports courts; Chadstone Bowls Club; Chadstone Tennis Club; Chadstone Recreation and Civic Club; and summer and winter season users of the sportsgrounds including the Chadstone Lacrosse Club, and Cricket Club.

Concept site option 3 was supported by the Steering Committee, based on feedback from the Stakeholder Group as described above. At the most recent Stakeholder Group meeting a request was made to provide copies of the plans for all 3 site options to the community as part of the consultation process.

It should be noted that a traffic report, arboriculture report and geotechnical report have been commissioned and will be included in a subsequent report to inform preparation of the final masterplan for consideration by Council.

This next phase of engagement will provide the community with an opportunity to review and provide comment on the various components of the concept site options. Community feedback will be considered as part of a further report to council, in December 2018.

HUMAN RIGHTS CONSIDERATION

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

ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment A - Project Principles Circulated separately

2. Attachment B - Site Option, Mud Maps Circulated separately

3. Attachment C - Options Summary Report Circulated separately

4. Attachment D - Open Space Analysis Site Option 3. Circulated separately

RECOMMENDATIONThat:1. Council note the development of 3 concept site options for the Percy Treyvaud

Memorial Park.2. Council note the Stakeholder Group and the Steering Committee support for

concept site option 3. 3. The 3 concept site options developed for the Percy Treyvaud Memorial Park be

made available for comment as part of the broader community consultation process, and that the consultation process be undertaken as soon as practicable.

4. That a further report be prepared for Council consideration following the community consultation process.

5. It be noted that a number of investigation reports are currently underway which will also inform the development of the final Masterplan.

Page 17


2. PLANNING APPLICATION 310/17- 1331-1335 & 1337 HIGH STREET, MALVERN VIC 3144 - CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI-DWELLING DEVELOPMENT (10 DWELLINGS) IN A GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE, ALTERATION OF ACCESS TO A ROAD ZONE CATEGORY 1 AND REMOVAL OF EASEMENTS

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

PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for the construction of multi-dwelling development in a General Residential Zone, alteration of access to a Road Zone Category 1 and removal of easements at 1331-1335 & 1337 High Street, Malvern.

Executive Summary

Applicant: Tract Consultants Pty LtdWard: EastZone: General Residential Zone Schedule 3 - CL32.08

Residential Boulevards & CorridorsOverlay: NilNeighbourhood Precinct: Garden Suburban Area 1Date lodged: 27 March 2017

(Further information submitted 13 February 2018)Statutory days at Council meeting date:

244

Trigger for referral to Council: The proposal attracted objections from seven properties

VCAT Compulsory Conference Date:VCAT Hearing Date:

25 October 201814 December 2018

Number of objections: Seven (7) properties, eight (8) in totalConsultative Meeting: Yes – held on 14 August 2018Officer Recommendation: That Council advise VCAT and other interested

parties that had a Failure to Determine appeal not been lodged, a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit would have been recommended

BACKGROUND

The Proposal

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration are described below.

Prepared by NTF Architecture P/L and are known as Drawing No.s: DR-001, TP0-100, TP0-200, TP1-100-TP1-104, TP2-001, TP2-100, TP2-101, TP3-100, TP3-101 Council date stamped 13 February 2018 and a Landscape concept plan prepared by Etched Projects, Council date stamped 21 December 2017.

The application was also accompanied by a Town Planning and Urban Context Report prepared by Tract Consultants, a Traffic Impact Assessment prepared by Quantum Traffic

Page 19


P/L and a Waste Management Plan prepared by Sustainability House, Council date stamped 21 December 2017.

In addition, an Arboricultural Impact Assessment Report, prepared by Landscape Dept, a Sustainable Management Plan prepared by Sustainability House and a Daylight Analysis Plan prepared by Sustainability House, Council date stamped 13 February 2018.

Key features of the proposal are: Development of 10, triple storey dwellings, comprising 7 x three-bedroom + study (four-

bedroom) dwellings and 3 x three-bedroom dwellings. 20 car parking spaces are provided within a basement level, including 7 x double garages

and 3 x car stackers which accommodate two cars each. The maximum proposed building height is 10.2 metres from natural ground level. Light grey face brickwork, dark grey render and black cladding are proposed for external

walls, with dark grey perforated screening, black balustrading, timber decking and clear double glazing details proposed. A flat metal deck roof is proposed, with rooftop services concealed behind perforated dark grey screening.

Removal of an existing carriageway easement located to the south-west corner of the site and a drainage easement located to the northern boundary of 1335 High Street, for the benefit of 1337 High Street, as a separate allotment.

It is noted that ‘without prejudice’ revised plans and documents were submitted throughout the duration of assessment, in order to address concerns raised via referrals. It is noted that changes contained within the ‘without prejudice’ plans included an increased separation distance between built form to the south-east and north-west from 2.6 metres to 2.9 metres, clarification of vehicle movements and parking layout details including increased accessway ramp width from 2.9 metres to 3.1 metres (at title boundary) to 3.3 metres (at basement entry), clarification of in ground planting along the northern elevation and a number of design measures to comply with Environmentally Sustainable Design principals. The ‘without prejudice’ plans and documents are discussed in detail within the referrals section of this report.

Site and Surrounds

The site comprises two allotments and is located on the northern side of High Street at the intersection of McArthur Street, approximately 150 metres west of the intersection of High Street and Tooronga Road. The site has the following significant characteristics:

The two combined allotments have an area of approximately 862 square metres. Each lot currently accommodates a single-storey, brick building with a pitched, tiled roof. The building on the land at 1331-1335 High Street (on the intersection of McArthur Street) is currently utilised as a veterinary clinic. The land at 1337 is utilised as a dwelling.

Vehicular access to 1331-1335 High Street is gained via two existing single width crossovers to the MacArthur Street frontage. One crossover is located to the north of the frontage and another to the south. It is noted that the crossover to the northern end of the McArthur Street frontage is not actively utilised as fencing prevents access to the site at the location of the crossover. The crossover to the south of the site provides vehicle access for staff and customers. This crossover is located approximately 3.0 metres north of the southern title boundary and High Street. Two uncovered, concreted car parking space are provided within the front setback to High Street. Vehicular access to 1337 High Street is gained via an existing single width crossover to the west of the High Street frontage, providing access to two uncovered, concreted car parking spaces within the front setback to High Street.

Page 20


The character of High Street is comprised of a combination of single dwellings and multi-storey, multi-dwelling developments, as well as commercially developed and utilised buildings.

A number of lots within close proximity of the subject site have been developed with multi-dwelling developments including multi-level apartment buildings. Dwellings and residential buildings along High Street are constructed with a mixture of brick, concrete and rendered finishes, with a combination of flat and pitched tiled roof forms.

Due to the interface with High Street which is classified as a Category 1 Road Zone, front fences of 1.8 metres and above of solid materials as well as lower level fences of 1.0-1.5 metres in height with associated hedging are a common feature within the streetscape. Further to this, fencing along McArthur Street includes a combination of front and side fences up to 1.8 metres in height and of varying materials and finishes including timber paling, picket, brick/render and metal.

The subject site includes an established hedge along the 1331-1335 High Street frontage, two established trees within the frontage to 1337 High Street, established vegetation along the majority of the McArthur Street frontage, a tree in the centre of the site which abuts both subject title boundaries as well as scattered vegetation along the northern boundary of both sites and eastern boundary of 1337 High Street. It is noted that the site is not affected by any planning overlays which seek to protect vegetation. The submitted Arborist report confirms that none of the existing vegetation located on the subject site is ‘significant’ in accordance with the requirements of Council’s Tree Work Local Law. Furthermore, there are no street trees in place which directly abut the subject sites, however there is one established street tree adjacent to the frontage of 1339 High Street.

Interfaces to the subject site are described as follows:

North: Land adjoining the subject site to the north is known as 2 McArthur Street. The land is located within a General Residential Zone Schedule 10 and is not affected by any planning overlays. The land measures approximately 336 square metres and is used and developed for the purposes of a residential dwelling. It is noted that Planning Permit 1230/16 was issued 16 May 2017 for the construction of an extension to the existing dwelling on the land, as the land is under 500 square metres in area. The dwelling is single storey, constructed of weatherboard and has a pitched corrugated iron sheet roof.

The dwelling has a setback to McArthur Street of approximately 2.2 metres, with no onsite car parking provision. The dwelling is setback approximately 1.5 metres (excluding eaves) from the shared boundary with 1331-1335 High Street, with a section of the rear of the dwelling is constructed to the boundary shared with 1337 High Street. Private open space including a swimming pool is located to the east of the existing dwelling, adjoining the remaining length of the shared boundary to 1337 High Street. The site includes some areas of soft landscaping however generally incorporates minimal vegetation throughout. The front boundary is fenced with an existing 1.0 metre tall, visually permeable metal/wire fence.

South: High Street directly adjoins the subject site to the south. High Street is a four lane (two each direction) main thoroughfare, located in a Road Zone Category 1. Land to the south of the subject site is known as 1382-1388 and 1390-1392 High Street. The land is located within a Commercial 1 Zone and is not affected by any planning overlays. The sites are utilised and developed for commercial purposes, including offices and a showroom (funeral director and an interior design showroom) within single and double storey buildings, with a flat room and rendered/painted exterior. Car parking is provided to the rear of the commercial buildings, accessed via Jordan Street.

Page 21


East: Land adjoining the subject site to the east is located within the Commercial 1 Zone and is not affected by any planning overlays. The land is currently utilised and developed as a large, single retail premises. A ground level concrete carpark adjoins the boundary shared with 1337 High Street, comprising approximately seven uncovered parking spaces, with a ramp to the rear of the site providing access to a rooftop car parking area, comprising an additional seven to eight uncovered car parking spaces. The existing single storey retail building is located to the south-east of the site constructed along the southern title boundary to High Street. The building is painted in corporate colours (light blue) with associated signage to the majority of the exterior. The frontage to the car park includes a 2.0 metre (approximately) high metal picket fence and gate.

West: Land to the west of the site on the opposite side of McArthur Street is known as 1327 High Street. The land is located within the General Residential Zone Schedule 3 and is not affected by any planning overlays. The land is developed with a single storey brick building with a pitched, tiled roof. The existing building is currently utilised as a medical centre (as of right), with onsite car parking provided to the rear (north) for eight cars. The parking area is accessed via a double width crossover, to the northern end of the McArthur Street frontage.

The building has a front setback to High Street of between 5.2 and 7.3 metres, with soft landscaping forward of the building. The site is currently fenced along the High Street frontage and half of the McArthur Street frontage with a 1.0-1.2 metre high, painted brick fence, with a timber paling fence of approximately 1.0-1.5 metres in height along the remainder of the McArthur Street frontage. Pockets of landscaping are located within the rear of the site around the car parking area and three small street trees are located within the nature strip along McArthur Street.

Previous Planning Application(s)

A search of Council records indicates no past planning permit history registered to either of the subject sites.

The Title

The sites are described on Certificate of Title Volume 05951 Folio 011 / Plan of Subdivision Lot 1 on Title Plan 395310P (1331-1335 High Street) and Certificate of Title Volume 05951 Folio 011 / Plan of Subdivision Lot 1 on Title Plan 344554W (1337 High Street) and no covenants affect the land.

Planning Controls

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

Zone Clause 32.08 General Residential Zone Schedule 3 – Pursuant to Clause 32.08-6 a

permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot.

Particular Provisions Clause 52.06 – Car Parking Clause 52.29 – Land Adjacent to a Road Zone Category 1, or Public Acquisition Overlay

for a Category 1 Road Clause 55 – Two or More Dwellings on a Lot

Page 22


Relevant Planning Policies

Clause 11.06 Metropolitan MelbourneClause 15 Built Environment and HeritageClause 16.01 Residential DevelopmentClause 21.05 HousingClause 21.06 Built Environment and HeritageClause 22.05 Environmentally Sustainable DevelopmentClause 22.18 Stormwater ManagementClause 22.23 Neighbourhood Character PolicyClause 32.08 General Residential ZoneClause 52.02 Easements, Restrictions and ReservesClause 52.06 Car ParkingClause 52.34 Bicycle FacilitiesClause 55 Two or more Dwellings on a Lot (ResCode)Clause 65 Decision Guidelines

Advertising

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

The site is located in East Ward and objections from seven (7) different properties have been received - total eight (8) objections. The grounds of objection are summarised as follows:

Excessive scale, continuous built form and the number of dwellings constitutes an over-development of the land

Inconsistent with the neighbourhood character of the area Loss of amenity Visual bulk Visitor car parking waiver (two spaces) is unreasonable The amount of traffic presumed to utilise the accessway via McArthur Street is grossly

underestimated at morning and peak times Impacts to street parking availability and traffic congestion on McArthur Street The use of car stackers in the basement is cumbersome and will result in the use of

street parking The submitted traffic report overstates the number of car parking spaces available in

McArthur Street as parking bays are not marked on the road

A Consultative Meeting was held on 14 August 2018. The meeting was attended by Councillor Klisaris, representatives of the Permit Applicant, objectors and a Council Planning Officer. The meeting did not result in any changes to the plans.

Referrals

A summary of the comments received from each internal Council department is listed below:

Urban Design:

Overall, a well-considered development subject to refinement.

Ground level bedrooms to Dwellings 5 and 6 directly adjoining the public footpath on High Street is not a desirable residential design practice. It is suggested that a small fenced

Page 23


courtyard approximately 1.5 metres in depth be incorporated to act as a positive buffer between the footpath and ground floor bedrooms of Dwellings 5 and 6.

As the site adjoins a Commercial Zone to the east, there is no concern with the upper levels of Dwellings 5 and 6 abutting the 1339-1347 High Street side boundary.

The separation distance between dwellings to the north and east should be improved. The current separation distances of 2.6m and 3.7m are insufficient and result in a crowded common entry/courtyard space.

Clarification is sought regarding in-ground vs above ground pots for proposed canopy trees, adjacent to the private open space of 2 McArthur Street.

It is noted that the permit applicant sought to address concerns raised by the Urban Design Advisor via the submission of revised ‘without prejudice’ plans and documents as follows:

- Revised development plans dated 25 May 2018

The relevant changes made to the plans sought to increase the separation distance between built form to the north and east (from 2.6 metres to 2.9 metres) and clarified in-ground planting along the northern elevation. Council’s Urban Design Advisor reviewed the ‘without prejudice’ plans and indicated that the revised plans adequately addressed the majority of concerns and were acceptable. It is noted that no further concern regarding the ground floor window arrangements to Dwelling 5 and 6 fronting High Street were raised. This was due to confirmation that the window associated with Dwelling 5 is a highlight window with a raised sill of 1.7 metres from finished floor level and that the window associated with Dwelling 6 was proposed to be separated from the street with a planter box as recommended.

Therefore, the formal substitution of plans with the documents submitted on a ‘without prejudice’ basis as listed above should be required via a condition of any approval granted.

Transport and Parking:

The proposed car parking provision is satisfactory, with a total of 20 spaces provided within the proposed basement, which complies with the statutory requirement of two spaces for each of the ten dwellings.

Traffic generation is considered satisfactory as the additional traffic generated by the proposed development will not significantly impact upon the existing traffic conditions in the area.

It is recommended that the entry ramp to the basement be widened by a 300mm each side (total 600mm) in accordance with the Australian Standards, however the proposed width of 3.34 as demonstrated by the revised plans dated 25 May 2018 is acceptable.

The applicant is to confirm that a vehicle can enter the basement from the ramp in one movement, as the turning dimension appears tight (demonstrated on revised ‘without prejudice’ plans dated 25 May 2018).

The applicant is to confirm that the 2.1m minimum headroom clearance will also be maintained at the entrance to each of the garages with the roller doors in the open position. It is also noted that headroom clearance may be impacted in the garages for Dwellings 1 to 4 by the stairs. The applicant is to clarify this arrangement.

Adequate sightlines have not been demonstrated at the entrance to the site. The applicant is to revise the material to accord with the requirements of the Planning Scheme. An alternative is to limit the height of any obstruction within the sightline triangle to a maximum of 1m.

As vehicles are required to turn from the accessway into the parking floor, the applicant is to ensure that adequate visibility is provided ie. with a convex mirror.

Internal garage dimensions are acceptable, however the applicant is to revise the material to ensure no obstructions (including the provision of bicycle storage facilities) within the minimum dimensions.

Page 24


The applicant is to confirm that a minimum width of 4.8m will be provided for the garage doors.

The applicant is to provide swept path diagrams which clarify access for vehicles to Garage 4, due to its close proximity to the ramp. It is generally preferable for this to be undertaken in one movement, given the proximity to the entrance ramp, to minimise the number of vehicle movements near the entrance to the basement.

The floor grades have not been shown. The minimum gradient of the parking area shall be 1:100 (1.0%) for outdoor areas and 1:200 (0.5%) for covered areas to allow for adequate drainage as per the Australian Standards.

The length and width of the proposed usable platform is to be increased from what is indicated in the submitted traffic impact assessment, to that of the manufacturer’s specifications, in order to accommodate larger vehicles.

The applicant is to confirm that any walls or gates associated with the car stackers which provide separation from pedestrian walkways, are provided in accordance with the safety recommendations within the manufacturer’s specifications.

The existing crossover to be retained and utilised was constructed some time ago and should be reconstructed in the same location, with straight splays of 1.3 metres in accordance with Council’s current Vehicle Crossing Policy.

It is noted that the permit applicant sought to address concerns raised previously by the Transport and Parking department, regarding access and turning movements via the submission of revised ‘without prejudice’ plans and documents as follows:

- Revised Swept Path analysis, prepared by Quantum Traffic, dated 25 May 2018- TP100 (Basement) dated 25 May 2018

The majority of concerns above remain outstanding and should form conditions of any approval granted, in addition to the formal substitution of application plans and documents in accordance with the documents submitted on a ‘without prejudice’ basis as listed above.

Infrastructure:

The flooding identified in the SBO within McArthur Street is identified to almost touch the subject property and it is likely that this flooding may at times of peak rainfall, flow into the basement and in particular when there is turbulence created by passing vehicles in the street.

In order to protect the basement from flooding, there should be a 150mm apex created at the top of the basement ramp i.e. 150mm above the level of the back edge of the footpath (at the property line). Such an apex will elongate the required ramp however it appears that it may be able to be accommodated without significant changes to the basement.

The level of the ground floor of some of the units are low relative to the McArthur Street footpath and similar to the above, may be subject to flooding. This matter can be adequately addressed by placing a water proof masonry barrier or similar along the McArthur Street and the High Street frontages. This barrier need only be 150mm high and can be part of the base of the fence.

The above will form conditions of any approval granted.

Environmentally Sustainable Design (ESD):

The canopy over the second floor north facing windows is 450mm deep and while not the ideal projection depth for the window height it will have some effect in reducing energy

Page 25


peak demand and on this occasion is accepted. However the applicant should still provide horizontal shading devices and of at least similar depth to the ones on the second floor to the other north facing windows on the ground and first floor.

In regards to the west facing windows, the provision of operable external shading devices is preferable to fixed horizontal shading devices. Due to the low sun angles, normal fixed horizontal sun shading becomes ineffective. Therefore adjustable external shading devices should be used which could be in the form of operable louvres, sliding shutters or external blinds.

Waste Management:

The Waste Management Plan should specify the option for Council waste collections.

Local Laws – Crossover:

Proposed Plan does not show splay dimensions or crossover width. Building and Local Law would support the proposed crossover if the width and splays of the crossover are in accordance with the vehicle crossing policy.

The above will form conditions of any approval granted.

A summary of the comments received from the relevant external referral authority is listed below:

VicRoads:

No objection subject to a condition regarding the reinstatement of redundant vehicle crossings, as well as associated notes included on any approval granted.

KEY ISSUES

Strategic Justification

The overarching policies and objectives at both a State and Local level encourage urban consolidation in established urban areas and medium density residential development in and around neighbourhood activity centres, where it is close to public transport. These strategies call for well-designed medium-density development that respects neighbourhood character, improves housing choice, makes better use of existing infrastructure and improves energy efficiency.

Council's Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) identifies the site as being within a Substantial Change Area. Clause 21.03 (Vision) seeks to direct higher density development to locations with the highest accessibility to public transport and services; being sites in and beside activity centres, beside main roads with trams and Smart buses and beside railway stations.

Although not within an activity centre, the subject site directly abuts Commercially Zoned land to the east, located within the High on Tooronga Commercial Precinct, which consists of commercial facilities and community services for local and everyday retail, office and service activities.

The subject site is highly accessible to public transport, with tram and bus services operating within walking distance along High Street and providing convenient links to Gardiner Railway Station located approximately 1.0 kilometre north-east of the site and Malvern Railway

Page 26


Station located approximately 1.2 kilometres south-west of the site. The site is therefore well served by various public transport options.

Notwithstanding the above, it must be noted that the relevant State and Local Policy documentation regarding the provision of housing also refers to the importance of maintaining and enhancing neighbourhood character. Detailed consideration must be given to how the proposal specifically responds to the neighbourhood character, design and residential amenity. These elements are discussed in detail in this report.

In principle, the redevelopment of the subject land to provide additional housing opportunities in a well-serviced location is supported. Specific elements of the proposal are examined in detail below.

Garden Area

Under the provisions of the General Residential Zone, a lot with an area over 650 square metres requires 35% of the site to be Garden Area. This is a mandatory requirement of the zone that cannot be varied. Garden Area is defined by the Planning Scheme as:

Any area on a lot with a minimum dimension of 1 metre that does not include:a) a dwelling or residential building, except for: an eave, fascia or gutter that

does not exceed a total width of 600mm;- a pergola; - unroofed terraces, patios, decks, steps or landings less than 800mm

in height; - a basement that does not project above ground level; - any outbuilding that does not exceed a gross floor area of 10 square

metres; and - domestic services normal to a dwelling or residential building;

b) a driveway; or c) an area set aside for car parking.

The application complies with the Garden Area requirement as 35% of the site is provided as Garden Area.

Neighbourhood Character:

The site is located within the Garden Suburban 1 Neighbourhood Character Precinct as defined byCouncil's Local Neighbourhood Character Policy at Clause 22.23. The relevant section of the statement of preferred character for this precinct is as follows:

The Garden Suburban 1 (GS1) precinct comprises leafy streetscapes with a range of Victorian, Edwardian or Interwar era and contemporary buildings set in established garden surrounds. In typical streets regular front and side setbacks provide space around buildings and allow for small, well designed garden areas that contribute to the landscape quality of the street. New buildings or additions offer innovative and contemporary design responses while complementing the key aspects of form, general one-two storey scale and design detail of the older buildings. Low, visually permeable front fences retain views to gardens and dwellings from the street. Areas within a Residential Growth or Mixed Use Zone or within a substantial change area will accommodate more development with a more compact setting but with space for canopy trees and other vegetation and high quality, responsive design.

Page 27


The following is noted with regard to proposed development and the statement of preferred character as well as the specific Design Objections of the Garden Suburban Precinct 1:

The subject site is not affected by a Heritage Overlay and the existing buildings to be demolished do not contribute to the Victorian, Edwardian or Interwar era building stock of the area. The proposed development is of a contemporary design, which is consistent with development patterns found within the immediate area.

The section of High Street in which the subject site is positioned, includes a combination of both existing one-two storey single dwelling housing stock, as well as more recent medium to high density, contemporary design development, in addition to commercial buildings. As such, there is no predominant architectural style/s that characterises the street. The street's character is more a result of the setbacks, massing and landscaping around buildings. The proposed development is consistent with these elements. It is noted that Council's Urban Designer is supportive of the application and has advised that the proposal is ‘overall, a well-considered development subject to refinement.’

The proposed development is to be constructed to the High Street boundary in part, where the site abuts Commercially Zoned and developed/used land to the east. A transitional setback toward the corner of High and McArthur Streets is achieved, with the proposed development setback from the south-west corner of the site of 3.4 metres. The proposal incorporates a setback to McArthur Street of between 4.1 and 5.0 metres at Basement level, and 3.7 to 4.4 metres at Ground Floor level (this is reduced slightly at upper levels, due to façade detailing). The above setbacks allow for an appropriate transition of the proposed development from the High Street commercial precinct to the east, with existing residential development along High Street to the west as well as front setbacks of existing residential development in McArthur Street.

The proposed front setbacks from both High and McArthur Streets allow for the provision of deep soil planting and soft landscaping opportunities, which seek to integrate the development into the existing established garden surrounds of the area. In addition, the side and rear setbacks and the extent of the basement are satisfactory and will ensure adequate landscaping opportunity to the side and rear of the building, where appropriate.

It is proposed to fence the subject site along the High Street frontage to the west of the pedestrian entry and along the McArthur Street frontage. The proposed fencing is detailed as a 2.0 metre high, rendered brick fence, with individual pedestrian gate access and mailbox/intercom facilities for Dwellings 1-4 fronting McArthur Street. It is noted that the service boxes associated with the development are integrated into the fence design fronting High Street. Proposed fencing along High Street is acceptable due to the high exposure of the site to a main thoroughfare. The proposed fencing along McArthur Street at 2.0 metres in height can be considered acceptable as there are multiple examples of solid front and side fences up to 2.0 metres in height along McArthur Street, including the existing side fence of the subject site.

The proposal seeks to utilise an existing crossover to McArthur Street for vehicle access to the basement level. The proposed basement is located wholly below ground, therefore avoiding impacts of bulk/dominance of car parking structures within the streetscape. It is proposed to reinstate the southern-most crossover to McArthur Street, as well as an existing crossover to High Street, to kerb and channel. It is noted that there are no street trees adjacent to the subject site, as the public interface with the site along both High

Page 28


Street and McArthur Street is comprised of concrete pedestrian footpaths, with no naturestrip.

Clause 55 – Two or More Dwellings on a Lot (ResCode)

The application has been assessed against the objectives and standards of Clause 55 - Two or more dwellings on a lot (ResCode). A full assessment against the Standards and Objectives of Clause 55 has been undertaken and demonstrates that the development achieves a high level of compliance, with the following Standards of note highlighted and discussed:

STREET SETBACKAs the subject site is located on a corner, the applicable front and side setbacks in accordance with ResCode Standard B6 are detailed as follows:

Minimum setback from High Street (front)

If there is a building on the abutting allotment facing the front street, the same distance as the setback of the front wall of the existing building on the abutting allotment facing the front-street or 9 metres, whichever is the lesser.

It is proposed to construct Dwellings 5 and 6 abutting the southern title boundary to High Street, with the southern side of Dwelling 1 to be setback 3.4 metres from High Street. To the east of the subject site is 1339-1347 High Street, which is located within a Commercial 1 Zone and is currently used and developed for commercial purposes, with a zero lot setback. As ResCode requires the proposal to be setback the same distance of the front wall of the abutting lot, the proposed zero lot setback is an appropriate response.

Minimum setback from McArthur Street (side)

Side walls of new development on a corner site should be setback the same distance as the setback of the front wall of any existing building on the abutting allotment facing the side-street or 2 metres, whichever is the lesser.

It is proposed to construct Dwellings 1-4 fronting McArthur Street a minimum of 4.2 metres at the northern end and a minimum of 3.5 metres at the southern end (taken from Level 1 and 2) from the McArthur Street title boundary. The side setbacks are reflective of the positioning of the existing dwelling to the north at 2 McArthur Street, which has a front setback of 2.2-3.6 metres. As this is technically the side of the development due to the orientation of both sites to High Street, ResCode directs a minimum side setback of 2.0 metres. As the proposal seeks a minimum setback of 3.5m to McArthur Street, this element of the proposal complies with ResCode.

BUILDING HEIGHTThe proposal seeks to construct to a maximum height of 10.2 metres from natural ground level, with a total of 3 storeys above a basement concealed below ground. This complies with the mandatory maximum building height of 12 metres and 3 storeys as specified by the General Residential Zone Schedule 3.

SITE COVERAGEThe proposal seeks to construct to a total site coverage of 63% of the total site area, where ResCode directs that development should not exceed a total site coverage of 60%.

Page 29


It is considered that the proposal to vary the standard by 3% is acceptable in this instance, as the proposal incorporates sufficient areas free of hard surface for soft landscaping and deep soil planting.

In addition, given the nature of the adjoining Commercially Zoned and developed land which is comprised entirely of hard surface, the slight increase in hard surface is not entirely out of character with the area and can be supported.

PERMEABILITYThe proposal seeks to provide a total of 22% of the site as permeable surface which complies with the ResCode requirement of a minimum of 20% of the site area.

LANDSCAPINGThe proposed development seeks to provide deep soil planting opportunities for four trees along the McArthur Street frontage, as well as for two trees to the High Street frontage and three trees along the northern property boundary, within the SPOS areas of Dwellings 8, 9 and 10.

It is noted that due to the presence of the basement level below ground level, deep soil planting opportunities through the centre of the site are not possible, however the application includes a landscaping plan which indicates the provision of meaningful landscaping through the centre of the site, along either side of the pedestrian access, adjacent to the entrances of Dwellings 6 – 10 as well as landscaping within area of open and private open space.

There are no significant trees located on the subject site, as confirmed by the submission of an Arborist report, detailing all existing trees on the subject site. All existing trees/vegetation is to be removed from the subject land.

It is noted that the existing and preferred neighbourhood character of the area places an emphasis on landscaping. The proposal seeks to provide an acceptable level of canopy tree, shrubs and ground cover planting, to enable softening of the appearance of hard surface and to assist the integration of the dwellings into the neighbourhood. In addition, with appropriate maintenance, the proposed landscaping will provide a safe, functional and attractive environment.

SIDE AND REAR SETBACKSAs the subject site shares only one direct abuttal with a residential interface to the north, this is the only relevant consideration under Standard B17. A detailed assessment of the northern elevation against the provisions of B17 is detailed below. It is noted that the proposed basement is concealed below ground, therefore an assessment of this level against the above provisions is not required.

Floor Proposed wall height Proposed setback ResCode setback Ground 8.3m 3.7m 3.3m First 8.3m 3.7m 3.3m Second 8.3m

9.5m3.7m5.0m

3.3m4.5m

The proposal demonstrates full compliance with the provisions of Standard B17.

WALLS ON BOUNDARIES

Page 30


The proposal seeks to construct an extensive wall along the eastern boundary, for a length of 26.8 metres, where the length of the boundary is 31.2 metres. It is noted that in accordance with Standard B18, ResCode directs that the maximum preferred length of boundary wall construction is 20.3 metres (10 metres = 25% of the remaining boundary length).

In addition to the above, ResCode directs that:

The height of a new wall constructed on or within 200mm of a side or rear boundary should not exceed an average of 3.2 metres with no part higher than 3.6 metres unless abutting a higher existing or simultaneously constructed wall.

It is noted that the proposed eastern boundary construction ranges in height from 2.9 metres to 10.2 metres and well exceeds the abovementioned provisions.

As the eastern boundary of the subject site abuts an existing Commercial 1 Zone, consideration of amenity impacts regarding the boundary wall are not applicable. It is noted that the wall has been designed to consider the equitable development rights of the adjoining land (1339-1347 High Street).

The boundary wall will be required (via a standard condition of any approval granted) to be cleaned and finished to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. In addition to this, the applicant will be required to provide a high quality finish to the external surface of the wall where it has the potential to be visible from the public realm in the longer term. As such, an additional condition of any approval granted will require the submission of a materials and finishes schedule, detailing a high quality finish to the exterior surface of the eastern boundary wall.

OVERSHADOWINGDue to the orientation of the subject site and its direct residential interface being limited to one property to the north (2 McArthur Street), the proposal demonstrates full compliance with Standard B21.

It is noted that land adjoining the site to the east will be impacted by additional shadows cast by the three storey development, however as the land is zoned, developed and utilised for commercial purposes, the provisions of B21 are not applicable.

OVERLOOKINGThe residential interface to the north (2 McArthur Street) is the only property relevant to the overlooking considerations of Standard B22. The proposed dwellings 4, 8, 9 and 10 are positioned on the land adjacent to 2 McArthur Street, with each level and its potential for overlooking assessed as follows:

At ground floor level, each of the proposed dwellings are provided with a courtyard as well as habitable room windows. New boundary fencing to a height of 2.0 metres is to be constructed along the northern boundary, which effectively screens all overlooking opportunities from the ground floor.

At first floor level, all north-facing habitable room windows to Dwellings 8, 9 and 10 (with potential to overlooking the private open space of 2 McArthur Street) are to be constructed with a sill height of 1.7 metres from finished floor level, which demonstrates relevant compliance.

At second floor level, the proposal seeks to construct a terrace to each of the dwellings 4, 8, 9 and 10 to the north. Each terrace is fitted with a northern screen wall to a height of 1.7 metres from finished floor level of the terrace. The material nominated for screening is

Page 31


detailed as ‘perforated screen’ however the level of visual permeability of the screen is unconfirmed. As such, a condition of any approval granted will require confirmation that the proposed screening device is to have a minimum transparency of 25% and will be fixed.

INTERNAL VIEWSDwelling 4, at first floor level seeks to construct a window to Bedroom 3, which is north-facing and has the potential to internally overlook the secluded private open space of Dwelling 8. A note on the first floor site plan indicates that an operable screen is to be installed to the eastern side of the window for shading purposes, however this does not satisfy internal overlooking provisions.

As such, a condition of any approval granted will require that the window be screened in accordance with Standard B23.

PRIVATE OPEN SPACEThe proposed areas of open space to dwellings 2, 3, 8, 9 and 10 fall short of the minimum provisions of Standard B28. For the provision of ground floor open space, a total of 40 square metres, with a secluded area of 25 square metres and a minimum dimension of 3.0 metres is required. Where private open space is to be provided in the form of a balcony, an area of 8 square metres with a minimum dimension of 1.6 metres is required and for a roof top area, the ResCode seeks 10 square metres with a minimum dimension of 2.0 metres. Furthermore, each area must be accessible from a living area.

For dwellings 2 and 3, the minimum area of secluded private open space is provided, however each dwelling falls short of the overall open space provision of 40 square metres by 18.3sqm and 17.3sqm respectively. It is considered that the shortfall of overall open space is acceptable in this instance as open space provided is well designed, easily accessible and will provide for the needs of the dwelling occupants.

Dwellings 8, 9 and 10 are provided with areas of secluded private open space which fall short of the ResCode requirement of 25 square metres by 7sqm each however, it is noted that the minimum dimension of 3.0 metres has been provided. Furthermore, a small terrace (3.5sqm) is provided to dwellings 8, 9 and 10 which provides additional opportunity for outdoor spaces to these dwellings. The non-compliance of Dwellings 8, 9 and 10 are considered to be acceptable in this instance as the spaces are north-facing and will adequately provide for the needs of the dwelling occupants.

FRONT FENCESStandard B32 directs that front fencing (in accordance with the requirements of the Schedule to the Zone) adjacent to a Category 1 Road Zone be up to 2.0 metres in height, with fences abutting all other roads to be up to 1.5 metres in height.

It is proposed to fence the subject site along the High Street frontage to the west of the pedestrian entry and along the McArthur Street frontage. The proposed fencing is detailed as a 2.0 metre high, rendered brick fence, with individual pedestrian gate access and mailbox/intercom facilities for Dwellings 1-4 fronting McArthur Street.

Proposed fencing along High Street is acceptable due to the high exposure of the site to a main thoroughfare (RDZ1).

The proposed fencing along McArthur Street at 2.0 metres in height can be considered acceptable as there are multiple examples of solid front and side fences up to 2.0 metres in height along McArthur Street, including the existing side fence of the subject site. In addition,

Page 32


the design of the fence includes multiple sections of visually permeable gates, which breaks up the solidity of a continued brick wall.

Car Parking, Traffic and Bicycle Facilities

The application attracts an on-site car parking requirement of 20 spaces for residents. It is noted that Planning Scheme Amendment VC148 (gazetted 31 July 2018) removed the requirement for the provision of visitor car parking spaces, for sites located within the Principle Public Transport Network (PPTN). As the subject land is within the PPTN, visitor car parking is no longer applicable and as such, the proposed waiver of two visitor spaces is no longer part of the proposal. As such, the proposal demonstrates full compliance with on-site car parking provision requirements of Clause 52.06 – Car Parking.

Council's Transport and Parking Department have reviewed the provision of parking and the layout and access arrangements of the basement, and are generally supportive of the proposal, subject to refinement via conditions of any approval granted.

Transport and Parking have noted that the traffic generation from the proposal is considered satisfactory and is unlikely to have a significant impact on the operation of the surrounding road network.

Council’s Transport and Parking department have assessed the proposed bicycle parking provision and have deemed it to be compliant with the requirements of Clause 52.34 – Bicycle Facilities. It is noted that a condition of any approval granted will require that bicycle parking not encroach into the minimum dimensions of car parking spaces.

Clause 52.02 - Easements, Restrictions and Reserves

The site is affected by:

An easement providing drainage/sewerage to 1337 High Street which is located to the northern boundary of 1335 High Street.

A carriageway easement to the south western corner of the Site.

It is considered that as the subject lots are proposed to be consolidated, the drainage/sewerage easement provided to service each lot individually is no longer required.

It is acknowledged that the existing carriageway easement to the south-west corner of the site is no longer necessary, due to the removal of the existing crossover in this location.

As such, it is considered that the purpose of Clause 52.02 (Easements, Restrictions and Reserves) is adequately addressed, as the removal of an easement or restriction to enable development that comply with the Planning Scheme, has considered the interests of those affected.

Clause 22.05 - Environmentally Sustainable Development (ESD):

The applicant has submitted a Sustainable Management Plan (SMP) 26 July 2018 on a ‘Without Prejudice’ basis, in response to the application requirements of Clause 22.05-4. The SMP uses the BESS tool to demonstrate that the objectives of Clause 22.05 have been addressed.

The BESS score achieved for the development is 52%. This score meets best practice (minimum 50%) and demonstrates the proposal adequately responds to the ESD objectives of Clause 22.05.

Page 33


Clause 22.18 - Stormwater Management:

A revised Sustainability Management Plan and Water Sensitive Urban Design Response was submitted on 26 July 2018 on a ‘Without Prejudice’ basis. The report includes a STORM Rating Report showing a STORM rating of 103%. This meets the minimum requirement to satisfy Clause 22.18.

Objections

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

The amount of traffic presumed to utilise the accessway via McArthur Street is grossly underestimated at morning and peak times

Impacts to street parking availability and traffic congestion on McArthur Street The use of car stackers in the basement is cumbersome and will result in the use of

street parking The submitted traffic report overstates the number of car parking spaces available in

McArthur Street as parking bays are not marked on the road

With regard to the points above, Council’s Transport and Parking department have reviewed the application have raised no concerns with the estimated number of vehicle movements associated with the proposed development.

It is noted that existing traffic congestion and street-parking provision are not matters which become the responsibility of the permit applicant/land owner to resolve as part of a planning application. As expressed, Council’s Transport and Parking department have assessed the proposed parking provision and vehicle movements within the site and adjoining road network, with no material concerns raised.

The proposal to incorporate car stackers within the basement to achieve required residential car parking spaces is a common and acceptable practice. It is noted that the decision of any potential occupant of Dwellings 5, 6 and 7 to occupy any of these dwellings, will be based on an understanding of the car parking arrangement.

Following the consultation meeting of 14 August 2018, a minimum of three of the objectors completed and submitted a parking restriction petition, seeking to introduce parking restrictions within McArthur Street. It is noted that this is not a planning related consideration, however has been forwarded for the consideration of Council’s Transport and Parking department.

It is further noted that at the consultation meeting, it was confirmed by a Council representative that it is not Council’s preference to line-mark residential streets and that inefficient use of street parking spaces is an unfortunate reality.

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 Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

CONCLUSION

Page 34


Having assessed the application against the relevant planning controls, it is recommended that the proposal be supported for the following reasons. The application is consistent with Planning Policy which seeks to provide for well-

designed residential development which respects neighbourhood character in established urban areas.

The proposal provides for a satisfactory landscape response that will contribute to the landscape character of the area.

The development will not unreasonably impact upon adjoining amenity as determined by compliance with ResCode (Clause 55) Objectives.

The proposal satisfies Council's Environmental Sustainable Development and Stormwater Management policies.

ATTACHMENTS

1. PA - 310-17 - 1331-1335 & 1337 High Street Malvern - Attachment 1 of 1 Plans

RECOMMENDATION

That Council advise VCAT and other interested parties that had a Failure to Determine appeal not been lodged, a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 310/17 for the land located at 1331-1335 & 1337 High Street Malvern under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for the construction of a multi-dwelling development in a General Residential Zone, alteration of access to a Road Zone Category 1 and removal of easements would have been recommended subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the commencement of the development, 1 copy of plans drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans advertised March 2018, and subsequently revised TP1-100 (Basement) submitted on a ‘without prejudice’ basis to Council on 25 May 2018 as well as TP1-101 (Ground Floor), TP1-102 (First Floor) and TP1-103 (Second Floor) submitted on a ‘without prejudice’ basis to Council on 26 July 2018 which collectively detail the following changes: Increased separation distance between built form to the south-east and

north-west from 2.6 metres to 2.9 metres; Clarification of vehicle movements and parking layout details including

increased accessway ramp width from 2.9 metres to 3.1 metres (at title boundary) to 3.3 metres (at basement entry);

Clarification of in ground planting along the northern elevation; and A number of design measures to comply with Environmentally

Sustainable Design principals.

but modified to show:a. Details of a high quality finish to the exterior surface of the eastern

boundary wall;

b. The ‘perforated screen’ utilised to mitigate overlooking from terraces

Page 35


on the first and second floors to the northern elevation, to be confirmed as being fixed and having a maximum transparency of 25%, in accordance with Standard B22 (Overlooking) of Clause 55 (ResCode) of the Stonnington Planning Scheme;

c. The Dwelling 4 first floor north-facing Bedroom 3 window to be screened in accordance with Standard B23 (Internal Views) of Clause 55 (ResCode) of the Stonnington Planning Scheme;

d. Deletion of the external screening device associated with the south-facing window of the first-floor Living room to Dwelling 5 as it is located outside the title boundary;

e. The vehicle entry ramp to the Basement to be widened to a minimum width of 3.34 metres;

f. A minimum 2.1m headroom clearance maintained at the entrance to each of the garages, with the proposed roller doors in the open position;

g. A minimum 2.1m headroom clearance maintained within the garages associated with Dwellings 1-4 in the location of the proposed stairs;

h. All garage doors to achieve a minimum width of 4.8 metres;i. Sightlines at the entrance to the vehicle accessway to McArthur

Street, in accordance with Clause 52.06 (Car Parking) of the Stonnington Planning Scheme;

j. A convex mirror provided at the entrance to the basement, to ensure visibility between the parking floor and the access ramp;

k. No obstructions (including bicycle parking provision) within the minimum internal dimensions of each garage/parking space in accordance with Clause 52.06 (Car Parking) of the Stonnington Planning Scheme;

l. A swept path diagram which demonstrates minimal movements required for a vehicle to gain access from the entrance ramp to Garage 4;

m. The length and width of the proposed usable platform of the proposed car stackers associated with Dwellings 5, 6 and 7 are to be increased to be consistent with the manufacturer’s specifications;

n. Details of relevant safety measures to be implemented to separate the car stackers from the adjacent pedestrian walkway;

o. A 150mm apex at the top of the basement ramp, above the level of the back edge of the footpath at the property line, or a similar flood mitigation method;

p. A water proof masonry barrier or similar associated with the boundary fencing along the McArthur Street and High Street frontages to a height of 150mm from natural ground level;

q. North-facing windows on the ground and first floor to be fitted with shading devices of the same or similar nature to those fitted to the second floor north-facing windows, to a minimum depth of 450mm;

r. The provision of operable (in lieu of fixed), external shading devices such as operable louvres, sliding shutters or external blinds to west-facing windows;

s. A Landscaping Plan in accordance with Condition 3 of this permit;t. A Sustainable Management Plan in accordance with Condition 6 of

this permit;u. A Waste Management Plan in accordance with Condition 8 of this

permit;

Page 36


To the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

3. Before the development starts, 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. The landscape plan must be in accordance with the landscape concept plan advertised March 2018, prepared by Etched Projects, but modified to 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. The extent of any cut, fill, embankments or retaining walls associated

with the landscape treatment of the site;g. Details of all proposed hard surface materials including pathways,

patio or decked areas;

To the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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. The development must incorporate the Water Sensitive Urban Design initiatives detailed on the endorsed site plan and stormwater management report.

6. Concurrent with the endorsement of any plans pursuant to Condition 1, a Sustainable Management Plan (SMP) must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Upon approval, the SMP will be endorsed as part of the planning permit. The development must incorporate the sustainable design initiatives outlined in the SMP to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The report must be generally in accordance with the SMP prepared by Suho submitted to Council on a ‘Without Prejudice’ basis to Council on 26 July 2018.

7. All works must be undertaken in accordance with the endorsed Sustainable Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. No alterations to the Sustainable Management Plan may occur without written consent of the Responsible Authority.

Page 37


8. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a Waste Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The Waste Management Plan must be generally in accordance with the Waste Management Plan prepared by Suho dated 25 May 2018 but updated to include:

a. Dimensions of waste areasb. The number of bins to be providedc. The option for Council waste collections. d. Method of waste and recyclables collectione. Hours of waste and recyclables collection f. Method of presentation of bins for waste collectiong. Sufficient headroom within the basement to allow the passage of

waste collection vehiclesh. Sufficient turning circles for the waste collection vehicles to drive

out in forward gear from within the basement i. Strategies for how the generation of waste and recyclables from the

development will be minimisedWhen approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. Waste collection from the development must be in accordance with the plan, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

9. The collection of wastes and recyclables from the premises (other than normal Stonnington City Council collection) must be in accordance with Council's General Local Laws.

10. Prior to the occupation of the building, the walls on the boundary of the adjoining properties must be cleaned and finished to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

11. Prior to the occupation of the building, fixed privacy screens (not adhesive film or timber screens) designed to limit overlooking as required by Standard B22 of Clause 55.04-6 in accordance with the endorsed plans must be installed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority thereafter for the life of the building.

12. 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 prior to a building permit being issued. All drainage must be by means of a gravity based system with the exception of any basement ramp and agricultural drains which may be pumped. The drainage must be constructed in accordance with the Engineer's design and must include an upgrade the outfall drain at the rear of the site through to the Council drain in Horsburgh Grove at the permit holders cost.

13. The existing footpath levels must not be lowered or altered in any way at the property line (to facilitate the basement ramp).

VicRoads Condition

14. Prior to the occupation of the development, the redundant vehicle crossing on High Street must be removed and the area reinstated to the satisfaction

Page 38


of the Responsible Authority (RA) and at no cost to VicRoads or the RA.

End VicRoads Condition

15. Prior to the occupation of the development, the redundant vehicle crossing on McArthur Street must be removed and the footpath and kerb reinstated at the owner's cost to the satisfaction of Council.

16. Prior to the occupation of the building, the existing outdated crossover to McArthur Street to be reconstructed in the same location, with straight splays of 1.3 metres and width in accordance with Council’s current Vehicle Crossing Policy;

17. The applicant must at their cost provide a stormwater detention system to restrict runoff from the development to no greater than the existing runoff based on a 1 in 10 A.R.I. to the satisfaction of Council's Infrastructure Unit Alternatively, in lieu of the stand-alone detention system, the owner may provide stormwater tanks that are in total 7,000 litres greater than those tanks required to satisfy WSUD requirements for the development. Those tanks must be connected to all toilets.

18. 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

19. 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.

20. All plant and equipment (including air-conditioning units) shall be located or screened so as not to be visible from any of the surrounding footpaths and adjoining properties (including from above) and shall be baffled so as to minimise the emission of unreasonable noise to the environment in accordance with Section 48A of the Environment Protection Act 1970 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

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

permit.

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

VICROADS NOTE:

I. No work must be commenced in, on, under or over the road reserve without having first obtaining all necessary approval under the Road Management Act 2004, the Road Safety Act 1986, and any other relevant acts or regulations created under those Acts.

Page 39


NOTES:

II. 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.

III. 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; orb) with a trunk circumference of 140 centimetres or greater measured at

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

IV. 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.

V. Nothing in the permit hereby issued may be construed to allow the removal of, damage to or pruning of any street tree without the further written consent of the Stonnington City Council. Contact the Council Arborists on 8290 1333 for further information.

VI. The owners and occupiers of the dwellings hereby approved are not eligible to receive "Resident Parking Permits".

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

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

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

Page 40


3. PLANNING APPLICATION 0342/18- 252 WAVERLEY ROAD, MALVERN EAST VIC 3145 – CONSTRUCTION OF THREE, THREE-STOREY DWELLINGS

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

PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for construction of a multi-dwelling development in a General Residential Zone at 252 Waverley Road, Malvern East.

Executive Summary

Applicant: Mezzanine Property Group Pty LtdWard: EastZone: General Residential Zone – Schedule 7Overlay: NoNeighbourhood Precinct: Garden Suburban 4Date lodged: 4 April 2018Statutory days: (as at council meeting date)

135

Trigger for referral to Council:

Councillor Call up

Number of objections: 3Consultative Meeting: Yes – held on 29 August 2018Officer Recommendation: Issue a Notice of Refusal

BACKGROUND

The Proposal

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by Mezzanine Property Group and are known as Project No. 1801/ADR, Drawing No.s: TP0.01 – TP0.03, TP1.01 - TP1.05, TP2.01, TP4.01, TP4.02 and, TP5.01 and Council date stamped 1 June 2018. A Landscape Plan prepared by Path Design Studio and Council date stamped 1 June 2018 also accompanies the proposal.

Key features of the proposal are:

Removal of the existing dwelling (no permit required); Construction of three semi-detached three-storey dwellings each with four bedrooms; Provision of two car parking spaces within a double garage for each dwelling (6 spaces

total); Vehicle access to Units 1 and 2 is via two new crossovers from Macgregor Street; Vehicle access to Unit 3 is via the rear laneway; All dwellings are provided with ground level secluded private open space areas to the

west in addition to street facing balconies at first floor level; The building will have a maximum overall height of 10.4 metres; The building will be of contemporary design with material finishes including face

brickwork, painted render, fibre cement cladding, timber cladding and metal deck roofing.

A 0.9 metre high steel picket front fence is proposed to the Waverley Road and MacGregor Street frontages.

Page 41


Site and Surrounds

The site is located on the south-west corner of the intersection of Waverley Road and Macgregor Street in Malvern East. The site has the following significant characteristics:

A frontage to Waverley Road of 14.02 metres, a secondary frontage to Macgregor Street of 45.72 metres, yielding an overall site area of 641sqm.

The land currently contains a single storey brick dwelling and outbuilding. Vehicle access is presently via a single crossover at the southern end of the site from

Macgregor Street. The land has a fall from front to back (north to south) of approximately 1 metre.

The surrounding area is largely made up of residential properties, predominantly detached houses set on large lots, with some medium density infill developments in the vicinity. Most properties exhibit established garden settings and reasonably consistent street setbacks. Larger scale developments are evident along Waverley Road.

The site has the following direct interfaces:

To the west at 250 Waverley Road is a single storey brick dwelling setback 8.9 metres from the street and approximately 2.9 metres from the common boundary with the subject site. Secluded private open space is located to the south (rear) of the dwelling.

To the south the site abuts a laneway of approximately 4.5 metres in width. Beyond the laneway is the driveway and front yard of a dwelling at 71 Macgregor Street. Properties along Macgregor Street are within a Neighbourhood Residential Zone and are affected by a Neighbourhood Character Overlay.

Macgregor Street runs along the eastern boundary of the site and opposite are three single storey dwellings. The front dwelling is addressed to 254 Waverley Road and is provided with vehicle access to the eastern side from Waverley Road. The two dwellings at the rear face Macgregor Street and share a vehicle crossover at the southern end of the site.

Waverley Road abuts the north of the site, beyond which is a three storey residential aged care facility currently under construction.

Previous Planning Applications

A search of Council records indicates that there is no planning history on the land.

The Title

The site is described on Certificate of Title Volume 8461 Folio 336 as Lot 1 on Title Plan 334118A and no covenants or easements affect the land.

Planning Controls

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

ZoneClause 32.08 General Residential Zone - Schedule 7Pursuant to Clause 32.08-06 a permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot. A development must meet the requirements of Clause 55.

Page 42


Pursuant to Clause 32.08-4, a minimum garden area of 30% is required to be provided at ground level. The development provides a minimum garden area of approximately 39% in compliance with this mandatory requirement.

Pursuant to Clause 32.08-9, the maximum height of a building for use as a dwelling must not exceed the building height specified in a schedule to the zone.

Schedule 7 to the General Residential Zone specifies that dwellings must not exceed a height of 10.5 metres unless the slope of the natural ground level at any cross section wider than 8 metres of the site of the building is 2.5 degrees or more, in which case the height of the building must not exceed 11.5 metres. This site allows for a maximum height of 10.5 metres and the development complies with this mandatory requirement.

Schedule 7 also specifies modified ResCode Standards as follows:

Standard RequirementSite coverage A5 and B8 Basements should not exceed 75% of the site area.Side and rear setbacks

A10 and B17 For a distance of at least 5 metres behind the front facade of the building fronting the street, setback new buildings (including basements) a minimum of 2 metres from at least one side boundary and at least 1 metre from the other side boundary up to 3.6 metres in height.

Where no setback is specified, standard A10 or B17 applies.

Walls on boundaries

A11 and B18 Walls should not be located on side boundaries for a distance of 5 metres behind the front façade of the building fronting the street.

OverlaysThere are no overlays affecting the land.

Particular ProvisionsClause 52.06 - Car Parking

Pursuant to Table 1 at Clause 52.06-5 two car parking spaces are required for each three or more bedroom dwelling, and at least one space is to be under cover. As the development proposes three dwellings each with four bedrooms, a total of 6 car parking spaces are required. There is no requirement for visitor car parking.

Each dwelling is provided with two car parking spaces within double garages. Accordingly, the requirements of Clause 52.06-5 are satisfied and a permit is not required in this regard.

Relevant Planning Policies

Clause 16.01 - Residential DevelopmentClause 21.03 - VisionClause 21.05 - HousingClause 21.06 - Built Environment and HeritageClause 22.05 - Environmentally Sustainable DevelopmentClause 22.18 - Stormwater ManagementClause 22.23 - Neighbourhood Character PolicyClause 32.08 - General Residential ZoneClause 55 - Two or more dwellings on a lot (ResCode)

Page 43


Clause 65 - Decision Guidelines

Advertising

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

The site is located in East Ward and objections from three different properties have been received which are summarised as follows:

inadequate street setbacks; visual bulk and mass; impact on neighbouring trees to west; poor landscape response in light of significant tree removed last year; synthetic grass is inappropriate; materials don’t reflect character; overlooking; impact of two double crossovers; and location of air-conditioning plant should be nominated.

A Consultative Meeting was held on 29 August 2018. The meeting was attended by Councillors Davis and Atwell, representatives of the applicant, objectors and a Council planning officer. At the meeting revised plans were tabled for discussion. The discussion plans are Council date stamped 2 August 2018 and include the following key changes:

Increased staggered front setbacks to Waverley Road from between 5.0 metres - 6.94 metres, to 6.385 metres - 8.325 metres at ground floor, and upper floors increased accordingly;

Additional articulation provided to the Macgregor Street façade at ground floor by increasing the 2 metre setback to a minimum of 2.075 metres, up to 2.5 metres adjacent to the kitchen/pantry;

Crossovers to Macgregor Street reduced to single width; and Provision of canopy trees.

At the meeting the applicant agreed to the following undertakings:

Provision of screening to all west facing habitable room windows on the second floor; Relocation of rainwater tank/s outside of tree protection zones; Air-conditioning units to be located at ground level and not visible from neighbouring

properties or the street; A tree management plan for neighbouring trees to west; Synthetic grass replaced with natural grass; and An improved landscape response as required.

Referrals

Parks

A large, established Norfolk Island Pine tree was removed from the rear of this site in December 2017 without permission from Council. It appeared to be a healthy and well-

Page 44


structured specimen. Had the tree been considered as part of this application, removal of the tree would not have been supported. As it was located close to the eastern boundary, it is believed the tree could have been retained within any new development on this site.

A Tree Management Plan is required for a significant Pin Oak tree and other established trees within the property to the west at 250 Waverley Road.

The location of the services must be shown in relation to the established street trees to ensure trenching for service connection does not occur within the Structural Root Zones of these trees.

The submitted landscape plan indicates that all trees proposed to be planted are to be hedged to 3.5 metres or lower, which is not appropriate. Generous areas of open space within the proposal should accommodate larger replacement canopy trees as part of the development.

Transport and Parking (Comments based on Advertised Plans)

The traffic impact of this proposal is anticipated to be negligible. The number and dimensions of car parking spaces on site meet the requirements of

the Planning Scheme and are considered satisfactory. The provision of separate access for two dwellings from Macgregor Street and one

from the laneway is acceptable. Pedestrian sight triangles are required to be provided to all driveways and at the street

intersections to the northern and southern corners of the site. The angled design of the vehicle crossover to Unit 2 from Macgregor Street does not

accord with Council’s policy and is not acceptable.

Planner response: The single width crossovers now shown in the discussion plans accord with Council’s crossover policy.

Infrastructure

There will be significant additional stormwater runoff generated by the development and there are known drainage problems and flooding downstream of the property.

Urban Design (Comments based on Discussion Plans)

The building crowds the frontage to Macgregor Street and precludes the possibility for a satisfactory landscape setting. The setback from Macgregor Street should be increased to a minimum of 3 metres to reduce the dominant visual impact of the building and to enable a suitable small canopy-tree landscape edge to the street.

Given the removal of the large pine tree from the site, the rear of Unit 3 should be further setback from the laneway to enable a large replacement canopy tree in this location. This increased and landscaped rear setback will also assist in addressing the current absence of proposed new landscaping; and will assist in moderating the currently dominant form and scale transition to the adjoining Neighbourhood Residential Zone.

The building presents as a large singular building form to Macgregor Street. To establish an improved integration with the streetscape, it is suggested that the form be further articulated to more clearly express the building as three individual attached dwellings.

The proposed materials colour palette for the ground floor is predominantly grey/black brick and the large garage doors (TM03) are shown as a ‘grey’ colour. It is suggested that a lighter colour palette be selected for the ground level to establish a more

Page 45


sympathetic relationship with the predominant material colours that characterise the Macgregor Street Neighbourhood Character Overlay.

KEY ISSUES

Both the application plans (Council date stamped 1 June 2018) and the discussion plans (Council date stamped 2 August 2018) will form the basis of this assessment.

Strategic Context

The overarching policies and objectives at both a State and Local level encourage urban consolidation in established urban areas and residential development in and around neighbourhood activity centres and close to public transport. These strategies call for well-designed medium-density development that respects neighbourhood character, improves housing choice, makes better use of existing infrastructure and improves energy efficiency.

Council's Strategic Framework defines the site as being within an "incremental change area" which directs multi-unit development of 2-3 storeys to lots capable of accommodating increased density. The site is located in the General Residential Zone, the purpose of which is to encourage a diversity of housing types and housing growth that respects the neighbourhood character of an area.

As the site is not affected by any overlays and is located on an arterial road within walking distance of two Neighbourhood Activity Centres, it is suitably located to support a modest increase in density in line with these policy expectations.

Clause 22.23 – Neighbourhood Character Policy:

The site is located within the Garden Suburban 4 Neighbourhood Character Precinct as defined by Council’s Local Neighbourhood Character Policy at Clause 22.23. The relevant section of the statement of preferred character for this precinct is as follows:

The Garden Suburban 4 (GS4) precinct comprises spacious and leafy streetscapes with Edwardian, Interwar or Post-war era and new buildings set in established garden surrounds. Regular front and side setbacks provide space around buildings and allow for canopy trees. New buildings or additions offer innovative and contemporary design responses while complementing the key aspects of building form, scale and design detail of the older dwellings in the precinct. Low or permeable front fences retain views to gardens and buildings from the street. Areas within a Residential Growth or Mixed Use Zone or within a substantial change area will accommodate more development with a more compact setting but with space for canopy trees and other vegetation and high quality, responsive design.

The following is noted with regard to the proposed development and the statement of preferred character:

The application proposes a contemporary building. The statement of preferred character recognises that the character of the area comprises a mix of architectural styles. Contemporary buildings are part of this mix and are generally encouraged provided new buildings reflect the key characteristics of the precinct.

Page 46


The discussion plans show increased setbacks to the Waverley Road frontage. The Waverley Road setbacks allow for sufficient front garden space to reflect the landscape quality of the street.

The proposal is setback from both side and rear boundaries to provide space around the building. However, the setbacks to Macgregor Street and the rear setback are not considered to allow sufficient space for substantial canopy trees to reflect the established garden character or transition into the area covered by the Neighbourhood Character Overlay.

Proposed front fencing is low and permeable and therefore appropriately responds to the character of both streetscapes.

The following specific design objectives apply to the Garden Suburban 4 precinct:

To encourage the retention of intact, older dwellings that contribute to the character of the area.

To ensure new buildings and extensions do not dominate the streetscape. To encourage a high quality of building detailing that references, without mimicking,

the details of buildings in the area. To maintain and reinforce the rhythm of spacing between and around buildings. To maintain and strengthen the garden settings of buildings and the tree canopy of

the neighbourhood. To prevent the loss of front garden space and the dominance of car parking

structures. To ensure fences complement the predominant style of front boundary treatment in

the street and retain views to dwellings and gardens.

The following is noted with regard to the relevant design guidelines:

The site is not protected by a Neighbourhood Character Overlay or Heritage Overlay therefore demolition of the dwelling is as-of-right. However the replacement development does not adequately reflect the key characteristics of the area including the strongly landscaped streetscapes with generous setbacks to reflect the spacious garden character.

With regard to the interface with Macgregor Street, the three storey scale is presented as one large building mass which will dominate the streetscape due to a lack of vertical articulation and insufficient street setbacks.

The building is proposed to be constructed in a combination of materials including dark face brickwork, light coloured render and timber cladding. Whilst all of these materials/colours can be found within the broader area, the overwhelming character of the immediate vicinity is that of red face brickwork, and to a lesser extent, pale coloured render or weatherboards.

The façades of the building are articulated with fenestration and balconies to provide visual interest. However, as noted above, additional vertical articulation is required to break up the Macgregor Street façade. This would enable the development to be recognised as three townhouses and better respond to the character of properties to the south.

Page 47


The policy encourages retention of established or mature trees and the recent loss of a mature Norfolk Pine tree on site is disappointing. This tree was highly visible within the streetscape of Macgregor Street and from surrounding properties, and it made a valuable contribution to the garden character of the area. The proposed building is not adequately setback off the eastern and southern boundaries to afford sufficient space to accommodate substantial vegetation and offset the loss of this tree. Therefore it is considered that the proposed landscape response is inadequate.

The proposal incorporates one additional crossover to Macgregor Street to provide separate access for each dwelling which is consistent with the surrounding character. The new crossovers have been located and designed to minimise impacts on the existing mature street trees. The garages to Units 1 and 2 are recessed behind the facades which is appropriate to minimise their dominance.

Built Form

The provisions of the General Residential Zone require that the proposal be assessed against the objectives and standards of Clause 55 (ResCode) and the modified standards specified in Schedule 7 to the zone. A full assessment against the applicable objectives and standards has been carried out. The following relevant standards are highlighted and discussed:

Neighbourhood Character

As indicated above, the design response is not appropriate to the neighbourhood and does not adequately respond to the features of the site which has a direct abuttal with properties within a Neighbourhood Character Overlay to the south. The development does not respect the building form, scale and design detail of dwellings within the Garden Suburban (GS4) precinct, and therefore is non-compliant with Standard B1 which seeks to ensure that development is respectful and contributes to a preferred neighbourhood character. This will form a ground of refusal.

Street Setback

The application proposes a variation to the street setback standard (Standard B6) to both frontages.

To Waverley Road, the standard asks that the building replicate the 8.9 metre setback of the adjacent dwelling to the west. The discussion plans propose staggered setbacks to the street of between 8.325 metres to the west and 6.385 metres to the east, representing a shortfall of between 0.5m to 2.5m. These proposed setbacks are acceptable in the surrounding context given that to the east the adjacent dwelling facing Waverley Road is setback 3.6 metres from the street and the associated garage is setback only 1.7 metres. When considering the average setbacks, the proposed setbacks to the development provide an appropriate transition between adjacent buildings. The setbacks detailed in the discussion plans are sufficient to allow an appropriate level of landscaping within the Waverley Road frontage. However, as the application is recommended to be refused, the inadequate street setbacks provided in the application plans will form a ground of refusal.

Turning to Macgregor Street, the standard calls for a 2 metre side setback to Unit 1 and a 3 metre front setback to Units 2 and 3. The development proposes a setback of 2 metres to Unit 1, which complies with the standard. A 2 metre setback to Unit 2 and a staggered setback to Unit 3 of between 2.075 to 2.5 metres, as proposed in the discussion plans, do not meet the prescriptive requirements. Garages are proposed to be setback 2.5 metres from Macgregor Street.

Page 48


A variation to the standard is not supported as it is considered that the reduced setbacks do not provide an appropriate transition between the gateway from Waverley Road and the adjacent dwellings to the south within the Neighbourhood Character Overlay area. A minimum 3 metre setback is required to both Units 2 and 3 to provide additional space for landscaping, including a canopy tree within the south-east corner of the site. This would assist to reduce the visual impact of the development on Macgregor Street and show respect to the generous front gardens to the south. An improved landscape response would also partly assist to mitigate the recent loss of the Norfolk Pine tree, as previously discussed. The non-compliance with Standard B6 will form a ground of refusal.

Building Height

The proposal has a maximum building height of 10.4 metres above natural ground level. This complies with the maximum 10.5 metre height permitted by the General Residential Zone, Schedule 7.

Site Coverage and Permeability

Schedule 7 of the General Residential Zone varies Standard B8 and states that a basement should not exceed 75% of a site’s area. The application does not propose a basement level. It is noted that the site coverage of the building footprint has been reduced from 53% to 50% on the discussion plans. This is less than the 60% permitted by the standard.

Standard B9 seeks at least 20% site permeability. The application proposes 39.3% which has been increased to 41.9% on the discussion plans.

Landscaping

Key objectives of clause 55.03-8 are to encourage development that respects the landscape character of the neighbourhood; to provide appropriate landscaping; and to encourage the retention of mature vegetation on the site. Standard B13 calls for a landscape layout and design to protect any predominant features of the neighbourhood and provide for the retention and planting of trees where these are part of the character of the neighbourhood.

Of particular relevance to this proposal, the standard states that development should provide for the replacement of any significant trees that have been removed in the 12 months prior to the application being made. In determining whether the proposed landscape response is acceptable Council must consider any relevant neighbourhood character objectives, the design response, the location and size of gardens, the health of any trees to be removed and whether a tree was removed to gain a development advantage.

The mature Norfolk Pine tree was removed in December 2017, ie. within 12 months of the application for development being made. Aerial mapping indicates that the tree was located toward the rear half of the site, approximately 3 metres from the eastern boundary and approximately 17 metres from the southern boundary. This is generally in the vicinity of the proposed garage for Unit 2. Siting part of the new building in the previous location of the tree strongly implies that the applicant is attempting to gain a development advantage by the removal of the tree. Furthermore, an alternative area large enough to accommodate a substantial replacement tree has not been set aside in the proposed plans. As previously discussed, this is not an appropriate response to the landscaped character of the neighbourhood and is not supported. The proposal does not allow adequate opportunities for sufficient landscaping throughout the site due to the limited side and rear setbacks, and this will form a ground of refusal.

Page 49


Amenity Impacts

Daylight to Existing Windows

There are two habitable room windows to the adjacent dwelling to the west at 250 Waverley Road facing the subject site. The windows are setback 3 metres from the common boundary. Combined with the setbacks to the proposed development, good daylight access to the windows will be maintained in accordance with Standard B19 as demonstrated in the table below:

Western ElevationLocation Maximum wall

height opposite window

B19 Setback required from window

Setback to window proposed

Complies?

Ground floor 3.1 metres 1.5 metres 6 metres YesFirst floor 7.4 metres 3.7 metres 5.9 metres YesSecond floor 10.1 metres 5.0 metres 6.9 metres Yes

There are no other windows with a direct outlook to the subject site which have the potential to be impacted by the development.

Side and Rear Boundary Setbacks

Whilst the majority of the development is compliant, a variation is proposed to the side setback requirements of Standard B17 on the second floor of the western elevation. The proposed setbacks vary between 3.9 metres adjacent to the ensuites of Units 1 and 2, up to 4.5 metres to the remaining walls. The required setbacks are illustrated in the table below:

Western ElevationLocation Wall height B17 Setback

requiredSetback proposed

Complies?

Ground FloorNorth-west corner 2.7 metres 1.0 metre 3.0 metres YesMiddle 3.1 metres 1.0 metre 3.0 metres YesSouth-west corner (garage) 3.8 metres 1.0 metre 2.0 metres YesFirst FloorNorth-west corner 7.0 metres 2.1 metres 2.9 metres YesMiddle 7.4 metres 2.5 metres 2.9 metres YesSouth-west corner (Unit 3 ensuite)

7.1 metres 2.2 metres 3.4 metres Yes

Second FloorNorth-west corner 9.7 metres 4.8 metres 4.5 metres NoMiddle (Unit 2 ensuite) 10.3 metres 5.4 metres 3.9 metres NoSouth-west corner 9.9 metres 5.0 metres 4.5 metres No

The proposed variations range from 0.3 metres at the north-west corner, up to 1.5 metres adjacent to Unit 2’s ensuite. The variations are considered acceptable as the neighbouring property’s habitable room windows are setback 3 metres from the common boundary which, combined with the proposed setbacks, provides a minimum separation of 6.9 metres between dwellings at second floor level. The reduced setbacks will not adversely impact daylight to the existing windows as previously illustrated in the table above, nor will they result in unreasonable overshadowing of neighbouring secluded private open space which

Page 50


encompasses a large area. It is therefore considered that the variations would have minimal impact on the amenity of the property to the west.

Minor variations are also proposed to the rear setback requirements as illustrated in the table below:

Southern ElevationLocation Wall height B17 Setback

requiredSetback proposed

Complies?

Ground FloorSouth-west corner 3.9 metres 1.1 metres 1.9 metres YesSouth-east corner 4.1 metres 1.1 metres 1.2 metres YesFirst FloorSouth-west corner 7.2 metres 2.3 metres 2.5 metres YesSouth-east corner 7.1 metres 2.2 metres 2.1 metres NoSecond FloorSouth-west corner 10.0 metres 5.1 metres 4.7 metres NoSouth-east corner 10.0 metres 5.1 metres 5.1 metres Yes

The variations range from 0.1 metre to the south-east corner of the first floor, and 0.4 metres to the south-west corner on the second floor. The building abuts a laneway to the south which provides a 4.5 metre buffer from the boundary of the adjacent residential property. Therefore the minor non-compliance is generally acceptable as it would not result in adverse amenity impacts to the neighbouring dwelling.

Overshadowing

Due to the location of the proposed building relative to adjoining secluded private open space at 250 Waverley Road, there would be no unreasonable overshadowing in accordance with the requirements of Standard B21. There are no other secluded private open space areas that abut the site which could be impacted by shadows cast from the development.

Overlooking

Existing 1.9 metre high boundary fencing will sufficiently limit overlooking from ground floor windows and terraces of the development.

The first floor west facing habitable room windows and balconies are screened with fixed obscure glazing to 1.7 metres above finished floor level. There are three windows towards the front of the western elevation which do not require screening as they do not have an outlook to neighbouring habitable room windows and private open space within 9 metres.

On the second floor, there is some potential for overlooking from the living areas of Units 2 and 3 which are not screened. Were the application to be supported, a condition of permit would require the second floor living rooms of all dwellings to be screened in accordance with the requirements of Standard B22, as per the undertaking made by the applicant at the consultation meeting.

As the building is adjacent to the laneway and opposite the adjoining front yard and carport associated with the neighbouring property to the south, the rear facing windows of the development would not require screening.

Internal Amenity

Page 51


Each dwelling has its own clearly identifiable, individual entry point, Unit 1 being from Waverley Road and Units 2 and 3 from Macgregor Street.

The dwellings will each receive good access to daylight via windows facing outdoor spaces clear to the sky, and solar access is provided to seclude private open spaces which have a north-westerly aspect and convenient access from a living room.

Private open space areas are generally sufficient and provided in the form of ground floor courtyards, measuring between 32 and 36 square metres, and supplemented with first floor balconies ranging from 30 square metres to Unit 1, 15 square metres to Unit 2 and 12 square metres to Unit 3.

Storage facilities are provided and adequate provision has been made for bin storage either within the garage (Units 1 and 2) or service area of the private open space (Unit 3).

Car Parking and Traffic

The proposal satisfies the car parking requirement under Clause 52.06 with two car spaces provided for each dwelling.

The dimensions of the garages satisfy the requirements of Design Standards contained within Clause 52.06. However, were the development to be approved, the proposed floor gradients of the garages would need to be shown to ensure adequate drainage is allowed for.

The single width crossovers which align with the garages as shown in the discussion plans are acceptable and would minimise adverse impacts to the existing street trees. The visually permeable fencing proposed along the eastern and southern boundaries would provide appropriate pedestrian visibility adjacent to the accessways and at the site corners, although landscaping would need to be limited to a height of 0.9 metres within corner splay areas.

Environmentally Sustainable Development (ESD)

A Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA) was submitted with the application. The proposed development seeks to incorporate several ESD initiatives to ensure the development achieves a BESS score of 50%, which is considered to meet best practice and is satisfactory.A Water Sensitive Urban Design Response was also submitted with the application. The report includes a STORM Rating Report showing a STORM rating of 114% which is achieved by the provision of rainwater tanks for each dwelling, connected to all toilets. This meets the requirements of Clause 22.18.

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 Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

CONCLUSION

Page 52


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

The development is inconsistent with the objectives of the Neighbourhood Character Policy by virtue of the continuous built form and inadequate street setbacks which result in a lack of substantial landscaping opportunities.

The development is not compatible with the preferred neighbourhood character and does not provide an appropriate transition to properties within the adjacent Neighbourhood Character Overlay area.

The development fails to provide an appropriate landscape response and does not set aside adequate space to accommodate suitable replacement of a significant tree which was removed from the site in the last 12 months. It also has potential to adversely impact neighbouring and street trees.

The development fails to comply with a number of objectives of ResCode.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Planning Application 0342/18- 252 Waverley Road, Malvern East VIC 3145 – Construction of three, three-storey dwellings

Plans

RECOMMENDATION

That a Notice of Refusal to Grant a Permit No: 342/18 for the land located at 252 Waverley Road, Malvern East be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for construction of a multi-dwelling development in a General Residential Zone on the following grounds:

1. The proposed development by virtue of continuous built form and lack of provision for suitable landscaping opportunities constitutes an overdevelopment of the land that fails to respond to the existing or preferred character of the area.

2. The proposed design response fails to respect the neighbourhood character of the area and does not comply with the Neighbourhood Character objective (Clause 55.02-1) and the Design detail objective (Clause 55.06-1).

3. The proposed street setbacks to Waverley Road and Macgregor Street do not comply with the objective of Clause 55.03-1 and do not respect the existing neighbourhood character. In particular, the street setback to Macgregor Street fails to provide an appropriate transition into the Neighbourhood Character Overlay area.

4. The development does not comply with the Landscaping objective (Clause 55.03-8) as it fails to provide adequate provision for appropriate landscaping along the eastern and southern boundaries and does not provide for the replacement of a significant tree removed from the site within 12 months prior to the application being made.

5. The development has the potential to adversely affect significant trees on the

Page 53


neighbouring property to the west and within the Macgregor Street nature strip.

Page 54


4. ANNUAL REPORT 2017/18

Manager Advocacy, Performance and Improvement: Tracey LimpensManager Finance: Jon Gorst Chief Executive Officer: Warren RobertsGeneral Manager Corporate Services: Geoff Cockram

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to present the City of Stonnington Annual Report for the 2017/18 financial year.

BACKGROUND

Under the Section 131 of the Local Government Act 1989 (the Act) and Local Government Planning and Reporting Regulations 2014, councils are required to prepare an Annual Report in respect of each financial year consisting of three parts:

Report of operations: Information about the operations of the Council including service performance indicator results, achievement of major initiatives and a governance and management checklist

Performance statement: Audited results achieved against the prescribed performance indicators and measures

Financial statements: Audited financial statements prepared in accordance with the Australian Accounting Standards.

On 3 September 2018, Council approved in principle the Financial Statements, Performance Statement and Report of Operations for the year ended 30 June 2018 (s132). These statements were also considered by independent members of Council’s Audit Committee at a meeting on 21 August 2018.

The Act also stipulates that:

The Annual Report must be submitted to the Minister for Local Government within three months of the end of each financial year (s133).

Within one month after submitting the Annual Report to the Minister, Council must hold an open meeting to consider the report, with 14 days public notice given (s134 and Regulation 22 of the Local Government (Planning and Reporting) Regulations 2014).

Statutory advertising of the meeting; to be undertaken in ‘The Age’ on and the ‘Stonnington Leader’, with copies of the Annual Report available for inspection at Council’s service centres, libraries and website (s133).

To meet the timeframe required by the Act, the Annual Report 2017/18 will be submitted to the Minister for Local Government by 27 September 2018, and Council will receive the Annual Report 2017/18 at its meeting on 15 October 2018.

DISCUSSION

The Annual Report provides the opportunity for the City of Stonnington to communicate to the community its achievements and challenges of the past financial year. The structure of the Annual Report is aligned to the Council Plan 2017-21.

All legislative requirements have been met, with the financial statements prepared as required by the Act, the Local Government (Planning and Reporting) Regulations 2014, Australian Accounting Standards and other mandatory professional reporting requirements.

Page 55


The financial position of Council remains strong, with the financial statements considered by independent members of the Audit Committee on 21 August 2018 and Council on 3 September 2018. The Victorian Auditor General’s Office provided an unqualified audit opinion on the financial and performance statements for the financial year 2017/18.

The Annual Report 2017/18 fairly represents Council’s operations, financial position and performance for the financial year in the context of the Council Plan 2017-21.

The process outlined in this report for the preparation of Council’s Annual Report 2017/18 completes the requirements set out in the Act.

CONCLUSION

The purpose of this report is to consider the City of Stonnington Annual Report for the 2017/18 financial year.

Council’s financial position remains strong, with the Victorian Auditor General’s Office providing unqualified audit opinion on the financial and performance statements. The Annual Report fairly represents Council’s operations, financial position and Council’s performance for the 2017/18 financial year.

To meet the timeframe required by the Local Government Act 1989, the Annual Report will be submitted to the Minister for Local Government by 27 September 2018, and Council will formally receive the Annual Report at an open meeting to the public on 15 October 2018. The preparation of Council’s Annual Report 2017/18 meets all requirements set out in the Act.



RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:

1. Receives the Annual Report 2017/18.

2. Notes that the Annual Report 2017/18 fairly represents Council’s operations, financial position and Council’s performance for the 2017/18 financial year.

3. Notes the Annual Report was submitted to the Minister for Local Government in accordance with Local Government Act 1989.

Page 56


5. POSITIVE AGEING STRATEGY 2018-21 ACTION PLAN

Manager Aged, Diversity, Health & Animal Management: Penny Pavlou General Manager Community & Culture: Cath Harrod

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to present the Positive Ageing Strategy 2018-2021 Action Plan to Council for endorsement.

BACKGROUND

The Positive Ageing Strategy 2018-2021 was adopted by Council on 4 June 2018.

At this meeting Council also requested:

Council Officers to return to Council in September to report on the actions to be completed for the first year of the strategy.

Consultation and development of the Action Plan took longer than anticipated with Officers now presenting the Action Plan in October.

The Positive Ageing Strategy 2018-2021 provides the strategic direction for Council in working with older residents. The Strategy responds to the changing political environment and links with Council’s plans and strategies that are aimed at improving the health and wellbeing of the Stonnington community. The Strategy has been developed based on the needs of, and feedback from, older residents, their families, community groups and services, and provides clear strategic direction to guide future services and priorities for Council. This Strategy will lay the pathway for a strong and inclusive community that values diversity and ageing.

DISCUSSION

Following Council’s adoption of the Positive Ageing Strategy 2018-2021, Officers prepared an internal consultation process to identify and develop a range of actions to be implemented over the three years of the Strategy.

Representatives from a range of departments across the organisation were asked to complete a survey with an aim to create a snapshot of relevant current activities underway, as well as identifying a range of projects that could be considered for the action plan.

Following the survey, a workshop was convened to finalise and draft the range of actions that will deliver the eleven priority areas identified in the Positive Ageing Strategy 2018-2021.

The Positive Ageing Strategy 2018-2021 Action Plan (attachment 1) presents an achievable work-plan for 2018-19 and the subsequent two years of the Strategy. The Action Plan will be reviewed annually and Council Officers will report on the outcomes of Year One actions in September 2019.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The Positive Ageing Strategy 2018-2021 and the subsequent Action Plan, will assist Council to deliver the Council Plan objectives of Community and Liveability. The strategy has a clear focus on improving the health and wellbeing outcomes for the community by planning, delivering and advocating for quality services in partnership with the community, government and other service providers.


Page 57


Actions from the Positive Ageing Strategy 2018-2021 that require funding will be referred to Council’s annual budget process for consideration.

CONCLUSION

The Positive Ageing Strategy 2018-2021 provides the strategic direction for Council in working with residents who are 65 years of age and over. The Strategy also responds to the changing political environment and links with Council’s plans and strategies that are aimed at improving the health and wellbeing of the Stonnington community. The Action Plan articulates the projects that will be implemented to make the Strategy operational. Council Officers will report on the outcomes of Year One actions in September 2019.



ATTACHMENTS

1. Positive Ageing Strategy 2018-21 Action Plan Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:

1. Endorses the Positive Ageing Strategy 2018-21 Action Plan.2. Requests Council Officers report on the outcomes of Year One actions in

September 2019.

Page 58


6. GLENFERRIE ROAD SHOPPING PRECINCT - CHANGES TO OFF-STREET PARKING RESTRICTIONS

Senior Transport Engineer: Jordan Allan Manager Transport & Parking: Ian McLauchlanGeneral Manager Assets & Services: Simon Thomas

PURPOSE

To seek approval to alter parking restrictions in a section of the Drysdale Street off-street car park, and in a section of the Wattletree Road/Llaneast Street off-street car park, in response to trader association requests.

BACKGROUND

Council’s Transport and Parking Unit has been working with the Glenferrie Road Malvern Business Association (GRMBA) over a long period of time to improve the management of the off-street car parks serving the Glenferrie Road shopping precinct.

As part of this work, parking bay detectors have been installed in off-street car parks to sample parking occupancies. Sufficient detectors were installed in each at-grade off-street car park to provide reliable estimates of parking activity. Some changes have already been made to on-street parking, and these areas are also being monitored to assess parking turnover/occupancy.

More recently, the GRMBA has raised concerns with parking availability for traders on the upper deck of the Drysdale Street off-street car park, and with a section of parking within the Wattletree Road/Llaneast Street off-street car park which is unrestricted during the weekdays.

These car parks are shown in the image below, as well as the surrounding area for context.

Page 59


Drysdale Street Off-Street Car ParkThe Drysdale Street off-street car park is a 2-level car park which provides time limited parking on the ground level (2-HOUR parking 9am to 6pm Monday to Friday and 9am to 1pm Saturday) to serve customers, and unrestricted parking on the upper deck which is understood to serve traders in the area.

The upper deck provides 107 car parking spaces, and is shown in the image below. Vehicles enter the upper deck via the southern ramp and depart via the northern ramp.

The GRMBA have raised concerns that this parking is being monopolised by other activity in the area including staff at Cabrini Hospital, tradesmen from nearby construction sites and by other non-traders, which is reducing the available parking which has traditionally been available for traders. The majority of surrounding streets are covered by time restricted or PERMIT ZONE parking, and as such GRMBA traders are understood to rely on the Drysdale Street car park.

Wattletree Road/Llaneast Street Off-Street Car Park The Wattletree Road/Llaneast Street off-street car park is a public car park which provides parking for visitors to the Glenferrie Road shopping precinct. The below image shows the car park and current timed restrictions.

Page 60


As indicated, there is a section of the car park which offers unrestricted car parking during weekdays.

Again, concerns have been raised by the GRMBA that this parking is being monopolised by other activity in the area, limiting the availability of parking for customers of the shopping precinct. The Association has requested that this parking which is unrestricted during the week be altered, to bring it into line with the other parking within the car park (that is, 2-HOUR restrictions operating 9am to 6pm Monday to Friday and 9am to 1pm Saturday).

Page 61


DISCUSSION

Drysdale Street Off-Street Car ParkA video survey was completed over 7-9 March 2017 to capture arrivals and departures of vehicles for the upper deck of the car park. The occupancy results, averaged for the 3 days of the survey, are shown below.

The results indicate an 85% occupancy across all three survey days between 7:45am and 8:00am each day (85% was considered to be when the car park was at realistic capacity), and 100% or above occupancy was achieved between 8:00am-9:00am (above 100% occupancy was recorded, as vehicles were circulating attempting to find a space even though there were no vacancies).

As such, the car park fills early in the morning, and effectively remains full through most of the day (which is to be expected for unrestricted parking in this area).

An observation survey, conducted on a typical Tuesday, also sought to determine where the vehicle occupants went when they departed the car park. Observations were undertaken by GRMBA and Council staff. A summary of this survey result is shown below.

Page 62


The highest proportion of users could not be determined, either by the vehicle being in place prior to the survey start (30 vehicles at 6:20am), or not travelling directly to an obvious destination. The next highest group being traders. There was a proportion of tradespeople and those associated with Cabrini/Health services.

Options to manage the upper deck of the car park to suit traders were discussed with GRMBA representatives;

a) The preference of the GRMBA was for access to the car park to be permit controlled, with traders allocated specific permits (ie, not residential parking permits). GRMBA suggested this could be done the same as at some neighbouring Councils, however when they were advised of the fees typically applicable at other these other Councils they did not wish to pursue this further. This option was therefore not taken further.

b) all-day parking could be provided to traders by implementing fee-based parking for the upper deck. The limited access points to the car park would make paid parking relatively simple to implement through access control (as opposed to ticket parking, for example). However, the GRMBA were not supportive of fee based parking (with possible discounts from displayed fees to GRMBA members), and it was therefore not explored in further detail.

Considering the above limitations, the GRMBA have subsequently requested that some of the upper deck parking be converted to 4-HOUR parking, and some parking be retained as unrestricted parking. The 4-HOUR parking is specifically intended to discourage all-day parking and allow some capacity for traders arriving closer to the start of the 9am business day.

The GRMBA has specifically requested that the centre-aisle car parks be converted to 4-HOUR parking 9am-6pm Monday to Saturday. The restriction would cover 56 car parks, leaving 51 car parks unrestricted. This is shown in the below diagram.

Page 63


This restriction is proposed as it is similar to restrictions in other off-street car parks. The Saturday hours of operation are slightly different to other car parks in the area, as a 9am to 1pm restriction (which is used in nearby car parks) is not compatible with a 4-HOUR limit. A 4-HOUR limit cannot be applied for a duration of only 4 hours, as it would not be possible to enforce (it would be unrestricted parking, in effect).

Wattletree Road/Llaneast Street Off-Street Car Park Parking bay detectors in the subject section of the car park indicate the car park is full for substantial periods of the day during the week, but less so on the week-end. The below graph shows the parking occupancy data for the car park sampled from the detectors for weekdays between 1 January 2018 to 1 June 2018 (excluding public holidays).

Page 64


In summary over all weekdays during the 5 months covered, the bay detectors estimated on average there were only 2 spaces available at any time between 9am and 5pm (i.e. just under 90% occupancy). The data available also indicate that around 15% of the time between 9am- 4pm on a weekday, the car park is likely to be full. The GRMBA considers the parking is not utilised by traders at present, and is unavailable for customer parking due to all-day occupation by others. Hence the proposal is for the existing 2-HOUR parking spaces on the western aisle of the Wattletree Road/Llaneast Street car park be altered to operate 9am to 6pm Monday to Friday with the existing 9am to 1pm Saturday restriction to remain in place.

The GRMBA advise that they have consulted traders in the vicinity of the car park, and that 50% of respondents were in favour of the proposal.

Officer AssessmentEach of the parking areas sought for change are within off-street parking areas, and within the Glenferrie Road shopping precinct. As such, community opinion has not been sought.

The surrounding residential community has the opportunity to park on-street with permit exemption. This on-street parking is not available for traders, and in some cases (where PERMIT ZONE parking is in place) is not available for customers. As such, it is considered reasonable to manage the parking in the off-street car parks for the benefit of traders and their customers.

The GRMBA represents the traders in the area, and has requested the changes on behalf of traders. It is therefore considered reasonable to make a decision on this basis.

It is therefore recommended that:

a 4-HOUR restriction operating 9am to 6pm Monday to Saturday be installed covering the 56 centre-aisle parking spaces upper deck of the Drysdale Street off-street car park; and

the existing 2-HOUR parking spaces on the western aisle of the Wattletree Road/Llaneast Street car park be altered to operate 9am to 6pm Monday to Friday with the existing 9am to 1pm Saturday restriction also remaining in place.

Council officers would monitor the operation of the new restrictions, in consultation with GRMBA representatives, and would seek further changes if required.

Page 65



The costs of the surveys undertaken was $2,970 including GST.

Implementing the changes would involve minimal costs associated with changes to a limited number of existing signs, and the installation of some new signs and poles.

CONCLUSION

The Glenferrie Road Malvern Business Association has requested that 56 car parks in the upper deck of the Drysdale Street off-street car park be converted to 4-HOUR parking to assist traders with parking during the business day. They have also requested that a section of parking which is unrestricted Monday to Friday in the Wattletree Road/Llaneast Street car park be altered to include a 2-HOUR restriction in the Monday to Friday period, consistent with the other parking spaces in the car park.

As both of the above car parks are to assist with customer and trader parking for the Glenferrie Road shopping precinct, it is recommended that both changes be implemented at the request of the Glenferrie Road Malvern Business Association.



RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:1. Install 4-HOUR parking restrictions operating 9am to 6pm Monday to Friday on

the upper deck of the Drysdale Street off-street car park covering the 56 centre-aisle parking spaces;

2. Alter the existing 2-HOUR parking spaces on the western aisle of the Wattletree Road/Llaneast Street car park to operate 9am to 6pm Monday to Friday with the existing 9am to 1pm Saturday restriction also remaining in place;

3. That additional advisory signage be installed in both the Drysdale Street Car Park and the Wattletree Road/Llaneast Street car park for a period of 4 weeks advising motorists of the new restrictions.

4. The Glenferrie Road Malvern Business Association and all adjacent property occupiers to both car parks be notified of this decision.

Page 66


7. PROPOSAL TO RENAME VIVA STREET RESERVE

Acting Manager Governance & Corporate Support: Robert SmartGeneral Manager Corporate Services: Geoff Cockram

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to receive the results of the community consultation on a proposal to change the name of Viva Street Reserve and to determine on name change proposal.

BACKGROUND

The Malvern Historical Society Inc. asked for Council consideration of a proposal to change the name of Viva Street Reserve and have forwarded background information regarding the name they propose which is Rutherford Reserve.

DISCUSSION

Council, at its meeting of 4 September 2017 deferred consideration of the proposal to re-name Viva Street Reserve and a further report was brought back to Council on 9 April 2018 with suggestions for further names. The two possible names are: Betty Jeffrey, OAM or Gideon Rutherford.

Betty Jeffrey (1908-2000) was one of the Victorian nurses who was taken prisoner during the 2nd World War. She was held in a prison camp in Sumatra from 1942-1945. During this time she kept a secret diary of her experiences, which she later turned into a book entitled 'White Coolies' Betty attended Warwick Girl’s School in Malvern. Her full name was Agnes Betty Jeffrey, but she preferred the name Betty.

Her home addresses included:

1936 – Darling Road Malvern East

1942 – Ailsa Avenue, Malvern East

1967 – Waverley Road, Malvern East

Gideon Rutherford (1819 – 1860) was born in Scotland and arrived at Port Phillip in 1841. He was in the sheep industry and partnered Robert Power in business as auctioneers and stock salesmen Melbourne from c1854 and lived in Toorak. He became the First Chairman of the Gardiner Road Board in November 1856, a position he held until 1858.He was also briefly a Member of the Legislative Council of Victoria from November 1859 – September 1860. He died in December 1860 aged just 41.

A brief snapshot of the history of this reserve that was prepared by Ellen Porter in Council’s History Centre.

Viva Street was created in 1910 The land was purchased by Council in 1918 In 1932 the Council Minutes refer for the first time to the land on the corner of

Tooronga Road and Viva Street as the Viva Street Reserve. Viva Street Reserve was registered on 02/05/1966 with the body now known as the

Office of Geographic Names. The reserve which had been there since before 1929 according to the local history.

Council resolved at the meeting of 9 April 2018:

Page 67


“That Council:

1 (a) Write to the surrounding properties seeking input into the proposal to rename Viva Street Reserve asking if such change is supported and, ifsupported, seeking an indication from the two short-listed names of Rutherford Reserve or Betty Jeffrey Reserve, of their preferred park name.

(b) Advertise on the Council website and locally circulated newspapers calling for input into the proposed name change; and

2. A report to come back to Council on the outcome of the community consultation for further consideration.”

The community consultation covered streets that abut or have easy access to the reserve and included: White. Young, Viva and Wilson Streets and part of Tooronga Road. The survey has been completed with the following results:

Rutherford Jeffrey No ChangeSurveys sent out 230 properties

Responses received

85 (36.96% response) 10 (includes 3 properties with same owner)

30 45 (includes 2 properties with same owner)

Comments received included:

Rather than changing the name priority should be given to installing a fence across the Viva and Wilson Street entries to deter children running onto Tooronga Road

Money saved by not renaming should be focussed towards maintaining the gardens and surrounds

Waste of time and money (2) Alternatively consider an aboriginal name (2) Expansion of facilities should be looked at Cost Should install a children’s play area similar to Oakleigh Others more notable should be considered

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Council has conferred with the community and the History Unit.


Survey costs contained within Council budget as would any cost of signage and small naming ceremony.

LEGAL ADVICE & IMPLICATIONS

Council is required to comply with the Office of Geographic Names Guidelines when considering names or changes of names. There is a formal consultation process required to be undertaken and, if Council and the community demonstrate support for the proposal, it is then sent to the Office of Geographic Names for further consideration.

CONCLUSION

Council has consulted the community and of the 85 responses, over half (45) voted no change and 145 no response could be seen as status quo or have no view either way.

Page 68


As the response was not supportive, it is considered appropriate that the proposal to rename the Viva Street Reserve not proceed.


This report has sought the input of the community into the naming process and as such the recommendation complies with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:1. not proceed with the renaming of the Viva Street Reserve;2. the Malvern Historical Society be advised of the outcome of the community

consultation and Council’s decision; and 3. surveyed properties be advised of the outcome of the community consultation

and Council’s decision.

Page 69


8. LOW REZ : COMMUNITY GRANT 2018-2019

Civic Support Officer: Judy Hogan Acting Manager Goverance & Corporate Support: Robert SmartGeneral Manager Corporate Services: Geoff Cockram

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to consider a late, in-kind community grant application for $2,280 from Low Rez community choir for the waiver of fee for the use of Malvern Town Hall and Malvern Banquet Hall. This is a not-for-profit group that is not based within Stonnington but meet and practice in neighbouring St Kilda.

BACKGROUND

Low Rez is a Melbourne-based male choir, established in 2008 and specialising in pop arrangements. The choir unites men from diverse cultural backgrounds through singing. Their mission is to devise, create and perform quality musical events that showcase the male voice and promote the message of difference, acceptance and celebration.

Low Rez did apply for a community grant in current 2018/19 grants, which was assessed and their application refused for in-kind support for the use of Malvern Town Hall and Malvern Banquet Hall. The group had noted in their application that if denied funding their event could still proceed and this informed the decision to refuse the application.

Following a review of their budget Low Rez have now written to Council advising that without an in-kind community grant from Council, the event would operate at a loss and place the group under financial pressure.

Low Rez President Michael Howden notes in support of their further application:

“Low Rez is an incorporated community choir. Every year we have a single major concert and in October 2018 we will be performing at Malvern Town Hall. Over the course of a year the running costs of a choir, from the hire of rehearsal spaces, the musical director’s wages to APRA fees, website expenses and the printing of music, is not covered by the yearly membership. Concerts are what keep our doors open. With the offset of a grant we can often come out the other end of a financial year in the black.

This year without the grant, we will end in the red. Based on the previous year’s budgeting and considering additional costs that will be incurred in the hire of the Malvern Town Hall our Treasurer has done some detailed budgeting.

The key unexpected expense is the hire of the venue. Last year our total venue cost was $2,194. We received an in-kind grant and we did not need to hire sound equipment or engage security staff nor did we need to relocate the piano. Note: Council did not provide a community grant for this event in 2017/18 and they did not hold this event in a Stonnington venue.

I am writing to you in the hope that the Council review its decision and waiver half the cost of venue hire so we can at least mitigate our losses and with luck, break even if possible. For the time being the numbers are showing that we will definitely make a loss this year.”

This event titled ‘This is Me: 10 Year Anniversary Concert’ is intended to be held on Saturday 27 October 2018 in the Malvern Town Hall. The event is a ticketed event.

Page 71


The costs are as follows:

The total venue hire of Malvern Town Hall & Banquet Hall $3,779.49

Moving and tuning the piano 782.00

Security Guards (2x4Hrs) 308.00

Total $4,869.49

As noted Low Rez have requested Council to consider waiving fifty percent of the cost of the use of the venue, including the moving and tuning of the piano and security guards service which would be $2,434.75.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The grant application period is March to April each year with grants then processed and submitted for consideration in July for the financial year. The Community Grant Guidelines state that funding priorities are for events that:

…. are targeted towards a demonstrated high need area with a clear benefit to the Stonnington community;

generally take place within the City of Stonnington, or subject to conditions for cross-border services that are provided to the Stonnington community…..

projects that encourage participation by young people, older people, people with disabilities and people from CALD backgrounds that minimise social isolation and build community connectedness.

This application is outside the grant period and a Council decision to accept or refuse this funding request is required. Council must further consider if this application is ineligible under the Guidelines which state : “Ineligibility also includes applications seeking funding for:- subsequent applications for funding in any one year.”


The budget for in-kind community grants for 2018/2019 has not been fully expended with a balance of $ 39,833.

CONCLUSION

While the group have submitted a late application via the Grants online system and supplied all supporting documentation it is considered that this application does not meet the Guidelines and should not be supported.


These documents have been assessed for compliance with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 and it is considered that they meet the requirements of the Charter having considered the equity of the recommendation for refusal given it is outside the grant period.

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council refuse the application for an in-kind Community Grant of $2,434.75

Page 72


(GST excluded) to Low Rez Community Choir for waiver of 50% of the cost for the hire of the Malvern Town Hall and Malvern Banquet Hall, moving and tuning of the piano and security guards for its concert on Saturday 27 October 2018.

Page 73


o) Confidential

1. YOUTH SERVICES REVIEW

Acting Manager Children & Family Services: Jacinda HuntConfidential report circulated separately.

Page 75

Documents

€¦ · Web viewVehicular access to 1331-1335 High Street is gained via two existing single width crossovers to the MacArthur Street frontage. One crossover is located to the north