City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

Notice is given that an Ordinary Meeting of Kingston City Council will be held at 7.00pm at the Cheltenham Office, 1230 Nepean Highway, Cheltenham, on Monday, 27 July 2009.

1. Apologies

2. Confirmation of Minutes of Previous Meetings Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting 29 June 2009.

3. Foreshadowed Declaration by Councillors or Officers of any Conflict of Interest [Note that any Conflicts of Interest need to be formally declared at the start of the meeting and immediately prior to the item being considered – type and nature of interest is required to be disclosed – if disclosed in writing to the CEO prior to the meeting only the type of interest needs to be disclosed prior to the item being considered.]

4. Petitions

5. Presentation of Awards A presentation will be made to former Councillors Topsy Petchey and Justin McKeegan

6. Reports from Village Committees A report on issues arising out of the Village Committee meetings in July 2009 is attached. Page 3

7. Reports from Delegates Appointed by Council to Various Organisations

8. Question Time

9. Corporate Services Reports L 93 Audit Committee Annual Report Page 6 L 94 Appointment of External Member to the Audit Committee Page 10 L 95 Proposed Discontinuance and Sale of Road abutting 42-44 Westley Street, Carrum Page 11 L 96 Report of a Section 223 Committee re the proposed discontinuance and Sale of road adjoining 1&2/20 Mentone Parade and 4/1, 8/1, 4/5 and 5/7 Palermo Street, Mentone Page 14

10. Environmental Sustainability Reports L 97 Town Planning Application Decisions Page 18 L 98 KP151/09: 76-78 Balcombe Road, Mentone (Le Gym) Page 27 L 99 KP1014/08: 168-178 Chesterville Road, Moorabbin Page 90 L 100 KP110/06: Chicquita Park (Secondary Consent Application) Page 108 L 101 KP1158/08: 48 Blantyre Avenue, Chelsea Page 113 L 102 KP49/09: 34-94 Oak Avenue, Mentone Page 133 L 103 KP882/08: 42-44 Westley Street, Carrum Page 173 L 104 Amendment C108 – Planning Scheme Errors (Fast Track Amendment) Page 190 L 105 Membership of the Voluntary Carbon Markets Association Page 194 L 106 Review of Road Management Plan Page 198 L 107 Food Sample Analysis Page 204 L 108 Charity Clothing Bins Page 209

1 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

11. Community Sustainability Reports L 109 Draft Disability Action Plan Page 213 L 110 2009/10 Community Grants Program – Recommendations Page 218 L 111 Victorian Universal Housing Alliance Membership Page 224 L 112 Australia Day Awards Criteria Page 230 L 113 Mordialloc Laneway – Proposed Closure Page 234 L 114 Interfaith Advisory Committee Terms of Reference Page 243

12. Organisational Development and Governance Reports L 115 Councillor Ward Funds Applications Page 245 L 116 Appointment of Village Committee Members Page 249 L 117 Quarterly Report to the Council Plan – June 2009 Page 251

13. Notices of Motion

14. Urgent Business

15. Items in Camera L 118 Personnel Matter

2 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

6. Reports from Village Committees

PRESENTATION OF VILLAGE COMMITTEE REPORTS

6(a) Cheltenham Village Committee Chairperson - Joe Astbury Report of Meeting held on 30 June 2009

Highlight The response that had been received to traffic concerns around the Kingston Heath Reserve.

6(b) Mordialloc Village Committee Chairperson - Allan Locke Report of Meeting held on 30 June 2009

Highlight: The new lighting of the horse sculpture on the Mordialloc Foreshore and the opening night festivities.

6(c) Mentone/Parkdale Village Committee Chairperson - Reg Marlow Report of Meeting held on 30 June 2009

Public Toilet Required in Mentone Coles Carpark

Village Committee Recommendation That Council consider the installation of seven day a week accessible ‘Exeloo’ on Council owned land in Mentone Coles Carpark, and explore sponsorship and partnership opportunities with local businesses to achieve this.

Officer Comment

The provision of Public Toilets servicing the Mentone Shopping Centre is as indicated below, namely:

Rear of Mentone Post Office near Safeway- This toilet is open dusk til dawn 7 days per week – It location is deemed appropriate to cater for the needs of the Mentone Shopping Centre as it can be accessed from a number of directions within the shopping centre, eg. from Mentone pde (through shops such as Newsagent, Scicluna’s & Chemist) from Balcombe Road car park, and also from Florence St via laneways and car park.

Mentone Railway Station and Mentone Municipal Offices: These alternative locations provide reasonable opportunities for the Public to have amenities

3 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

The La Porcetta Restaurant: This location whilst not advertised or officially endorsed by the Restaurant Operators has toilet facilities accessible 7 days per week from middle of the day til late. As this restaurant is a popular location for locals it provides a sense of security and level of safety.

The lack of toilets servicing the Historical Society Building which is located adjacent the Coles Supermarket Car park is considered a major factor in this request being made for a toilet in close proximity to the Historical Society. This Building is open on Sunday afternoons from 2-4 and Wednesdays from 10.00 til 2.00pm.

It is acknowledged the Historical Society Building does not have a toilet servicing the building, however the existing Historical Society Building footprint and land does not lend itself to the addition of an external toilet extension which would benefit the Public and Historical Society Visitors.

On this point Council Officers have met with the Historical Society Committee to review opportunities for providing a toilet within the existing floor space and have established an all abilities toilet can be incorporated in the existing floor space. No specific Funding has been provided for this to be implemented immediately. An opportunity has been taken as part of the Federal Government’s Job Fund grants to lodge an application for funding. This was lodged early July and the outcome is envisaged late September. Should this grant application be unsuccessful alternative funding initiatives will need to be investigated/sourced to implement the provision of a toilet.

Officer Recommendation That Council notes the information contained in the Officer’s comment

Highlight: No Stopping Zones on Beach Road.

6(d) Patterson Lakes/Carrum Village Committee Chairperson - Glen Baker Report of Meeting held on 1 July 2009

Highlight: Support for the retention of the crossing supervisor in Thompson road.

6(e) Dingley/Heatherton Village Committee Chairperson – Allan Harris Report of Meeting held 1 July 2009

Highlight: Request for speed humps in Delaware Drive, Dingley Village, due to excessive vehicle use at high speeds.

4 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

6(f) Moorabbin/Highett Village Committee Chairperson – Robyn Cochrane Report of Meeting held 2 July 2009

Right turning Lane and Arrow – Keys Road / Chesterville Road Intersection

Village Committee Recommendation The Committee is again dissatisfied with the response of VicRoads. The Committee thanks Warren Ashdown for his persistent efforts to date and insist that Council take it further with VicRoads.

Officer Comment Vic roads have demonstrated they have assessed the concerns of the community and the representations from Council, through exploring short term improvements to the congestion challenges at this intersection, and identifying upgrading requirements and listing the site for future funding consideration. With limited funding resources it is reasonable and appropriate that Vic roads prioritise projects on a statewide basis.

Council meets with VicRoads on a regular basis to discuss many arterial road issues, and annually meets with the regional director and his senior staff. This matter will be listed with the other arterial road matters to be regularly followed up with VicRoads

Officer Recommendation

That Council notes the information contained in the Officer’s comment and Council will continue to pursue this matter and raise with state members.

Highlight: Funding submission for Highett Reserve.

6(g) Aspendale/Edithvale/Aspendale Gardens/Waterways Village Committee Chairperson - Kevin Griffiths Report of Meeting held on 2 July 2009

The meeting lapsed for want of a quorum.

6(h) Chelsea/Chelsea Heights/Bonbeach Village Committee Acting Chairperson – Leanne Stray Report of Meeting held on 8 July 2009

Highlight: The Chelsea Slide and river red gums as part of Beazley Reserve.

5 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

9. Corporate Services Reports

L 93 Audit Committee Annual Report

Approved by: Paul Franklin, General Manager Corporate Services

Author: Ray Liggett, Audit Committee Chair

Introduction As a part of Council’s governance obligations to its community the Audit Committee was established as an independent Advisory Committee to Council in 1997.

The Audit Committee is established to assist the co-ordination of relevant activities of management, the internal audit function and the external auditor to facilitate achieving overall organisational objectives in an efficient and effective manner.

As part of Council’s governance obligations to its community, Council has constituted the Audit Committee under a Charter to facilitate the following outcomes as a part of its work program:-

1. The enhancement of the credibility and objectivity of internal and external financial reporting;

2. Effective management of financial and other risks and the protection of Council assets;

3. Compliance with laws and regulations as well as use of best practice guidelines;

4. The effectiveness of the internal audit function; and

5. The provision of an effective means of communication between the external auditor, internal audit, management and the Council.

Membership The membership of the Audit Committee during the reporting period was:- Name Qualifications Role Period Attendance Mr Ray Liggett BSc, MBA Independent Member July 2008-June 2009 5 of 5 meetings & Chair Mr Hugh Parkes BA, MBA, FCA, Independent Member July 2008-June 2009 5 of 5 meetings CISA Mr Claude Baxter BA, MA Independent Member July 2008-December 2008 2 of 3 meetings Cr Bill Nixon Mayor, Councillor Internal Member July 2008-November 2008 2 of 2 meetings Cr Arthur Mayor, Councillor Internal Member December 2008-June 2009 3 of 3 meetings Athanasopoulos Cr Paul Peulich Councillor Internal Member December 2008-June 2009 3 of 3 meetings Cr Greg Alabaster Councillor Internal Member July 2008-November 2008 2 of 2 meetings

Meetings The Audit Committee have met on 5 occasions in 2008/09:-

6 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 • 21 August 2008 • 16 September 2008 • 16 December 2008 • 17 March 2009 • 16 June 2009

2008/09 Review I am pleased to report that Kingston has in place a strong Audit Committee that has in 2008/09 undertaken a thorough and comprehensive review of many of Council’s higher risk profile systems and processes. It has also continued to oversee the activities of Council’s contracted Internal Auditor and External Auditor who is appointed by the Auditor-General.

The activities of 2008/09 have been guided by the Strategic Internal Audit Plan which over a rolling three year period continues to examine higher risk areas of Council’s operations to give a level of assurance that Council’s stewardship of the Kingston community’s assets is maintained at the highest level.

A highlight of the Audit Committee in 2008/09 has been the attendance in turn of each of Council’s General Managers who have briefed the Committee on the current activities of their respective division within Council. This has enabled the Committee to gain a better appreciation of current issues in local government and of Kingston specific matters.

Below are some detailed comments on how the Audit Committee has responded to its Charter. This is primarily achieved through the consideration of reports that are provided by both Management and the Internal Auditor, and monitoring the effectiveness of the Internal Audit program.

1. The enhancement of the credibility and objectivity of internal and external financial reporting.

To achieve this outcome the Audit Committee considered and commented on the following reports:- • Consideration of Draft 2007/08 Financial Statements (August 2008); • 2007/08 Annual Accounts progress (September 2008); • 2007/08 Annual Accounts Management Letter Review (December 2008); • 2008/09 Auditor General’s Engagement Letter (June 2009); • 2008/09 Annual Accounts Timetable (June 2009); • 2008/09 Annual Accounts Audit Work Plan/Audit Strategy (June 2009); • Draft 2009/10 Annual Budget (June 2009); and • Draft 2009/10 Council Plan (June 2009).

2. Effective management of financial and other risks and the protection of Council assets.

To achieve this outcome the Audit Committee considered and commented on the following reports:- • Status of Internal Audit Recommendations (Each Meeting) • Risk Process and Audit Plan Update (September 2008); • Internal Audit Scope Report – Cash Handling and Receipting (September 2008):

7 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 • Corporate System Implementation Progress Report (September 2008) • Internal Audit Report – Hostel Control Procedures (December 2008 and March 2009) • Draft Internal Audit Strategic Work Plan (December 2008) • Internal Audit Report – Cash Handling and Receipting (December 2008) • Auditor General’s Report on Local Government Performance (December 2008) • Land Under Roads Accounting Policy (December 2008) • Report – Control of Parking Meter Coin Collection (December 2008 and March 2009) • Final Internal Audit Plan (March 2009 and June 2009) • Internal Audit Report on Disaster Recovery (March 2009) • Future External Audit Arrangements (June 2009) • Internal Audit Scope Report – Data Interrogation (June 2009) • Internal Audit Scope Report – Childcare Legislative Compliance (June 2009)

3. Compliance with laws and regulations as well as use of best practice guidelines;

To achieve this outcome the Audit Committee considered and commented on the following reports:- • Investment Policy (September 2008 and March 2009) • Information Architecture Diagram (March 2009) • Conflict of Interest Provisions (June 2009)

4. The effectiveness of the internal audit function;

Council’s current Internal Auditors are Deloitte who have extensive experience in the Local Government sector as Internal Auditors at other municipalities.

Deloitte commenced their contract in August 2008 for a three year period. Upon commencement of this contract, in consultation with Senior Management at Council, an organisational risk assessment was undertaken. This formed the basis of the Internal Audit Strategic Plan, which is reviewed by Internal Audit and Management and then adopted by the Audit Committee annually. The Internal Audit program that the Committee has overseen is in place to assist both Council and Management to achieve sound control over all Council activities. Internal Audit is not involved in the day to day internal transaction checking but provides an independent and objective assurance that the appropriate processes are in place.

Prior to accepting each report submitted by the Internal Auditor, the Committee examines the recommendations made in each report and management’s comments thereon.

To enable the Committee to closely monitor the implementation of Management’s agreed actions to address the recommendations contained in the Internal Auditor’s reports a progress report from Management is provided to each meeting. It is particularly pleasing that during the year a large number of actions, including some very long standing ones of high or significant importance have been completed by management. Management’s focus on them is acknowledged and appreciated.

8 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 5. The provision of an effective means of communication between the external auditor, internal audit, management and the Council.

Council’s current External Auditor is the Victorian Auditor-General. The Auditor- General has elected to contract this activity for 2008/09 to Mr Mark Strickland of RSM Bird Cameron. Mr Strickland is responsible for providing a recommendation to the Auditor-General that the Annual Financial Statements of Council present fairly and in accordance with applicable Accounting Standards. Representatives of RSM Bird Cameron met with the Audit Committee during June to brief the Committee on how he would be conducting the annual audit. It is usual practice to meet again with Mr Strickland in August to allow him to report on the findings of his examination of Council’s financial records. It is normal practice for the External Auditor to review the Internal Audit program to better understand the internal control framework that exists at Council.

The Auditor-General is currently in the process of re-tendering this service for Kingston. The results of the tender are expected to be announced in late June or early July 2009.

I feel that the above comments clearly demonstrate to Council that the Audit Committee has discharged its responsibilities to Council as set out in the Audit Committee Charter.

Accountability In addition to this annual report, the Audit Committee’s minutes are available to Councillors. Whilst the Committee has two Councillors as members, I also welcome any opportunity for further interaction with the other elected representatives.

Acknowledgements I would like to acknowledge the professionalism and participation of all the members of the Audit Committee. The level of discussion on matters brought before the Committee have been of a very high standard, which I believe have resulted in tangible benefits to the community, Council and Council officers. The Committee has also greatly benefited from the contributions of the Councillor Committee Members who bring significant local knowledge and local community experience to the meeting table.

I also wish to record my appreciation of the work undertaken by Council staff in supporting the work of the Committee including the commitment and involvement of the Chief Executive Officer, Mr John Nevins with the Audit Committee.

Conclusion Council has an obligation to the community to properly utilise the resources put at its disposal. The Audit Committee and the activities that it oversees is one mechanism that allows the community to feel confident that Council is properly discharging stewardship and governance obligations.

Recommendation to Council

That Council note the contents of the 2008/09 Annual Report on the activities of the Audit Committee.

9 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

L 94 Appointment of External Member to the Audit Committee

Author: John Nevins, Chief Executive Officer

In accordance with the Audit Committee Charter a process has been undertaken to appoint an external independent member to the Audit Committee.

It is recommended that Mr Geoff Harry be appointed to the Committee for a term to expire on 30 June 2012. The confidential attachment contains a copy of Mr Harry’s Curriculum Vitae.

Recommendation That Mr Geoff Harry be appointed as external member of the Audit Committee for a period of three years expiring on 30 June 2012.

Confidential Attachment: Mr Geoff Harry’s Curriculum Vitae

10 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

L 95 Proposed Discontinuance and Sale of Road abutting 42-44 Westley Street, Carrum

Approved by: Paul Franklin, General Manager Corporate Services

Author: Julian Harvey, Manager Property Services

At the Ordinary Council meeting held on 29 June 2009, Council adopted a motion to defer for one month consideration of the planning permit application for the above address pending advice on the status of the “road” enclosed in the above land parcel.

1. Purpose To inform Council of the background to the proposed discontinuance and sale of a road enclosed within the property at 42-44 Westley Street, Carrum.

Proposed discontinuance with land sale to owner of 42-44 Westley Street, Carrum 2. Background In 1978 the then City of Chelsea allowed the then owners of 42-44 Westley Street Carrum to fence in a section of road abutting the southern boundary of their property. Thus the road has been enclosed within the property for over 30 years. The title to the road is still in the name of the original subdivider.

11 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

In early August 2007 Council’s Statutory Planning department contacted Council’s Property Services department regarding an application for a planning permit for a childcare centre from the owner of 42-44 Westley Street, Carrum. The application included the use of the enclosed road. Planning advised the owner that he would need to obtain title to the road in order for his application to proceed. On 13 August 2007 the owner confirmed his interest in purchasing the land from the road in writing to Council’s Property Services department. An indicative purchase price was provided and no more correspondence was exchanged until February 2008.

In early February 2008, following queries from a resident, Property Services contacted Planning regarding the progress of the child care centre application.

In April 2008 Property Services requested a valuation for the land which was provided by Council’s valuers on 12 May 2008. The owner was advised that the land had been valued at $104,500.00 (GST inclusive). Discounts were applied according to the draft revised policy for the Discontinuance and Sale of Roads, Rights of Way and Drainage Reserves, adopted 26 May 2008 (see below). The owner stated his intention to purchase and was going to send in a Statutory Declaration as to the length of occupation. This did not eventuate.

Also in April, several abutting owners who had returned a positive response to a letter of interest in the land, were advised that the owner of 42-44 Westley Street (that being the occupying property) would be offered first opportunity to purchase in accordance with Council’s Policy for the Sale of Rights of Way and Drainage Reserves (adopted 11 December 1995).

On 3 June 2008 Council learned that the owner was exploring the possibility of pursuing an adverse possession claim for the land. The planning application for a Childcare Centre was refused by VCAT on 5 June 2008.

The owner currently has before Council a planning permit application for a 6 unit development on the site. A recent query from an adjoining owner regarding the use of the road in the development resulted in Property Services re-entering into negotiations with the owner regarding the purchase of the road. An up to date valuation of $93,500.00 (GST inclusive) was obtained on 26 June 2009. Council’s revised Policy for the Discontinuance and Sale of Roads, Rights of Way and Drainage Reserves, which was adopted by Council on 26 May 2008, provides the option for substantial discounts. In this case a 20% discount is applicable upon proof of occupation for over 15 years. A further ‘once only’ 50% discount is offered to purchasers in residential areas. If rejected that offer is not available again to that owner. After applying these discounts in this case the purchase price is $37,400.00 (GST inclusive). The owner is now keen to purchase rather than pursue the adverse possession option; however a formal offer has not yet been made, the formal process having been put on hold given the deferral motion passed at the June Ordinary Council meeting. The current planning application was to be considered by Council at its Ordinary Council meeting held 29 June 2009, but was deferred.

12 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

One of the conditions for the approval of the permit is as follows:

“Prior to the commencement of development and/or use approved by this permit, the 3.05 metre wide right-of-way along the south-east property boundary of No.44 Westley Street must be purchased from Council by the developer/ site owner, to Council’s satisfaction”.

Should Council, under delegation, decide to discontinue the land from the road, statutory procedures for the proposed discontinuance are as follows:

• Public Notice of the proposal is given under section 206 and Schedule 10 Clause 3 of the Local Government Act 1989 (“the Act”).

• In accordance with section 223 of the Act interested parties are invited to make submissions in the proposal and may be heard in support of their submissions.

• Submitters so requesting are heard before a section 223 committee subsequently established by Council.

• Upon hearing and considering submissions, if any, the 223 committee reports back to Council for its decision.

3. Recommendation

That Council note the contents of this report.

13 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

L 96 Report of a Section 223 Committee re the proposed discontinuance and Sale of road adjoining 1&2/20 Mentone Parade and 4/1, 8/1, 4/5 and 5/7 Palermo Street, Mentone

Approved by: Paul Franklin, General Manager Corporate Services

Author: Julian Harvey, Manager Property Services

1. Purpose To present to Council the report of a Committee of Council established pursuant to section 223 of the Local Government Act 1989 (the Act), to hear and consider submissions in relation to the proposed discontinuance and sale of a road adjoining 1 & 2/20 Mentone Parade and 4/1, 8/1, 4/5 & 5/7 Palermo Street, Mentone.

2. Background Council’s Property Services department received a request in February 2009 from Mentone Girls Grammar School (MGGS), Mentone to purchase a section of road adjoining its property at 1 & 2 /20 Mentone Parade, Mentone. MGGS had submitted an application for a Planning Permit for a 75 place Early Learning Centre to be built on its property at 1 & 2/20 Mentone Parade and wanted to purchase the abutting section of road for landscaping as part of the proposal to provide additional open space for the facility. Two Planning Permit application notices were displayed on site and abutting property owners and tenants were notified. One objection relating to increased noise levels was received.

Council’s valuers valued the land from the road according to Council’s revised Right of Way Policy and determined a value of $99,000 (GST inc). Property Services accepted a Letter of Offer from MGGS on 26 March 2009 for the purchase price of $99,000.00 (GST inclusive). MGGS paid a deposit of $9,900.00 (refundable in the case of the discontinuance not being successful).

On 17 April 2009 Council’s Manager Property Services, acting under delegation, directed as follows:

“Kingston City Council, acting under section 206 and schedule 10. clause 3 of the Local Government Act 1989 (“the Act”), proposes to discontinue the road shown cross hatched and hatched on the plan attached. Council proposes that, if discontinued, the part of the road shown cross hatched on the plan (see attachment) is to be sold to the owner of Units 1&2/20 Mentone Parade, Mentone by private treaty, and the part of the land shown hatched on the plan is to be retained by Council.

Council directs that public notice be given of the above proposal in accordance with section 223(1) of the Act.

Council authorises the Manager Property Service to carry out the administrative procedures necessary to enable Council to carry out its functions under section 223 of the Act”.

14 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 Property Services placed a public notice regarding the proposed road discontinuance in local newspapers and on the Council website on 20 April 2009 and notified adjoining property owners and the Mentone RSL as registered proprietor in title. This notice was incorrect (although the enclosed plan was not) in that it stated that all of the land from the road (if discontinued) was to be sold to MGGS. A correct public notice (see attachment) appeared in local newspapers and on Council’s website on 27 April 2009 noting that it replaced the one published the previous week. The land from the road proposed to be sold to MGGS is that section abutting Units 1 & 2/20 Mentone Parade. The section abutting 4/1-3, 8/1-3, 4/5 and 5/7 is to be retained by Council and incorporated into Council’s reserve as it appears now on the ground. Adjoining owners and the RSL also received an explanatory letter and a copy of the correct notice. A laminated A3 copy of the notice was placed on site.

Proposed discontinuance Proposed discontinuance with land with land sale to MGGS to be retained by Council

A submission against the proposal was received from Mentone RSL Sub-branch Inc and a submission in support of the proposal from Mentone Girls Grammar School. Both submitters requested to be heard.

On 29 June 2009 Council authorised the appointment of a Section 223 Committee to hear the submissions.

On 7 July 2009 a Committee of Council comprising Paul Franklin, General Manager Corporate Services and Ron Brownlees, Councillor Central Ward, convened to hear submissions. Minutes of the Section 223 committee meeting are attached.

15 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

3. Summary and Conclusion Ms Natalie Gray, Planning Consultant, spoke to the submission for MGGS on behalf of Ms Fran Reddan, Principal and Mr Peter Law, Facility Development Manager, who were also present.

Mr Neil Richards, Mentone RSL Committee member spoke to the submission for the Mentone RSL Sub-branch on behalf of Mr Tony Wilson, President.

MGGS explained that its project had been approved for funding as part of the Building Education Revolution stimulus package, supported by the Council of Australian Governments. The envisaged project will provide an additional community facility for young families in Kingston. Such facilities are often located in near and in parks as complementary activities. The school cited the importance of the area of the road being used as open space within its development, with minimised fencing to create a gentle interface with the reserve. The land which is now unsightly and is used only for access to the school’s property at Unit 2/20 Mentone Parade (which is to be demolished together with Unit 1) will be made attractive and used for recreation in an educational environment should the road be discontinued and sold.

Mr Neil Richards spoke to the Committee regarding the concerns that the sub branch had about the proposal. These were twofold; the first being the threat to the RSL’s belief when it sold the land to Council that the memorial park would remain a park in perpetuity, and the second that access to the memorial would be restricted. The RSL was afraid that the proposal would encroach upon the park and perhaps open the way to further encroachment in the future. Mr Richards stated that if it were possible to reassure the RSL on both these grounds then it would be happy to co-operate with MGGS as it has many times in the past.

In discussion with Mr Richards, the Committee found that the Mentone RSL Sub branch would be happy to withdraw its objection to the proposal upon receiving in writing from Council (depending upon Council’s decision), a letter stating that the zoning of the park would be altered by a planning amendment from Residential 3 to Public Open Space.

4. Consultation Consultation has been carried out according to section 223 of the LGA.

5. Options The Committee has heard and considered each of the submissions and has determined three courses of action open to Council. Council could decide on:

Option 1 Do nothing – abandon the proposal. Option 2 Discontinue the whole of the road and retain as part of the reserve. Option 3 Discontinue the whole of the road, sell the section abutting the property owned by MGGS to the school, take title to the remaining section and retain as part of the reserve; and Commence statutory procedures to change the zoning of the reserve and the proposed discontinued road from Residential 3 to Public Open Space.

16 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

Option 3 is the preferred option of the S223 Committee.

6. Triple Bottom Line Checklist • Environmental – the proposed use of the section of road adjoining MGGS for landscaping (see attached landscape plan) and the bounding of the area with a black chain mesh fence would be far more pleasing than the existing road appears on the ground at present. The discontinuance and retention of the remainder of the road for incorporation into the reserve and the changing of the zoning from Res3 to Public Open Space would protect the use of the reserve for the future. • Social – The preferred Option 3 would demonstrate Council’s wish to co-operate with both MGGS and the Mentone RSL Sub branch in a positive and productive manner, thus supporting and strengthening the constructive relationship enjoyed by both in the past. The reserve would be secured for recreational use by the community. • Financial – The financial benefit for Council would be the purchase price the school is willing to pay for the land from the road.

7. Recommendation “That Council, having noted the report of the section 223 committee, resolves: 1. to discontinue the road in accordance with section 206 of the Local Government Act 1989; 2. to place a notice of the discontinuance in the Victoria Government Gazette; 3. upon discontinuance to sell the section of road adjoining Units 1&2/20 Mentone Parade to Mentone Girls Grammar School; 4. to take title to the remaining section of road at the rear of 4/1-3, 8/1-3, 4/5 and 5/7 Palermo Street and to retain it as part of the reserve; 5. to change the zoning of the reserve (including the balance of the discontinued part of the road) by a planning amendment from Residential 3 to Public Open Space; 6. to write to Mentone Girls Grammar School and to the Mentone RSL Sub-branch to advise them of the decision of Council; and 7. to write to the Mentone RSL Sub-branch to assure it of Council’s intention to rezone the reserve as Public Open Space.

Attachments: GIS Plan Landscape Plan Advertisement Submissions Section 223 Minutes

17 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

10. Environmental Sustainability Reports

L 97 Town Planning Application Decisions – June 2009

Approved By: Tony Rijs – General Manager, Environmental Sustainability

Author: Ian Nice – Manager, Planning

Attached for information is the report of Town Planning Decisions for the month of June 2009.

A summary of the decisions is as follows:

Type of Decision Number of Decisions Percentage (%) Made Planning Permits 93 82 Notice of Decision 6 5 Refusal to Grant a Permit 5 4 Other - Withdrawn (5) 11 9 - Prohibited (0) - Permit not required (3) - Lapsed (6) Total 115 100

(NB: Percentage figures have been rounded)

Recommendation

That the report be noted.

18 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

Planning Decisions June 2009 APPL. PROPERTY APPL. DATE PROPOSAL VCAT No. ADDRESS DATE DECIDED DESCRIPTION DECISION DECISION 16 COOLABAH STREET MENTONE, VIC TWO (2) Notice Of KP1002/08 3194 31-Oct-08 18-Jun-09 DWELLINGS Decision 271 STATION STREET EDITHVALE, VIC TWO (2) KP1011/08 3196 6-Nov-08 1-Jun-09 DWELLINGS Permit Issued 4 AVALON COURT CHELTENHAM, TWO (2) KP1017/08 VIC 3192 10-Nov-08 15-Jun-09 DWELLINGS Permit Issued 37 RALEIGH STREET CLARINDA, VIC THREE (3) KP1018/08 3169 10-Nov-08 24-Jun-09 DWELLINGS Permit Issued

15-17 CHANDLER STREET CHANGE OF USE + PARKDALE, VIC UPSTAIRS KP1027/08 3195 12-Nov-08 10-Jun-09 APARTMENT Permit Issued 250LOWER LOWER DANDENONG ROAD MORDIALLOC, VIC CHANGE OF USE - KP1037/08 3195 18-Nov-08 2-Jun-09 DOGGY DAY CARE Permit Refused 65-67 TOOTAL 28 DWELLINGS & ROAD DINGLEY REMOVAL OF VILLAGE, VIC NATIVE KP1051/08 3172 19-Nov-08 4-Jun-09 VEGETATION Permit Issued 28 LORNA STREET CHELTENHAM, TWO (2) Notice Of KP1062/08 VIC 3192 26-Nov-08 12-Jun-09 DWELLINGS Decision 10 ESPER AVENUE OAKLEIGH TWO (2) KP1081/08 SOUTH, VIC 3167 2-Dec-08 26-Jun-09 DWELLINGS Permit Issued 22 SEVENTH STREET PARKDALE, VIC TWO (2) Notice Of KP1093/08 3195 9-Dec-08 17-Jun-09 DWELLINGS - SBO Decision 28 ROBERT STREET PARKDALE, VIC KP1103/08 3195 11-Dec-08 18-Jun-09 2 LOT SUBDIVISION Permit Issued 131 EMBANKMENT GROVE CHELSEA, TWO (2) KP1106/08 VIC 3196 12-Dec-08 26-Jun-09 DWELLINGS - SBO Permit Issued 10 FLINDERS KP1137/08 STREET 22-Dec-08 26-Jun-09 FOUR DWELLINGS Permit Issued

19 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 MENTONE, VIC 3194 640-650 HEATHERTON ROAD CLAYTON B'LD & WORKS - KP1141/08 SOUTH, VIC 3169 23-Dec-08 19-Jun-09 WAREHOUSE Permit Issued 9 TURAKINA AVENUE EDITHVALE, VIC ALTS & ADDS TO KP1153/08 3196 24-Dec-08 26-Jun-09 DWELLING Permit Lapsed 24 GIPPS AVENUE MORDIALLOC, VIC ALTS & ADDS - KP117/09 3195 26-Feb-09 23-Jun-09 VERANDAH / LSIO Permit Issued 139 COMO PDE EAST PARKDALE, KP14/08 VIC 3195 11-Jan-08 25-Jun-09 4 DWELLINGS Permit Refused 3/178 NEPEAN B'LD & WORKS - HIGHWAY BLACONY ASPENDALE, VIC REBUILDING & KP153/09 3195 16-Mar-09 1-Jun-09 SPIRAL STAIR Permit Issued 12 PATTY STREET MENTONE, VIC KP156/09 3194 17-Mar-09 5-Jun-09 2 LOT SUBDIVISION Permit Issued 376 NEPEAN HIGHWAY PARKDALE, VIC KP163/09 3195 20-Mar-09 25-Jun-09 3 LOT SUBDIVISION Permit Issued 102-114 GLADESVILLE BLVD PATTERSON B'LD & WORKS - KP164/09 LAKES, VIC 3197 20-Mar-09 12-Jun-09 MODIFY CAR PARK Permit Issued 4 BRICKER STREET ALTS & ADDS - ADD CHELTENHAM, OFFICE & CAR KP165/09 VIC 3192 20-Mar-09 18-Jun-09 SPACES Permit Issued 355-359 NEPEAN HIGHWAY ALTS & ADDS TO PARKDALE, VIC MOTOR VEHICLE KP170/09 3195 24-Mar-09 19-Jun-09 SHOWROOM Permit Issued 8 IRISH COURT KP172/03- BONBEACH, VIC A 3196 5-Jun-09 15-Jun-09 Permit Issued 69 LEVANSWELL ROAD MOORABBIN, VIC ALTS & ADDS TO KP172/09 3189 24-Mar-09 4-Jun-09 FACTORY Permit Issued 91-97 WOODLANDS CHANGE OF USE - DRIVE BRAESIDE, FOOD PACKING KP176/09 VIC 3195 25-Mar-09 19-Jun-09 PREMISES Permit Issued 6 CHOPARD AVENUE WATERWAYS, VIC ALTS & ADDS - KP187/09 3195 26-Mar-09 25-Jun-09 VERANDAH Permit Issued 133-134 NEPEAN HIGHWAY ASPENDALE, VIC KP190/09 3195 26-Mar-09 9-Jun-09 LIQUOR LICENCE Permit Issued

20 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 84 KEITH AVENUE EDITHVALE, VIC BOUNDARY RE- KP192/09 3196 27-Mar-09 26-Jun-09 ALIGNMENT Permit Issued 232 - 240 CHARMAN ROAD CHELTENHAM, MIXED USE KP197/08 VIC 3192 18-Feb-08 1-Jun-09 DEVELOPMENT Permit Issued 18 PEBBLE BEACH PLACE HEATHERTON, ALTS & ADDS - Pemit Not KP198/09 VIC 3202 31-Mar-09 12-Jun-09 VERANDAH Required 47 MAIN ROAD CLAYTON SOUTH, KP199/09 VIC 3169 30-Mar-09 5-Jun-09 3 LOT SUBDIVISION Permit Issued CONSTRUCTION OF CARPORT IN A 22 HILLSTON NEIGHBOURHOOD ROAD CHARACTER MOORABBIN, VIC OVERLAY - KP20/09 3189 14-Jan-09 10-Jun-09 SCHEDULE 1 Permit Refused 267-269 NEPEAN HIGHWAY PARKDALE, VIC FIVE LOT KP205/09 3195 31-Mar-09 23-Jun-09 SUBDIVISION Permit Issued 1/9-19 LEVANSWELL ROAD MOORABBIN, VIC ALTS & ADDS - KP206/09 3189 31-Mar-09 22-Jun-09 STAIRS Permit Issued 20 BYRON STREET CLAYTON SOUTH, TWO LOT KP209/09 VIC 3169 1-Apr-09 2-Jun-09 SUBDIVISION Permit Issued 338 CHARMAN ROAD CHANGE OF USE - CHELTENHAM, CAFE/RESTAURAN KP214/09 VIC 3192 2-Apr-09 11-Jun-09 T Permit Issued 1/2 JENNIFER AVENUE PARKDALE, VIC ALTS & ADDS - KP221/09 3195 6-Apr-09 19-Jun-09 DECKS/SBO Permit Issued 5 SCARLET STREET MORDIALLOC, VIC Permit KP230/09 3195 8-Apr-09 2-Jun-09 TWO DWELLINGS Withdrawn 1/90 CENTRE DANDENONG ROAD DINGLEY VILLAGE, VIC KP232/09 3172 3-Apr-09 11-Jun-09 2 LOT SUBDIVISION Permit Issued 9 BURNS AVENUE CLAYTON SOUTH, KP236/09 VIC 3169 8-Apr-09 10-Jun-09 2 LOT SUBDIVISION Permit Lapsed 19 PINEHURST WAY HEATHERTON, INSTALLATION OF KP240/09 VIC 3202 14-Apr-09 29-Jun-09 SATELLITE DISH Permit Lapsed

21 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 2 CONNORS STREET HIGHETT, VIC KP246/09 3190 9-Apr-09 16-Jun-09 2 LOT SUBDIVISION Permit Issued 271 STATION STREET EDITHVALE, VIC KP248/09 3196 16-Apr-09 29-Jun-09 2 LOT SUBDIVISION Permit Issued 66 KINGSTON ROAD B'LD & WORKS - HEATHERTON, RELOCATION OF KP257/09 VIC 3202 22-Apr-09 4-Jun-09 PORTABLE B'LD Permit Issued 10-12 COMMERCIAL RD HIGHETT, VIC KP259/06 3190 19-Apr-06 18-Jun-09 2 LOT SUBDIVISION Permit Issued 23 WARRIGAL ROAD MENTONE, KP265/09 VIC 3194 24-Apr-09 12-Jun-09 2 LOT SUBDIVISION Permit Issued 14 BROWNFIELD STREET CHELTENHAM, KP266/09 VIC 3192 28-Apr-09 18-Jun-09 2 LOT SUBDIVISION Permit Issued 4/2-4 ROBERTSON PARADE ALTS & ADDS TO ASPENDALE, VIC DWELLING - KP268/09 3195 28-Apr-09 18-Jun-09 PERGOLA & DECK Permit Issued 426-431 NEPEAN HIGHWAY CHELSEA, VIC KP276/09 3196 29-Apr-09 24-Jun-09 ADVT SIGN Permit Lapsed 16 OAKES AVENUE CLAYTON SOUTH, KP277/09 VIC 3169 30-Apr-09 10-Jun-09 2 LOT SUBDIVISION Permit Issued 17 RAYHUR STREET CLAYTON SOUTH, KP292/09 VIC 3169 5-May-09 18-Jun-09 2 LOT SUBDIVISION Permit Issued 2 PATTERSON STREET BONBEACH, VIC KP293/09 3196 5-May-09 12-Jun-09 2 LOT SUBDIVISION Permit Issued 101 KEYS ROAD MOORABBIN, VIC Permit KP296/09 3189 8-May-09 30-Jun-09 MOBILE FOOD VAN Withdrawn 31 WOODBINE GR CHANGE OF USE - CHELSEA, VIC CHILD CARE KP297/08 3196 25-Mar-08 25-Jun-09 CENTRE Permit Issued 1/28 PERCY STREET MORDIALLOC, VIC BUILDING & KP297/09 3195 11-May-09 19-Jun-09 WORKS Permit Issued 19/94-102 KEYS ROAD BUILDING & CHELTENHAM, WORKS - OFFICE & KP298/09 VIC 3192 12-May-09 19-Jun-09 WAREHOUSE Permit Issued

22 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 251-253 CHARMAN ROAD CHELTENHAM, LIQUOR LICENCE / KP301/09 VIC 3192 12-May-09 16-Jun-09 CAFE Permit Issued 2 KEOL STREET CLAYTON SOUTH, KP302/09 VIC 3169 12-May-09 18-Jun-09 2 LOT SUBDIVISION Permit Issued 37 STATION RD CHELTENHAM, 51 LOT KP303/08 VIC 3192 26-Mar-08 29-Jun-09 SUBDIVISION Permit Issued 5 JOHNSTON STREET MENTONE, VIC KP307/09 3194 14-May-09 17-Jun-09 2 LOT SUBDIVISION Permit Issued 15 TEAGUE AVENUE MENTONE, VIC KP312/09 3194 15-May-09 10-Jun-09 2 LOT SUBDIVISION Permit Issued 262 NEPEAN HIGHWAY PARKDALE, VIC KP314/09 3195 18-May-09 5-Jun-09 2 LOT SUBDIVISION Permit Issued 76 ISLAND POINT AVENUE WATERWAYS, VIC KP319/09 3195 19-May-09 5-Jun-09 SINGLE DWELLING Permit Issued 8-12 CHESTERVILLE ROAD CHELTENHAM, ALTS & ADDS - KP32/09 VIC 3192 21-Jan-09 1-Jun-09 VERANDAH Permit Issued 2 EVAN STREET PARKDALE, VIC KP320/09 3195 19-May-09 10-Jun-09 2 LOT SUBDIVISION Permit Issued 1/57-59 GOLDEN AVE CHELSEA, KP335/08 VIC 3196 3-Apr-08 19-Jun-09 12 DWELLINGS Permit Refused 426-431 NEPEAN HIGHWAY CHELSEA, VIC KP340/09 3196 26-May-09 22-Jun-09 SIGNAGE Permit Issued 24 ISLAND POINT AVENUE WATERWAYS, VIC KP342/09 3195 29-May-09 23-Jun-09 SINGLE DWELLING Permit Issued 1 STARLING COURT WATERWAYS, VIC KP343/09 3195 29-May-09 23-Jun-09 SINGLE DWELLING Permit Issued 6 PORTLAND PLACE WATERWAYS, VIC KP353/09 3195 2-Jun-09 23-Jun-09 SINGLE DWELLING Permit Issued LOT G, 310 - 312 33 NO. GOVERNOR WAREHOUSES / ROAD BRAESIDE, CAR PARKING - KP357/08 VIC. 3195 10-Apr-08 30-Jun-09 LSIO Permit Issued 9 BEAR STREET DEMOLITION - KP358/09 MORDIALLOC, VIC 3-Jun-09 19-Jun-09 HERITAGE Permit Issued

23 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 3195 OVERLAY

15 COORONG CIRCLE WATERWAYS, VIC KP359/09 3195 4-Jun-09 26-Jun-09 SINGLE DWELLING Permit Issued 2 BLACK SWAN LANE WATERWAYS, VIC KP360/09 3195 4-Jun-09 23-Jun-09 SINGLE DWELLING Permit Issued 3 PORTLAND PLACE WATERWAYS, VIC KP367/09 3195 9-Jun-09 23-Jun-09 SINGLE DWELLING Permit Issued 23 LOCHIEL AVENUE EDITHVALE, VIC KP369/09 3196 9-Jun-09 23-Jun-09 SINGLE DWELLING Permit Issued 5 DRESDEN DRIVE WATERWAYS, VIC BUILDINGS & KP372/09 3195 11-Jun-09 25-Jun-09 WORKS Permit Issued 23 HILLSTON ROAD MOORABBIN, VIC KP388/09 3189 25-May-09 25-Jun-09 TREE REMOVAL Permit Issued 13 IVAN AVENUE EDITHVALE, VIC KP390/09 3196 12-Jun-09 25-Jun-09 2 LOT SUBDIVISION Permit Issued 2/195 NEPEAN HWY ASPENDALE, VIC KP401/08 3195 23-Apr-08 1-Jun-09 2 DWELLINGS Permit Issued 1288 CENTRE RD CHANGE OF USE - CLAYTON SOUTH, TAKE AWAY / Notice Of KP413/08 VIC 3169 29-Apr-08 19-Jun-09 DINING - SBO Decision 1720 BEACH PARK RESERVE B&W - CARRUM, VIC RENOVATION & KP427/08 3197 5-May-08 18-Jun-09 FLAG POLES Permit Issued 8-10 BONA VISTA AVENUE 3 NEW TWO ASPENDALE, VIC STOREY KP485/08 3195 27-May-08 30-Jun-09 DWELLINGS Permit Issued 37B BERNARD STREET CHELTENHAM, ALTS & ADDS TO KP5/09 VIC 3192 6-Jan-09 15-Jun-09 SHOP Permit Issued CONSTRUCT EXTENSION (ROOF 1/4 LILLIPUT LANE TOP DECK) TO KP538/08- EDITHVALE, VIC EXISTING A 3196 10-Mar-09 24-Jun-09 DWELLING Permit Issued 9 ALBANY CRESCENT KP556/08- ASPENDALE, VIC AMENDED FLOOR A 3195 6-May-09 24-Jun-09 PLAN Permit Issued

24 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 455 CENTRE DANDENONG RD CHANGE OF USE - KP580/07- HEATHERTON, PAINTBALL GAMES A VIC 3202 13-May-09 22-Jun-09 VENUE Permit Issued 5 TEMPLEMAN COURT ASPENDALE GARDENS, VIC TWO (2) KP583/08 3195 18-Jun-08 1-Jun-09 DWELLINGS Permit Issued 10 LITTLE COLENSO STREET CARRUM, VIC KP62/09 3197 4-Feb-09 25-Jun-09 DWELLING Permit Issued 60 MERNDA AVENUE THREE (3) DOUBLE BONBEACH, VIC STOREY Notice Of KP625/08 3196 1-Jul-08 16-Jun-09 DWELLINGS Decision 49 EMBANKMENT GROVE CHELSEA, KP64/09 VIC 3196 5-Feb-09 25-Jun-09 2 LOT SUB Permit Issued 55 CHELSEA ROAD CHELSEA, TWO (2) KP684/08 VIC 3196 22-Jul-08 30-Jun-09 DWELLINGS Permit Issued 12 SECOND STREET PARKDALE, VIC REMOVAL OF Permit KP71/09 3195 10-Feb-09 2-Jun-09 COVENANT Withdrawn

8 CHURCH ROAD TWO (2) DOUBLE CARRUM, VIC STOREY KP728/08 3197 6-Aug-08 17-Jun-09 DWELLINGS Permit Issued 19 SOUTHERN ROAD MENTONE, KP75/09 VIC 3194 11-Feb-09 2-Jun-09 TWO DWELLINGS Permit Issued 619B NEPEAN HIGHWAY CARRUM, VIC KP771/08 3197 13-Aug-08 29-Jun-09 SIX (6) DWELLINGS Permit Refused

3 BIBBY COURT B'LD & WORKS - MOORABBIN, VIC WAREHOUSE/OFFI KP79/09 3189 11-Feb-09 23-Jun-09 CE Permit Issued 13 BONDI ROAD BONBEACH, VIC FIVE (5) KP807/08 3196 27-Aug-08 11-Jun-09 DWELLINGS Permit Issued 50 ELLA GROVE CHELSEA, VIC THREE (3) KP809/08 3196 27-Aug-08 11-Jun-09 DWELLINGS Permit Issued 84 CLARINDA ROAD CLARINDA, KP81/09 VIC 3169 12-Feb-09 30-Jun-09 TWO DWELLINGS Permit Issued 122B PARKERS KP87/09 ROAD PARKDALE, 17-Feb-09 23-Jun-09 3 LOT SUBDIVISION Permit Issued

25 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 VIC 3195

TWENTY SIX (26) DWELLINGS AND ALTERATIONS TO AN EXISTING ACCESS TO LAND 90 WHITE STREET ADJACENT TO A MORDIALLOC, VIC ROAD ZONE Notice Of KP909/08 3195 1-Oct-08 3-Jun-09 (CATEGORY 1). Decision INSTALL A 15 METRE COMMUNICATION 27 CHUTE MAST ON TOP OF STREET BUILDING WITH A MORDIALLOC, VIC 5.8 GIGAHERTZ Permit Not KP912/08 3195 1-Oct-08 15-Jun-09 RADIO Required INSTALL A 5 METRE 10-12 COMMUNICATION NORTHCLIFFE MAST ON TOP OF ROAD BUILDING WITH A EDITHVALE, VIC 5.8 GIGAHERTZ Permit Not KP914/08 3196 1-Oct-08 12-Jun-09 RADIO Required 1/540-548 MAIN STREET MORDIALLOC, VIC REMOVE KP93/09 3195 19-Feb-09 24-Jun-09 EASEMENT Permit Issued

26 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 L 98 KP151/09: 76-78 Balcombe Road, Mentone (Le Gym)

Author: Sebastian Lorenzo – Town Planner Approved By: Tony Rijs – General Manager Environmental Sustainability APPLICANT: Marble Swirl Holdings Pty Ltd ADDRESS OF LAND: No.76-78 (Lot 1 on TP119575V, Lot 2 on PS038182, Lot 1 on TP684405R and Lot 1 on TP702547A) Balcombe Road, Mentone MELWAY REF: 86 K6 PROPOSAL Mixed Use Development CONTACT OFFICER: Sebastian Lorenzo FILE NO: KP151/09 ZONING: Business 2 KINGSTON State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) PLANNING SCHEME Clause 12 - (Metropolitan Development) ORDINANCE Clause 14 - (Settlement) CONTROLS: Clause 15 - (Environment) Clause 16 - (Housing) Clause 17 - (Economic Development) Clause 18 - (Infrastructure) Clause 19 - (Particular Uses and Development) Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) Clause 21.04 - (Vision) Clause 21.05 - (Residential Land Use) Clause 21.06 - (Retail and Commercial Land Use) Clause 21.12 - (Transport, Movement and Access) Clause 21.13 - (Heritage) Clause 22.11 - (Residential Development Policy) Clause 22.16 - (Heritage Policy) Zoning Clause 34.02 - (Business 2 Zone) Particular Provisions Clause 52.06 - (Advertising Signs) Clause 52.06 - (Car Parking) Clause 52.07 - (Loading and Unloading of Vehicles) Clause 52.27 - (Licensed Premises) Clause 52.29 - (Land Adjacent to a Road Zone, Category 1 or a Public Acquisition Overlay for a Category 1 Road) Clause 52.34 - (Bicycle Facilities) Clause 52.35 - (Urban Context Report and Design Response for Residential Development of Four or More Storeys) General Provisions Clause 65 - (Decision Guidelines) DECISION BY: 7th July, 2009 NETT DAYS: 54 days as of 1st July, 2009 CONSIDERED PLAN / 24th April, 2009 DATE RECEIVED

27 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 SUMMARY:

The main issues associated with this application as outlined by the objectors can be summarised into three (3) main points as follows:

• Overdevelopment of the site (including height, scale, visual bulk and mass, neighbourhood character, heritage concerns, drainage concerns etc); • Car parking and Traffic Concerns (including car parking, increase in traffic movements and loading bay concerns etc); and • Amenity based concerns (including overshadowing, overlooking, safety concerns, visual impact concerns, liquor license etc).

The proposal is for a five (5) storey mixed use development located at 76-78 Balcombe Road, Mentone (corner of Balcombe Road and Swanston Street, Mentone). The site is comprised of four (4) separate allotments with a total area of approximately 4823m2. The subject site is zoned Business 2 and is located within the Mentone Activity Centre which has been identified a Major Activity Centre under the Residential Land Use Framework Plan pursuant to Clause 21.05 – Residential Land Use of the Kingston Planning Scheme..

The proposed development is to include the following uses and proposed buildings and works;

• two (2) basement car parking levels providing two hundred and forty-two (242) car spaces on the site; • five (5) retail premises located at ground floor level; • a residential hotel with seventy-one (71) rooms located at ground and first floor level (including a restaurant / bar located at ground floor level); • a gymnasium at ground floor level (including an associated café located at ground floor level); • a commercial office tenancy located at ground floor level; • a function facility located at first floor level; • a total of fifty-nine (59) dwellings located across the second, third and fourth floor levels; • altering access to a road in a Road Zone Category 1 (Balcombe Road); • the erection of business identification signage; • an on premises liquor license for the hotel / restaurant / bar / function facility; • a reduction in the car parking requirements pursuant to Clause 52.06 of the Kingston Planning Scheme; and • a reduction in the bicycle parking requirements pursuant to Clause 52.34 of the Kingston Planning Scheme.

Overall, having regard to the State Planning Policy Framework, the Local Planning Policy Framework, the Zoning Provisions, the Particular Provisions and the Decision Guidelines of the Kingston Planning Scheme, it is considered that the proposal, subject to the inclusion of

28 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 suitable conditions being placed on any permit issued, is considered appropriate and warrants support.

SITE AND SURROUNDS:

The subject site is known as 76-78 Balcombe Road, Mentone. The subject site is located on the north-west corner of Balcombe Road and Swanston Street, Mentone. The subject site consists of four (4) separate allotments which include Lot 1 on TP702547A, Lot 2 on LP038182, Lot 1 on TP119575V and Lot 1 on TP684405R. For the purpose of this application, the allotments have been amalgamated and are considered as one (1) allotment.

The subject site is irregular in shape with a frontage of approximately 60.59 metres to Balcombe Road, a frontage of approximately 49.07 metres to Swanston Street and an overall site area of approximately 4823m2.

The subject site is zoned Business 2. No overlay provisions apply to the subject site. The subject site was mainly used and developed for commercial purposes with the ‘Le Gym’ gymnasium occupying the majority of site. A small manufacturing shed is located in the south-west corner of the site, on the land currently known as 78 Balcombe Road, Mentone. It is noted that these buildings are currently vacant and no business operations currently occur on the site. In the broader context, the subject site is located within the Mentone Activity Centre which has been identified as a Major Activity Centre under the Residential Land Use Framework Plan pursuant to Clause 21.05 – Residential Land Use of the Kingston Planning Scheme.

Land immediately to the west of the subject site is zoned Public Use Zone 4 and is used and developed for the Frankston Railway Line. Land further west is zoned Business 1 and mainly used and developed for business and commercial purposes. Land immediately to the south of the site is zone Road Zone Category 1 (Balcombe Road). Land further south is zoned Public Use 4 and is used and developed for the Mentone Railway Station. It is noted that the Mentone Railway Station has an applicable Heritage Overlay 106. Land to the north and east of the subject site is zoned Residential 1 and is mainly used and developed for Residential purposes.

The site is currently accessed via a vehicle crossover located on Balcombe Road which leads to the main car park area of the site. There is also a vehicle crossing point located on Swanston Street which is used to gain access to a small car park which abuts No.5 Swanston Street located to the north of the subject site. The land has a flat topography and is void of any significant or indigenous vegetation.

TITLE DETAILS:

The applicant has completed a restrictive covenant declaration form, declaring that there is no restrictive covenant on the title.

SITE HISTORY:

Council records indicate the following Planning Permit(s) have been applied for the site which includes:

29 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 • Planning Permit No.KP96286 for signage; • Planning Permit No.KP97/846 for signage; • Planning Permit No.KP413/03 to place two (2) shipping containers on site; • Planning Permit No.KP950052 for signage; • Planning Permit No. KP98/630 for a takeaway food premises; • Planning Permit No.MOC4242 for a place of assembly; • Planning Permit No.MOC4323 for signage; • Planning Permit No. PT186/06 for the removal of six (6) trees on site; and • Planning Permit No.KP102/07 for a mixed use development.

It should be noted that Planning Permit application No. KP102/07 was for a similar five (5) storey mixed use development to the application currently before Council. Council resolved to issue a Notice of Refusal for Planning Permit application No.KP102/07 at an Ordinary Council Meeting on 17th December, 2007 with a the Notice of Refusal issued on 24th December, 2007 for a five (5) storey mixed use development (plus double basement car park). The applicant proceeded to appeal Council’s decision. The application was subsequently refused by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal on 21st November, 2008 for a four (4) storey mixed use development. Furthermore, it is noted that many of the previous comments from various Council Departments remain relevant to the current application. These are discussed in more detail later in this report.

PROPOSAL:

In summary, the proposal is for the development and use of the site for the purpose of a five (5) storey (double basement, ground floor level plus four (4) levels above) mixed use development, consisting of two (2) basement car parking levels which provide two hundred and forty-two (242) on site car parking spaces, five (5) retail premises at ground floor level, a residential hotel with seventy-one (71) rooms located at ground and first floor level (including a restaurant / bar located at ground level), a gymnasium located at ground floor level (including an associated café located at ground level), a commercial tenancy located at ground floor level, a function facility located at first floor level, fifty-nine (59) dwellings located across the second, third and fourth floor levels, altering access to a road in a Road Zone Category 1 (Balcombe Road), the erection of business identification signage, an on premises liquor licence, a reduction in the car parking requirements pursuant to Clause 52.06 of the Kingston Planning Scheme and a reduction in the bicycle parking requirements pursuant to Clause 52.34 of the Kingston Planning Scheme.

Details of the proposed uses located on each level are as follows:

• Basement Level 2 (Lower Car Park Level): The lower level basement car park level contains one hundred and twenty-seven (127) car spaces. The lower basement car park level also provides a minimum 7m3 of storage area for all dwellings. The lower level basement car park level will be predominantly used for car parking by residents of the dwellings as well as the staff of the various proposed uses and some hotel / function patrons / guests;

30 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 • Basement Level 1 (Upper Car Park Level): The upper basement car park level contains one hundred and fifteen (115) car spaces. The upper basement car park level will be predominantly used for car parking by visitors and customers to the site including visitors / customers of the retail premises, gymnasium, restaurant, hotel, function facility and dwellings;

• Ground Floor Level: The ground floor level consists of five (5) retail premises, a gymnasium with associated café area, the hotel restaurant / bar area, a commercial office tenancy, the hotel store / backroom facilities, the building services / refuse storage and the loading bay and basement car park access ramp;

• First Floor Level: The first floor level consists of the function facility and seventy-one (71) hotel rooms;

• Second Floor Level: The second floor level consists of a total of twenty-two (22) dwellings (twenty (20) two (2) bedroom dwellings and two (2) one (1) bedroom dwellings);

• Third Floor Level: The third floor level consists of a total of twenty (20) dwellings (seventeen (17) two (2) bedroom apartments and three (3) one (1) bedroom dwellings);

• Fourth Floor Level: The fourth floor level consists of a total of seventeen (17) dwellings (sixteen (16) two (2) bedroom dwellings and one (1) one (1) bedroom dwelling).

A breakdown of the floor area for each use is detailed below:

Lower Basement 127 car spaces, storage facilities and service areas Upper Basement 115 car spaces and service areas Ground Floor Gymnasium/café Area 1802m2 Outdoor gymnasium Area 94m2 training Outdoor café seating Area 52m2 Commercial Office Area 323m2 Tenancy Hotel Restaurant/bar Area 162m2 Hotel facilities Area 92m2 Retail 1 Area 85m2 Retail 2 Area 86m2 Retail 3 Area 79m2 Retail 4 Area 65m2 Retail 5 Area 82m2 Loading area and hotel Area 661m2 pick-up / drop-off area First Floor Function facility Area 339m2 Seventy-one (71) hotel Area 27m2 (typical) rooms

31 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 Second Floor Twenty-two (22) dwellings See details below Third Floor Twenty (20) dwellings See details below Fourth Floor Seventeen (17) dwellings See details below

Totals

Gymnasium 2800 members Hotel Rooms 71 rooms Dwellings 59 dwellings 6 x 1 bedroom Area 55m2 to 72m2 53 x 2 bedroom Area 73m2 to 87m2 Balcony/courtyard Minimum 9m2 Car Spaces 242 spaces

Footprints

Site Area 4823m2 Lower Basement 4513m2 Upper Basement 4513m2 Ground Floor 3631m2 First Floor 3343m2 Second Floor 2053m2 Third Floor 1770m2 Fourth Floor 1588m2

Site Coverage 75% Permeability 4%

Building Height 18.6 metres from ground level

A breakdown of each dwelling with the number of bedrooms, bathrooms, floor area and balcony area is detailed below:

Second Floor Level Dwellings Dwelling Bedrooms/Baths Area Balcony Area 1 2/2 100m2 13m2 2 1/1 60m2 10m2 3 2/1 74m2 35m2 4 2/1 74m2 19m2 5 2/1 74m2 19m2 6 2/1 84m2 10, 14 & 4m2 7 2/1 74m2 19m2 8 2/1 72m2 21m2 9 2/1 74m2 19m2 10 2/1 74m2 14m2 & 3m2 11 2/2 99m2 39m2 12 2/1 73m2 36m2

32 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 13 2/1 74m2 44m2 14 2/1 71m2 53m2 15 2/1 74m2 42m2 16 2/1 83m2 27m2 17 2/1 74m2 20m2 18 2/1 73m2 20m2 19 2/1 92m2 17m2 20 2/1 92m2 12m2 21 1/1 64m2 18m2 22 2/2 92m2 18m2 & 12m2 Third Floor Level Dwellings Dwelling Bedrooms/Baths Area Balcony Area 23 2/1 72m2 22m2 24 2/2 87m2 36m2 25 2/2 81m2 49m2 26 1/1 59m2 14m2 27 1/1 59m2 34m2 28 2/1 74m2 19m2 29 1/1 52m2 21m2 30 2/1 74m2 19m2 31 2/1 74m2 19m2 32 2/1 85m2 12m2 33 2/1 73m2 21m2 34 2/1 74m2 21m2 35 2/1 71m2 26m2 36 2/1 74m2 45m2 37 2/1 83m2 12m2 38 2/1 74m2 23m2 39 2/1 77m2 23m2 40 2/1 95m2 19m2 41 2/1 74m2 23m2 42 2/1 83m2 12m2 & 4m2 Fourth Floor Level Dwellings Dwelling Bedrooms/Baths Area Balcony Area 43 2/2 76m2 9m2 44 2/1 80m2 47m2 45 2/1 86m2 29m2 46 2/1 88m2 43m2 47 1/1 76m2 31m2 48 2/1 78m2 24m2 49 1/1 67m2 12m2 & 9m2 50 2/1 73m2 21m2 51 2/1 74m2 21m2 52 2/1 71m2 26m2 53 2/1 74m2 39m2 54 2/1 83m2 12m2 55 2/1 74m2 23m2 56 2/1 77m2 23m2

33 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 57 2/1 95m2 19m2 58 2/1 74m2 22m2 59 2/1 83m2 12m2 & 4m2

AMENDMENT TO THE APPLICATION BEFORE NOTIFICATION:

Amendments to the application were made by the applicant on 24th April, 2009. The amendments were largely made in response to Council’s further information letter dated 9th April, 2009. The amended plans showed the additional information requested in Council’s further information letter as well as some changes to the proposal.

These changes included but are not limited to the following:

• the development was increased from a four (4) storey development to a five (5) storey development; and • the number of dwellings was increased from forty-two (42) dwellings to fifty-nine (59) dwellings.

Council decided to approve the proposed amendments.

ADVERTISING:

The proposal was advertised by sending notices to adjoining and opposite property owners and occupiers and by maintaining four (4) notices on site for fourteen (14) days. It should be noted that all objectors to the previous application (KP102/07) were also notified of the current application. The applicant was also required to place a double column width advertisement in the local newspaper for one (1) edition. One hundred and thirty-three (133) objections to the proposal were received. The main grounds of objection can be summarised into three (3) main points as follows:

• Overdevelopment of the site (including height, scale, visual bulk and mass, neighbourhood character, heritage concerns, drainage concerns etc); • Car parking and Traffic Concerns (including car parking, increase in traffic movements and loading bay concerns etc); and • Amenity based concerns (including overshadowing, overlooking, safety concerns, visual impact concerns, liquor license etc).

AMENDMENT TO THE APPLICATION AFTER NOTIFICATION:

No amendments made.

PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE:

A preliminary conference was held on Wednesday 27th May, 2009 with regard to this application where the following issues and concerns were discussed;

• Traffic and Car Parking;

34 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 • Urban Design (including height / scale / visual bulk etc.); • Liquor License; and • Other Issues / Concerns.

The abovementioned issues and concerns were unable to be resolved at this preliminary conference and all objections still stand.

RELEVANT POLICIES:

State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF)

• Clause 12 - (Metropolitan Development) • Clause 14 - (Settlement) • Clause 15 - (Environment) • Clause 16 - (Housing) • Clause 17 - (Economic Development) • Clause 18 - (Infrastructure) • Clause 19 - (Particular Uses and Development)

Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF)

• Clause 21.04 - (Vision) • Clause 21.05 - (Residential Land Use) • Clause 21.06 - (Retail and Commercial Land Use • Clause 21.12 - (Transport, Movement and Access) • Clause 21.13 - (Heritage) • Clause 22.11 - (Residential Development Policy) • Clause 22.16 - (Heritage Policy)

Zoning

• Clause 34.02 - (Business 2 Zone)

Overlays

• There are no overlay controls that apply to this site.

Particular Provisions

• Clause 52.06 - (Advertising Signs) • Clause 52.06 - (Car Parking)

35 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 • Clause 52.07 - (Loading and Unloading of Vehicles) • Clause 52.27 - (Licensed Premises) • Clause 52.29 - (Land Adjacent to a Road Zone, Category 1 or a Public Acquisition Overlay for a Category 1 Road) • Clause 52.34 - (Bicycle Facilities) • Clause 52.35 - (Urban Context Report and Design Response for Residential Development of Four or More Storeys)

General Provisions

• Clause 65 - (Decision Guidelines)

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS AND DISCUSSION:

The following section will consider the application against the relevant sections of the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF), Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF), zone objectives and particular provisions of the Kingston Planning Scheme.

STATE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK:

The SPPF are rather broad policies which are essentially the framework by which local policies are derived from. The following is, therefore, a brief comment of the relevant polices.

Clause 12: Metropolitan Development:

Clause 12.01: A More Compact City

This seeks to facilitate sustainable development that takes full advantage of existing settlement patterns, and investment in transport and communication, water and sewerage and social facilities, and locate a substantial proportion of new housing in or close to activity centres and other strategic redevelopment sites that offer good access to services and transport.

Clause 12.05: A Great Place To Be

This seeks to create urban environments that are of better quality, safer and more functional, provide more open space and an easily recognisable sense of place and cultural identity. It promotes issues of good urban design, recognition and protection of cultural identity, neighbourhood character, sense of place heritage, improvement of community safety.

Clause 12.06: A Fairer City

This seeks to increase the supply of well located and affordable housing by encouraging a significant proportion of new development, including development activity centres and strategic redevelopment sites, to be affordable for households on low to moderate incomes.

36 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 Clause 12.07: A Greener City

This seeks to minimise impacts on the environment by reducing the amount of waste generated, reducing energy usage, manage water use and reduce the impact of stormwater on bays and catchments.

In general, the proposal is considered to satisfy the above listed objectives. The site is within a Major Activity Centre and would provide for additional housing which can take full advantage of public transport, commercial facilities and recreation facilities, all with minimal reliance on car usage, and therefore, lesser energy consumption.

Clause 14: Settlement

One of the key objectives under Clause 14.01 of the Kingston Planning Scheme aims ‘to ensure a sufficient supply of land is available for residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, institutional and other public use’.

The proposal is considered to satisfy this objective by maintaining and intensifying the commercial component of the site while providing a new residential component on the site in the form of apartment style dwellings and hotel rooms.

Clause 15: Environment

Clause 15.12: Energy Efficiency

The key objective of this Clause is ‘to encourage land use and development that is consistent with the efficient use of energy and the minimisation of greenhouse gas emissions’.

Further, planning and responsible authorities should:

• Promote energy efficient building. • Promote consolidation of urban development and integration of land use and transport; and

It is considered that the nature of the proposed development generally accords with the above strategies for general implementation.

Clause 16: Housing

Clause 16.02: Medium Density Housing

This policy aims to encourage the development of well-designed medium density housing which respects the character of the neighbourhood, improves housing choice, makes better use of existing infrastructure and improves energy efficiency of housing.

It is considered that the development generally accords with this objective by providing a range of dwellings for smaller households, in an area with excellent access to public transport and shops.

37 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 Clause 17: Economic Development

Clause 17.01: Activity Centres

The key policy objectives includes an aim ‘to encourage the concentration of major retail, commercial, administrative, entertainment and cultural developments into activity centres (including strip shopping centres) which provide a variety of land uses and are highly accessible to the community’

The proposal would provide a mix of retail and commercial opportunities (i.e. various retail premises, hotel, gym etc) on the site while encouraging the concentration of various uses within the Mentone Activity Centre.

Clause 18: Infrastructure

Clause 18.02: Car Parking And Public Transport Access To Development

This policy aims to ensure that new developments are provided with good access and that new developments take advantage of all available modes of transport to minimise impact on existing transport networks and the amenity of the surrounding areas.

The proposal is located directly opposite the Mentone Railway Station. There is excellent access to railway services as well as bus services. The site is located within the Mentone Activity Centre and therefore takes advantage of pedestrian movements within the Activity Centre. Car parking is also provided in the form of a double basement. Overall is considered that the site’s location within the Mentone Activity Centre takes advantage of all major forms of public and private transportation services available including train, bus, private vehicle, walking and bicycle etc.

Clause 19: Particular Uses And Development

Clause 19.03: Design And Built Form

It is policy to achieve high quality urban design and architecture that reflects the particular characteristics, aspirations and cultural identity of the community. Pursuant to Clause 19.03, the following design principles are relevant to this application:

Context

It is policy that:

• development must take into account the natural, cultural and strategic context of its location.

The site is located within the Mentone Activity Centre which has been identified as a Major Activity Centre in the Kingston Planning Scheme. A more intensive type of development is expected within all Activity Centres, particularly those identified as Principal or Major Activity Centres. It is considered that the proposal adequately satisfies the above provision.

38 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

The Public Realm

It is policy that:

• the public realm, which includes main pedestrian spaces, streets, squares, parks and walkways, should be protected and enhanced.

It is considered that the public realm will be enhanced by the proposed development with improved pedestrian spaces and walkways. Pedestrian conflict points at the corner of Balcombe Road and Swanston Street will be widened to allow better pedestrian movements. There is also potential for the provision of a pedestrian path along the railway line between Collins Street and Balcombe Road. This will improve pedestrian access to and from the site as well as to and from the Mentone Activity Centre. It is considered that a suitable condition requiring the owner / developer to provide new footpath treatments to all public walkways fronting the site in accordance with the existing Mentone streetscape themes and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority should be included on any permit issued.

Safety

It is policy that:

• new development should create urban environments that enhance personal safety and property security and where people feel safe to live, work and move in at any time.

The proposal does not appear to raise any issues in this respect and overall safety should be improved via improved surveillance from the outdoor living areas of the dwellings to the streets below. As mentioned above, the potential for a pedestrian path along the railway line would improve safety and deter anti-social behaviour along properties which abut the railway line.

Landmarks, Views And Vistas

It is policy that:

• landmarks, views and vistas should be protected and enhanced or, where appropriate, created by new additions to the built environment.

It is considered that the proposal does not appear to raise any issues in this respect. Concerns have been raised by objectors with regard to the heritage listing of the Mentone Railway Station and the Kilbreda Tower, however, it is considered that that proposal will in no way detrimentally impact on these heritage listed buildings. This issue will be discussed in more detail below in this report.

39 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

Pedestrian Spaces

It is policy that:

• the design of the relationship between buildings and footpaths and other pedestrian spaces, including the arrangement of adjoining activities, entrances, windows, and architectural decoration, should enhance the visual and social experience of the observer.

It is considered that the proposal has adequately addressed the above provision. Various elements have been included into the overall design of the building which enhances the relationship between the building, public spaces and existing character of the Mentone Activity Centre. These include the creation of a three (3) storey podium along Balcombe Road and Swanston Street, opening the gymnasium up to the railway line so as to create a public space between the building and the railway line and widening the footpath at the Balcombe Road and Swanston Street intersection to improve pedestrian access. The quality of the pedestrian space will be further improved by the use of colours, materials and building forms which complement particular features of the Mentone Activity Centre.

Heritage

It is policy that:

• new development should respect, but not simply copy, historic precedents and create a worthy legacy for future generations.

As noted above (landmarks, views and vistas) the proposal does not raise any concerns with respect to the any potential impact on the heritage listed Kilbreda Tower or Mentone Railway Station. This issue will be discussed in more detail later in this report.

Consolidation Of Sites And Empty Sites

It is policy that:

• new development should contribute to the “complexity” and diversity of the built environment; and • site consolidation should not result in street frontages that are out of keeping with the “complexity” and “rhythm” of existing streetscapes.

The proposed development is considered to be in keeping with the “complexity” and “rhythm” of the Mentone Activity Centre by seeking to incorporate elements such as the three (3) storey podium level and retail interfaces at the ground floor.

Light And Shade

It is policy that:

• the enjoyment of the public realm should be enhanced by a desirable balance of sunlight and shade; and

40 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 • this balance should not be compromised by undesirable overshadowing or exposure to the sun.

The proposed development is likely to increase existing shadowing to the railway line to the west (in the morning), Balcombe Road (partly morning and midday) to the south and Swanston Street to the east (afternoon). However, given the orientation of the site, the overall built form and taking into consideration the adjoining uses (railway line to the west, Balcombe Road to the south and Swanston Street to the east) it is considered that the proposal should achieve a good balance between light and shade throughout the day.

Energy And Resource Efficiency

It is policy that:

• all buildings, subdivisions and engineering works should promote more efficient use of resources and energy efficiency.

It is considered that the nature of the proposed development generally accords with the above provision by incorporating a mix of uses including commercial and residential uses in the one building.

Architectural Quality

It is policy that:

• new development should aspire to the high standards in architecture and urban design; and • any rooftop plant, lift over-runs, service entries, communication devices, and other technical attachment should be treated as part of the overall design.

It is considered that the proposal demonstrates a high level of architectural and urban design merit. The detailing of the upper two storeys delivers a lightweight and simple structure which is suitably complemented by a robust street level podium. The design incorporates a subtle level of articulation which respects the village character of Mentone and which also delivers a level of design interest to derive an appealing addition to the centre. However, further design elements which provide improved articulation through the use of various materials and increased setbacks should be incorporated into the overall design of the development. These design considerations are discussed in more detail later in this report and can be dealt with by the inclusion of suitable conditions being placed on any permit issued.

Landscape Architecture

It is policy that:

• recognition should be given to the setting in which buildings are designed and the integrating role of landscape architecture.

It is considered that the proposal has been designed within the overall context of the site to the Mentone Activity Centre and the landscaping proposed as part of the development will

41 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 integrate well with the built form and the existing streetscape character of the Mentone Activity Centre. Additionally, the landscape to the northern boundary provides an appropriate buffer to neighbouring residential properties and the addition of landscaping to the upper level courtyards assist in reducing the mass of the building from the north.

LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK:

Clause 21.04: Vision

This policy sets out the main land use themes within the City of Kingston which includes residential land uses, retail and commercial land uses, industrial land uses, foreshore land uses and wetlands and waterways land uses. As relevant to this application, the broad direction of overall strategic framework plan identifies Mentone as an area for the promotion of medium to higher density housing opportunities (particularly given Mentone is a Major Activity Centre). It is considered that the proposal is in accordance with the broad direction set by this policy.

Clause 21.05: Residential Land Use

The Municipal Strategic Statement identifies a number of key policy objectives for future residential land use planning within the City of Kingston. As relevant to this application, these include:

• to provide a wide range of housing types across the municipality to increase housing diversity and cater for the changing needs of current and future populations, taking account of the differential capacity of local areas in Kingston to accommodate different types and rates of housing change; • to ensure new residential development respects neighbourhood character and is site responsive, and that medium density dwellings are of the highest design quality; • to preserve and enhance well landscaped/vegetated environments and protect identified significant vegetation; • to promote more environmentally sustainable forms of residential development; • to manage the interface between residential development and adjoining or nearby sensitive/strategic land uses; and • to ensure residential development does not exceed known physical infrastructure capacities.

Relevant strategies to achieve these objectives (as relevant to this application) include:

• Encourage residential development within activity centres via shop-top housing and mixed use developments, and on transitional sites at the periphery of activity centres. The intensity and scale of such development will need to be in keeping with the scale of these centres; • Support innovative residential infill development on former industrial sites adjacent to established residential areas, and on other mixed use or traditionally non-residential sites where appropriate;

42 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 • Promote a range of lot sizes and housing types, including medium density housing, on large residential opportunity sites, particularly where such sites have good access to public transport and other facilities; • Promote new residential development which is of a high standard, responds to the local context and positively contributes to the character and identity of the local neighbourhood; • Promote new residential development which provides a high standard of amenity and quality of life for future occupants; • Protect areas/buildings of recognised historical/cultural significance; • Ensure that the planning, design, siting and construction of new residential development responds to best practice environmental design guidelines for energy efficiency, waste and recycling, and stormwater management; • Promote medium density housing development in close proximity to public transport facilities, particularly train stations; • Ensure that where medium and higher density residential areas are proposed adjacent to lower density residential areas, the design of such development takes proper account of its potential amenity impacts; and • Require the provision of car parking to satisfy the anticipated demand having regard to average car ownership levels in the area, the environmental capacity of the local street network and the proximity of public transport and nearby on and off street car parking.

It is considered that the proposed development would satisfy the broader strategic objectives as outlined in Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement, through the provision of medium to higher density housing and mixed use developments in Activity Centres such as the current proposal. It is considered that the proposal creates an adequate standard of amenity for the future occupants of each of the proposed dwellings, hotel rooms and other proposed uses, as well as for occupants of existing dwellings in the immediate area. The proposed development seeks to incorporate specific elements such as the three (3) storey podium level and colours and materials which complement the existing character of the Mentone Activity Centre and the broader local neighbourhood. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal adequately satisfies the abovementioned provisions.

Clause 21.06: Retail And Commercial Land Use

Mentone is identified as being a neighbourhood centre on Council’s Retail and Commercial Land Use Framework Plan. It is policy to promote mixed use precincts around key Activity Centres which encourage a broader range of cultural, social, commercial and higher density housing opportunities to complement retail functions of activity centres and enhance their economic vitality. Furthermore, strategic direction for Mentone as a Neighbourhood Centre is to encourage entertainment facilities and restaurant uses where continuous retail frontages are not undermined.

It is considered that the proposal is in accordance with the abovementioned policy directions. The proposal provides a variety of commercial opportunities within an existing Activity Centre, including various retail premises, a commercial office tenancy, a gymnasium, a

43 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 function facility and the inclusion of a restaurant / bar to be used in association with the proposed hotel.

Clause 21.12: Transport, Movement And Access

As relevant to this application, it is policy to:

• create a safe, convenient and efficient road network based on functional hierarchy of local and regional road linkages, which meets the transport and freight needs of Kingston’s residents, businesses and through traffic; and • integrate public transport, road, pedestrian and cycle systems with activity centres, schools and other community and social infrastructure, as a means of providing equitable and safe vehicular, pedestrian and cyclist movement and access for the community.

It is considered that the proposal is in accordance with the abovementioned policy directions. The proposal is located within the existing and growing Mentone Activity Centre and takes advantage of the road, pedestrian and public transport networks which exist throughout the Mentone Activity Centre and the City of Kingston as a whole. The proposal builds on the policy directions set out in the State and the Local Planning Policy Frameworks and provides a development which provides a variety of uses including commercial and residential with good access to a variety of transport modes including public and private transport. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal adequately satisfies the abovementioned provisions.

Clause 21.13: Heritage

It is policy to ensure new developments and renovations do not adversely affect the significance of heritage places and areas, and contributes positively to identified heritage values. Strategies relevant to this application include:

• ensure that new buildings and works complement and are sympathetic to the heritage place in terms of views, vistas, existing vegetation, landmarks, building form, setbacks, frontage width, height, finish and fenestrations without necessarily replicating historical detailing.

The site is located is close proximity to the Mentone Railway Station and the Kilbreda Tower, both of which are heritage listed buildings. It is considered that the proposal in its current form does not detrimentally impact on the heritage values of the Mentone Railway Station or the Kilbreda Tower and as such, it is considered that the application adequately satisfies the heritage requirements of Clause 21.13 of the Kingston Planning Scheme.

Clause 22.11: Residential Development Policy

This policy applies where a permit is required to, amongst other things, construct two (2) or more dwellings on a lot.

The purpose of this policy is “to identify those locations where increased housing diversity, incremental housing change, minimal housing change and residential renewal will be encourage and provide policy guidance on how development design should respond to meet the desired objectives”. Although the subject site is not zoned residential, the subject site is

44 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 located within a designated Increased Housing Diversity Area. Increased Housing Diversity Areas encourage increased housing densities as well as promoting a wider range of housing sizes and types, particularly in areas that are within convenient walking distances to public transport networks and activity centres.

Further, ‘the Residential Strategy encourages new residential development to respect neighbourhood character and medium density dwellings to be of the highest quality in the design and with the minimal impact on off-site amenity’. The key objective of this policy is ‘To promote a managed approach to housing change, taking account of the differential capacity of local areas in Kingston to accommodate increased housing diversity, incremental housing change, residential renewal or minimal housing change, as identified within the MSS’.

In considering the abovementioned objective, the following policy requirements are applicable in the consideration of this application:

• Encourage well-articulated and graduated elevations in order to avoid ‘box-like’ double- storey designs, thus reducing visual bulk; and • Ensure that the siting of new buildings respects the amenity of adjoining neighbours with regard to rear yards and garden outlooks from habitable living room windows.

Although the proposal is five (5) storeys in scale with a site coverage of approximately 75%, it is considered that there is a high degree of articulation through varied setbacks (particularly to the adjoining residential properties to the north of the subject site), recessed elements, protruding elements and the use of varied building materials by which the proposal would avoid a ‘box like’ appearance. It should be noted that this site is located within a Business 2 zone, and has no direct interface with a residential zone to three (3) of the site’s four (4) property boundaries.

The only residential interface is to the north of the subject site where properties located on the south side of Collins Street abut the subject site as well as one property on Swanston Street. No.5 Swanston Street, located on Swanston Street and to the north of the subject site is proposed to be re-developed with an apartment building comprising five (5) double storey dwellings. Planning Application No.KP487/08 was lodged with Council on 22nd May, 2008 and is currently before Council with a recommendation to support the application subject to conditions. It is noted that the proposed apartment building has been designed having regard to the proposed re-development of the subject site.

Further design elements which provide improved articulation through the use of various materials and increased setbacks should be incorporated into the overall design of the development, particularly with regard to the northern interface and the properties located on the south side of Collins Street which abut the subject site. Greater consideration can been given to the impact of the proposed development to the residential properties to the north of the subject site with greater setbacks as the building increases in height. The provision of fingers of vegetation in between various sections of the proposed building has again been incorporated into the proposed development which provides visual relief and articulation to the development, particularly when viewed from adjoining properties to the north of the subject site. These Urban Design and Built Form considerations are discussed in more detail

45 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 later in this report and can be dealt with by the inclusion of suitable conditions being placed on any permit issued.

Overall, it is considered that the proposal adequately satisfies the provisions of the Residential Development Policy.

Clause 22.15: Outdoor Advertising Signage Policy

As relevant to this application, it is policy to:

• Consider in a balanced manner the appropriateness of the display of illuminated signs, recognising the need to be respectful of their surroundings and nearby sensitive land uses; • Consider the number and type of signs in an area so that signs are responsive to the intensity of commercial activity, the complexity of the built form of the area and established approved signage patterns; and • Discourage upper façade or above verandah signs particularly where the building is used for residential purposes such as shop-top housing and on larger mixed retail and residential developments.

While some of the proposed signs are located on the first or second level of the proposed building, it is considered that in this instance, the location of these signs are appropriate given their overall size and the limited number of proposed signs. It is considered that the proposed signs will blend in with the proposed development and are located appropriately within the development. Therefore it is considered that the size and location of the proposed signs are consistent with the advertising signage policy of the Kingston Planning Scheme.

Clause 22.16: Heritage Policy

It is policy to:

• recognise, conserve and enhance places and elements in the City identified as having scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical interest or other special cultural values; • conserve heritage places by respecting the historic and architectural integrity of buildings, streetscapes and vistas; • ensure that new development is undertaken in a manner that integrates positively with the surrounding buildings and area; and • promote design excellence which clearly and positively supports the ongoing significance of heritage places.

As discussed previously in this report, the site is located is close proximity to the Mentone Railway Station and the Kilbreda Tower, both of which are heritage listed buildings. It is considered that the proposal in its current form does not detrimentally impact on the heritage values of the Mentone Railway Station or the Kilbreda Tower and as such, it is considered that the application adequately satisfies the heritage requirements of Clause 22.16 of the Kingston Planning Scheme.

46 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 ZONING:

Clause 34.02: Business 2 Zone

The subject site is zoned Business 2. The purpose of the Business 2 Zone is:

• To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies; and • To encourage the development of offices and associated commercial uses.

Pursuant to Clause 34.02 of the Kingston Planning Scheme, a Planning Permit is required to:

• use the site for a residential hotel and associated hotel restaurant / bar; • use the site for a dwelling(s); • use the site for a gymnasium and associated cafe; • use the site for a retail premise(s); and • construct a building or construct or carry out works.

It is noted that the proposed commercial tenancy is an ‘as of right’ (Section 1) use and does not require a Planning Permit.

In addition to the decision guidelines in Clause 65, the following decision guidelines must be considered before deciding on an application:

• The State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies; • The movement of pedestrians and cyclists, and vehicles providing for supplies, waste removal, emergency services and public transport; • The provision of car parking; • The interface with adjoining zones, especially the relationship with residential areas; • The streetscape, including the conservation of buildings, the design of verandahs, access from the street front, protecting active frontages to pedestrian areas, the treatment of the fronts and backs of buildings and their appurtenances, illumination of buildings or their immediate spaces and landscaping of land adjoining a road; • The storage of rubbish and materials for recycling; • Defining the responsibility for the maintenance of buildings, landscaping and paved areas; • The availability of and connection to services; and • The design of buildings to provide for solar access.

It is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the purpose of the zone and policy directions of the State and Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement.

47 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

PARTICULAR PROVISIONS:

Clause 52.05: Advertising Signs

Pursuant to Clause 52.05 of the Kingston Planning Scheme, a planning permit is required to erect a business identification sign where the total advertisement area of all signs exceeds 8m². A planning permit is also required if the total advertisement of all internally illuminated signs exceed 1.5m².

Pursuant to Clause 52.05-1 of the Kingston Planning Scheme a permit for a sign expires on the date specified in the permit, and if no date has been specified, the expiry date is 15 years from the date of issue of the permit.

The current application and supporting plans show that approval is sought for the erection of business identification signs in association with the proposed uses on the site.

Details of the signs are as follows:

Genesis Signs – Two (2) Signs Proposed Height x Width: Sign 1: 7600mm x 1400mm Sign 2: 2600mm x 1600mm Total area of sign: Sign 1: 10.64m² Sign 2: 4.16m² Text: Sign 1: Genesis Sign 2: Logo Colours: Black text, yellow background with black, purple and yellow logo. Lighting: Sign 1: Internally illuminated light box Sign 2: Internally illuminated light box Positioning: Sign 1: Located on building fascia facing the Railway Line. Sign 2: Located on the building facia on level 2 directly above the main entry to the gymnasium

Hotel Signs – Three (3) Signs Proposed Height x Width: Sign 1: 2000mm x 1800mm Sign 2: 2400mm x 2400mm Sign 3: 1600mm x 1400mm Total area of sign: Sign 1: 3.6m² Sign 2: 5.76m² Sign 3: 2.24m² Text: All Signs: Best Western Colours: Blue background, yellow text and red logo. Lighting: Sign 1: Internally illuminated light box Sign 2: Internally illuminated light box Sign 3: Internally illuminated light box

48 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 Positioning: Sign 1: Located on the building facia on level 2 above the outdoor restaurant area along the Balcombe Road frontage. Sign 2: Located on the building facia on level 2 above the outdoor restaurant area along the Swanston Street frontage. Sign 3: Located on the ground floor hotel pick-up / drop-off area along the Swanston Street frontage

Car Park Sign – One (1) Sign Proposed Height x Width: 1600mm x 1600mm Total area of sign: 2.56m² Text: Car Park Colours: White text, blue background Lighting: Internally illuminated Positioning: Located on the building facia above the ramp access to the basement car park

The proposed signage falls within the Commercial and Retail category of Clause 22.15 – Outdoor Advertising Signage Policy of the Kingston Planning Scheme. The location and size of the proposed signs are considered suitable, having regard to the site’s location on the corner of Balcombe Road and Swanston Street. The proposed signs should be of a high quality and clearly identify the various businesses operating on the site, without having a detrimental impact on the area. The location, design, colours and materials of the sign are considered to be acceptable.

The application was referred to VicRoads for comment as the subject site abuts a road in a Road Zone, Category 1 (Balcombe Road). VicRoads advised of no objection to the proposed signage.

The signs are consistent with the policy requirements of the Kingston Planning Scheme and are considered appropriate for the activities carried out on the site. The size, materials and colours of the proposed signs are considered to be appropriate. The proposed signs are consistent with the proposed uses and zoning of the site, and subject to the inclusion of standard conditions, warrants support.

Clause 52.06: Car Parking

The purpose of the car parking provisions as relevant to this application is to:

• To ensure that car parking facilities are provided in accordance with the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies; • To ensure the provision of an appropriate number of car spaces having regard to the activities on the land and the nature of the locality; and • To ensure that the design and location of car parking areas:

49 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 a) Does not adversely affect the amenity of the locality, in particular the amenity of pedestrians and other road users; b) Achieves a high standard of urban design; c) Creates a safe environment for users, particularly at night; d) Enables easy and efficient use; e) Protects the role and function of nearby roads; and f) Facilitates the use of public transport and the movement and delivery of goods.

Clause 52.06 of the Kingston Planning Scheme sets out the number of car parking spaces required for various uses. A permit may be granted to reduce or waive the number of car parking spaces required under Clause 52.06 of the Kingston Planning Scheme. Where a use is not specified, an adequate number of car spaces must be provided to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

The decision guidelines of Clause 52.06 of the Kingston Planning Scheme state that before a requirement for car spaces is reduced or waived, the applicant must satisfy the Responsible Authority that the reduced provision is justified due to:

• Any relevant parking precinct plan; • The availability of car parking in the locality; • The availability of public transport in the locality; • Any reduction in car parking demand due to the sharing of car spaces by multiple uses, either because of variation of car parking demand over time or because of efficiencies gained from the consolidation of shared car parking spaces; • Any car parking deficiency or surplus associated with the existing use of the land; • Any credit which should be allowed for a car parking demand deemed to have been provided in association with a use which existed before the change of parking requirement; • Local traffic management; • Local amenity including pedestrian amenity; • An empirical assessment of car parking demand; and • Any other relevant consideration.

As discussed previously, the application was referred to Council’s Traffic Engineers for their comment and advice. An assessment of the car parking and traffic implications of the proposal is detailed below.

The table below summarises the provision of on-site car parking provided by the proposed development.

LOWER BASEMENT PROPOSED USE NUMBER OF SPACES PROVIDED Residents (59 dwellings) 59 spaces provided

50 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 Retail Staff 5 spaces provided Hotel Staff & Patrons 50 spaces provided Restaurant Staff 4 spaces provided Office 8 spaces provided Gym Staff 4 spaces provided Total 130 spaces (Please note that 3 of the above allocated spaces will be securely located on the upper basement level)

UPPER BASEMENT PROPOSED USE NUMBER OF SPACE PROVIDED Customers / Visitors to the 115 spaces provided including 4 disabled car spaces site

TOTAL SPACES 242

Empirical Assessment of Parking Demand:

• Retail Premises: The applicant considers that the car parking rate of eight (8) spaces per 100m2 for a retail premises (shop) as set out at Clause 52.06-5 of the Kingston Planning Scheme is excessive in almost all cases. The applicant proposes that a peak car parking rate of four (4) spaces per 100m2 for the proposed retail premises is appropriate in this case. Therefore, the five (5) retail premises would attract a car parking provision of sixteen (16) car spaces. It is proposed that this component of the development would provide one (1) car space for staff of each of the proposed retail premises in the lower basement car park level, while the remaining eleven (11) car spaces would be provided for customers in the upper basement car park level.

It is considered that the car parking rate proposed for this component of the development is appropriate in this instance.

• Office: The statutory planning requirement of 3.5 spaces per 100m2 of net floor area is considered appropriate for the office component of the proposed development. Therefore, a requirement of eleven (11) car spaces is to be provided on site. It is proposed that this component of the development would provide eight (8) car spaces for staff of in the lower basement car park level, while the remaining three (3) car spaces would be provided for visitors in the upper basement car park level.

It is considered that the car parking rate proposed for this component of the development is appropriate, however, concern at the ratio of staff to visitor car spaces proposed to be provided has been raised by Council’s Traffic Engineers. Council’s Traffic Engineers consider that only one (1) visitor car spaces should be provided with the remaining ten (10) car spaces allocated to the future staff of the office component. The concerns raised by Council’s Traffic Engineers are considered to be justified and car parking for ten (10) staff of the proposed office component should be accommodated within either the lower basement car park level or the upper basement car park level. It is considered that through some minor amendments, an additional two (2) car spaces can be accommodated in either the lower basement car park level or the upper basement car park level. A

51 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 suitable condition requiring the applicant to provide an additional two (2) car spaces for the office component of this development should be included on any permit issued.

• Residential Hotel (Accommodation): The applicant considers that a peak car parking rate of 0.6 car spaces per hotel room is an appropriate car parking rate for the proposed hotel. Therefore, a requirement of forty-three (43) car spaces is to be provided on site for hotel guests, while it is also proposed to provide seven (7) on site car spaces for staff of the hotel. It is proposed that this component of the development would provide all fifty (50) car spaces for hotel staff and guests in the lower basement car park level.

Council considers that the car parking rate proposed for the guests’ component of the development is appropriate, however, concern has been raised by Council’s Traffic Engineers with regard to the rate of hotel staff car parking provided. It is considered that the seven (7) proposed hotel staff car parking spaces is less than the expected hotel staff car parking demand which would occur during peak hours. Council’s Traffic Engineering Department consider that there is a shortfall of four (4) hotel staff car parking spaces during peak periods based on the anticipated number of staff the hotel would require during peak hours.

As noted above, forty-three (43) guest car parking spaces have been provided within the lower basement car park level. These car parking spaces could also be used by hotel staff in the event that all seven (7) hotel staff spaces are occupied and the hotel is not at full capacity. Therefore, in this instance, it is considered appropriate to reduce the number of car parking spaces required for hotel staff having regard to the sharing of car parking spaces throughout the day and the site’s proximity to public transport. The sharing of car parking spaces is discussed in more detail below, however, it should be noted that Council Planning Officers consider that the number of hotel staff car parking spaces provided is appropriate in this instance.

• Dwellings: Pursuant to Clause 52.06-5 of the Kingston Planning Scheme, two (2) car parking spaces are required to be provided on site for each dwelling. It is considered that the ResCode requirement at Clause 55.05 (which is not strictly applicable to this proposed development) provides a better representation of the likely car parking demand for this component of the development. In this instance, a minimum of one (1) car space should be provided for each (2 bedroom) dwelling which generates a need for fifty-nine (59) car spaces to be provided on site. Furthermore, a requirement of one (1) visitor space to every five (5) dwellings would also be required with the peak visitor demands typically expected to occur after hours and on weekends. Therefore, a total of twelve (12) visitor car parking spaces are required to be provided as part of this component of the development. It is considered that the visitor car parking spaces will be accommodated within the upper basement car park level.

Council considers it appropriate to reduce car parking requirements of dwellings under Clause 52.06-5. The development is provided with fifty-nine (59) designated residential car spaces and twelve (12) visitor car spaces, as per the ResCode (Clause 55.05) which is considered appropriate having regard to the size of the proposed dwelling (one and two bedroom apartments), the availability of excellent public transport in close proximity to the subject site and the ResCode requirement for car parking for dwellings.

52 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 • Restaurant and Café: The proposed café and restaurant are to be ancillary uses to the gymnasium and hotel component of this development. For the purposes of this assessment, the restaurant and café have been treated as stand-alone facilities. The applicant suggests that a car parking rate of approximately 0.15 car spaces per seat during the daytime and 0.3 car spaces per seat during the evening would be appropriate for the proposed restaurant, with a similar daytime rate proposed for the café. It is proposed that up to one hundred and thirty (130) seats would be available across the two (2) uses (restaurant and café) during the day and ninety (90) seats in the evening when the café use is likely to be closed. Therefore, the proposed café and restaurant combined would generate a car parking requirement of twenty (20) car spaces during the day and twenty-seven (27) car spaces in the evening. These spaces are proposed to be provided within the upper basement car park level.

Council considers that the car parking rate proposed for the restaurant/cafe components of the development is appropriate.

• Function Room: It is considered that the statutory car parking rate for a stand alone function facility of 0.3 spaces per square metre provides an excessive car parking requirement for this type of facility. The applicant considers that a car parking rate of 0.3 spaces per seat/person would be appropriate particularly given the site’s excellent proximity to public transport. It is proposed that the function facility would accommodate a maximum of one hundred and thirty (130) people. Therefore, this would generate a maximum car parking requirement of thirty-nine (39) car spaces. These car spaces would be accommodated within the upper basement car parking level. However, as discussed in more detail below, it is anticipated that the function facility would be used by both guests of the hotel as well as outside guests. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider that at certain times the sharing of car spaces would occur between the hotel and function room.

It is considered that the car parking rate proposed for the function facility component of the development is appropriate. Furthermore, it is considered that the maximum number of people within the function facility at any one time should be restricted through the inclusion of a suitable condition on any permit issued.

• Gymnasium: The applicant proposes that a minimum car parking rate of 3.75 car spaces per 100m2 of floor area be required for the gymnasium use. Therefore the provision of sixty-eight (68) car spaces would be required to be provided on site. These car spaces would be accommodated within the upper basement car parking level.

Council considers that the car parking rate proposed for the gymnasium component of the development is appropriate.

Sharing of Car Spaces Over Time: Given the proposal seeks to incorporate a number of varied uses within the one development, it is important to determine the profile of each use throughout the day. In particular, the peak parking demands for each use is likely to occur at different periods throughout the day and therefore, there is potential for sharing of car parking spaces by multiple uses throughout the day. For example, the peak period for the gymnasium would be in the morning and evening while the proposed office tenancy is expected to have a peak period during the day.

53 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

However, Council’s Traffic Engineers have raised concerns with regard to the peak car parking demand as proposed by the applicant. In particular, concern was raised with the car parking requirements for function facility and gymnasium uses, particularly in the morning and evening peak hours. However, a practical assessment of the anticipated peak car parking demand would indicate that the gymnasium and function facility have separate peak times and therefore, peak car parking demands. For example, as noted above, the function facility would be restricted to a maximum one hundred and thirty (130) patrons at any one time via a suitable condition being placed on any permit issued. From a practical point of view, it is likely that in the evening peak, Monday to Thursday, there will be limited functions while the gymnasium is likely to be at quite busy at these times. However, during the evening peak on Friday to Sunday, it is likely that the function facility will be busy while the gymnasium is likely to have limited users.

Therefore it is considered that an overlapping of the car parking provisions and spaces is appropriate given that not all uses will peak at the same time and the sharing of car spaces is an appropriate and efficient use of the site.

Access Arrangements: The proposed development seeks to provide access to the site via Swanston Street. Two (2) access arrangements have been proposed as part of the development which serve different purposes, one the hotel pick-up / drop-off point / loading area and the other the basement car park. These are discussed separately below.

• Lower and Upper Basement Car Park: Access to the basement car park is via a 6.6 metre wide crossover located in the north-west corner of the site’s Swanston Street property frontage.

The applicant has advised that access to the upper basement car park level is proposed to be restricted with a boom gate system proposed which would dispense a ticket on arrival and which would require payment upon departure of the upper basement car park level. The amount due would be dependant on the duration of a stay and would increase as duration increased. The boom gate system is proposed to be set up to allow free parking for stays of less than two (2) to three (3) hours. Council considers this appropriate as it would allow, amongst other examples, visitors to the gymnasium to complete a workout and leave the premises without being charged for car parking. Furthermore, such a system would eliminate the need for any parking enforcement of the upper basement car park level.

It is considered that a suitable condition should be placed on any permit issued which requires the applicant to submit a detailed Traffic Management Plan which amongst other things would detail access and car parking arrangements for the lower and upper basement car park levels of the proposed development.

The applicant has advised that access to the lower basement car park level would be through a boom gate system located at the top of the ramp which accesses the lower basement car park level. Access would be obtained via a PIN / intercom / card / remote control system. The lower basement car park level would only be accessible by long-term users such as residents, staff, and guests of the hotel guests and would be unrestricted with regards to duration of stay.

54 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 • Hotel Pick-up / Drop-off and Loading Bay Facilities: As noted above, separate access is proposed for the hotel pick-up / drop-off and loading bay areas. Access to these areas is via two (2) five (5) metre wide crossovers located to the south of the basement access ramp along the site’s Swanston Street property frontage. Access is proposed in an anti- clockwise direction with the vehicles being able to complete an internal loop and exit the site via the southern most crossover on Swanton Street. An internal waiting bay is also proposed, as well as two (2) nine (9) metres in length by four (4) metres in width loading bays. It is also noted that a roller door controlled by the hotel is proposed to separate the basement access ramp and the hotel pick-up / drop-off area. The purpose of this roller door is to allow hotel guests to check in and obtain a swipe card to access the restricted lower basement car park level for car parking purposes without having to drive back onto Swanston Street to gain access to the basement car park.

A number of concerns have been raised with regard to the hotel pick-up / drop-off and loading bay areas access arrangement which include the proposed anti-clockwise traffic movements and the proposed internal pick-up / drop-off to basement ‘U-turn’ arrangement. These are dealt with separately below.

• Anti-clockwise Traffic Movements: Council’s Traffic Engineers have raised concerns with regard to the proposed anti-clockwise traffic movements for the hotel pick-up / drop-off area. It is considered that the anti-clockwise access direction will cause confusion for drivers even if appropriate entry / exit signage was to be provided. It is considered that this is an unacceptable risk and the normal clockwise traffic movements should be incorporated into the proposed development. A suitable condition requiring the hotel pick-up / drop-off area access arrangements to be altered to a clockwise direction should be placed on any permit issued.

• Internal Hotel Pick-up / Drop-off Area to Basement ‘U-turn’ Arrangement: Concern is raised with regard to the internal hotel pick-up / drop-off area to basement ‘U-turn arrangement, particularly having regard to the above comments with regard to clockwise traffic movements. Clockwise traffic movements would not allow vehicles to access the basement ramp as insufficient vehicle turning area is provided. Therefore it is considered that the proposed roller door which would allow this access should be removed and an alternative hotel pick-up / drop-off to basement arrangement provided.

An alternative arrangement could be as follows;

1. reducing the two (2) five (5) metre wide single crossovers to one (1) 6.6 metre wide crossover;

2. setting this crossover a minimum five (5) metres from the south facing basement ramp wall; and

3. provide clockwise traffic movements.

It is considered that this type of arrangement would allow better flow of traffic within the hotel pick-up / drop-off area, would continue to allow loading and unloading of

55 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 vehicles and would provide an appropriate ‘U-turn’ movement from the hotel pick-up / drop-off area to the basement ramp (albeit via Swanston Street).

Having considered the implication of such an arrangement, it is considered that a new single crossover access in accordance with the abovementioned points be provided to the hotel pick-up / drop-off and loading bay areas. This can be included as a condition of any permit issued.

Adequacy of Parking Supply:

Overall, having regard to the following;

• the proposed uses within the development; • the overall number of car spaces provided over two (2) basement levels; • the car parking rates as detailed above; • the sharing of car spaces between various uses: • the site’s location within a Major Activity Centre; and • the various modes of public transport available in close proximity to the site.

It is considered that the proposal adequately satisfies the objectives of Clause 52.06 of the Kingston Planning Scheme and that the proposal provides an adequate number of car parking spaces on site to accommodate the anticipated demand for car parking as generated by the proposed development. It is considered that subject to the inclusion of suitable conditions, the proposal provides sufficient car parking for residents, staff and visitors of the site.

It is noted that should parking restrictions be applied to the immediate streets surrounding the subject site (Collins Street / Swanston Street etc) through any future parking precinct plan that may be introduced, all future residents and employees of the proposed development would not be eligible for any such parking permits. A note to such effect should be included as part of any permit issued for the proposed development.

Clause 52.07: Loading & Unloading of Vehicles

The purpose of Clause 52.07 is to set aside land for loading and unloading of commercial vehicles to prevent loss of amenity and adverse effect on traffic flow and road safety. The following table outlines the provisions which are required to be met with regards to loading and unloading of vehicles.

Floor Area of Building Minimum Loading Bay Dimensions 2,600m² or less in single Area 27.4m² occupation Length 7.6 metres Width 3.6 metres Height Clearance 4.0 metres For every additional Additional 18m² 1,800m² or part

A permit may be granted to reduce or waive these requirements if either:

56 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

• The land area is insufficient; and • Adequate provision is made for loading and unloading vehicles to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

The proposal is provided with two (2) loading bay facilities to be accessed via the same crossover as the hotel pick-up / drop-off area. Each of the proposed loading bays are nine (9) metres in length by four (4) metres in width and are provided with accessway widths in accordance with the abovementioned requirements.

As discussed previously, the application was referred to Council’s Traffic Engineers for their comment and advice. Council Traffic Engineers had no inherent objections to the proposed loading bay facilities provided but raised the following points for discussion;

• Truck Swept Paths; • Minimum Height Clearance; • Convenient Access for Retail Premises / Gymnasium / Hotel / Restaurant;

It should be noted that the proposal is well in excess of its required loading bay facilities to be provided. It is considered that the removal of the second loading bay would not detrimentally impact on the loading and unloading of goods to and from the site. Furthermore, it is considered that all the loading and unloading for the varied uses on site could be accommodated by the provision of a single loading bay facility. This would be need to be managed to avoid simultaneous deliveries, however, this can be done through the inclusion of a suitable condition being placed on any permit issued.

Truck Swept Paths: It is considered that the loading bay areas, including the accessway width will provide sufficient area to allow 8.8 metre long trucks to enter and exit the site in a forwards direction and manoeuvre within the hotel pick-up / drop-off and loading bay areas provided.

Minimum Height Clearance: It is noted that the minimum height clearances for loading bays have not been provided. This can be addressed by a suitable condition requiring a minimum height clearance of four (4) metres be provided to the hotel pick-up / drop-off / loading bay areas should be included on any permit issued.

Convenient Access for Retail Premises / Gymnasium / Hotel / Restaurant etc: Council’s Traffic Engineers raised concerns with regard to convenient access from the loading bay to the proposed uses. In particular, concern was raised regarding the access to retail premises number four (4) and to the gymnasium from the proposed loading bays. Council’s Traffic Engineers advised that it would also be desirable to have direct access from the second loading bay to the gymnasium while appropriate access to retail premises number four (4) should also be provided.

It is acknowledged that retail premises number four (4) does not have appropriate loading bay access. However, access could be provided from a rear door of this premise and through the hotel entry area. Furthermore, any future occupant of this retail premise would be aware

57 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 of the loading bay restrictions and only suitable retail uses which don’t require frequent loading and unloading should occupy this premise.

It is also noted that while it may be desirable to accommodate direct access from a loading bay to the gymnasium, this is not a requirement. Furthermore, the main period of loading and unloading for the gymnasium would occur when the gymnasium first opens to the public and all the training and exercise equipment is required to be installed. Apart from this initial loading and unloading of equipment, it is likely the gymnasium will have little to no loading and unloading on a regular basis.

Overall, taking into consideration Council’s Traffic Engineers concerns, the proposed varied uses and the development as a whole, it is considered that the proposed loading bays and their respective access arrangements are acceptable and warrant support in this instance.

Clause 52.27: Licensed Premises

Pursuant to Clause 52.27 – Licensed Premises of the Kingston Planning Scheme, a Planning Permit is required for an on premises liquor license. The applicant proposes to operate the proposed Residential Hotel (including hotel restaurant / bar) with an on-premises liquor licence. The applicant seeks the following hours for the proposed on premises liquor license;

• 10.00am to 4.00am Monday to Sunday for the proposed hotel restaurant / bar; • 24 hour a day room service Monday to Sunday for the proposed hotel rooms; and • 10.00am to 4.00am Monday to Sunday for the proposed function facility.

The proposed hours of operation for the on premises liquor license for the hotel restaurant / bar and the function facility are considered inappropriate. It is considered that these proposed hours should be reduced to the hotel restaurant / bar and function facility as follows;

• 10.00am to 11.00pm Monday to Thursday; and • 10.00am to 1.00am Friday to Sunday.

Furthermore, it is proposed that the on premises liquor license apply 24 hours a day, Monday to Sunday for each hotel room. This would allow hotel guest to be provided with alcohol at any time throughout the day or night within the comfort of their individual hotel room. It is considered that such an arrangement would not impact on the amenity of residential neighbours as the consumption of alcohol would be restricted to each hotel room as opposed to other areas of the hotel.

It is considered that a suitable condition limiting the on-premises liquor license to the abovementioned times and days should be included on any permit issued.

Clause 52.29: Land Adjacent To A Road Zone, Category 1 Or A Public Acquisition Overlay For A Category 1 Road

A permit is required to:

• Create or alter access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1.

58 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

The proposal seeks to remove the existing crossovers from the site’s Balcombe Road property frontage. It is considered that removing vehicles access from Balcombe Road will improve vehicle movements along Balcombe Road and reduce any safety concerns as vehicles will no longer be able to access the subject site from Balcombe Road. It is considered that removing the Balcombe Road vehicles crossovers are appropriate and warrant support.

As discussed previously in this report, the application was referred to VicRoads for comment. VicRoads advised of no objection to the proposal subject to the inclusion of suitable planning conditions being placed on any permit issued.

Clause 52.34: Bicycle Facilities

The statutory requirements for bicycle parking for the proposed development as set out pursuant to Clause 52.34 of the Planning Scheme is as follows:-

Proposed Use Requirement Dwellings: 1 resident space to each 5 dwellings and 1 visitor space to each 10 dwellings Offices: No requirement because the total area does not exceed 1,000m2 Retail Premises: 1 staff space to each 300m2 and 1 customer space to each 500m2 Restaurant/Café: 1 staff space to each 100m2 and 2 plus 1 customer spaces if the floor area available to the public exceeds 400m2 Hotel rooms 1 resident/staff space and 1 visitor space to each 10 (residential building): lodging rooms Gymnasium: No bicycle parking rate is listed

A total of thirty-five (35) bicycle parking spaces are required to be provided for the development as a whole. The development is provided with bicycle parking spaces within the upper basement car park level as well as on the ground floor level on the footpath at appropriate locations. The proposal is provided with a total of thirty-two (32) bicycle parking spaces including sixteen (16) staff bicycle parking spaces and sixteen (16) visitor bicycle parking spaces in the upper basement car park level. It is also proposed to provide six (6) visitors bicycle parking spaces at the ground floor level on the footpath along the site’s Balcombe Road property frontage. It is also noted that all residential dwellings are provided with a minimum 7m3 of storage capacity which would allow a bicycle to be stored within the residential storage facilities located throughout the lower basement car parking level.

As noted above, the applicant proposes to provide bicycle parking on the nature strip at the main entrances to the building along the site’s Balcombe Road frontage. It is considered that these bicycle parking racks are ideally located to allow visitors to the site to park their bicycle in close proximity to the main entrances of the building and sited so as to have no impact on pedestrian flows.

59 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 Bicycle parking is also proposed within the upper basement car park level for those visitors wishing to park their bicycles within the basement. An area set aside for secure staff bicycle parking as well as visitor bicycle parking is provided. It should be noted that there is no provision for bicycle parking within the lower basement car park level, however, it is considered that the storage facilities for each dwelling is large enough to accommodate a bicycle for the future residents of the dwellings.

Overall, it is considered that the proposal adequately satisfies the objectives and requirements of this clause and a reduction in the bicycle parking requirements of this Clause is appropriate in this instance.

Clause 52.35: Urban Design Context Report and Design Response For Residential Development Of Four Or More Storeys

As part of the current and previous application (KP102/07), the applicant was required to provide an Urban Design Context Report against the “Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development”. Given much of the background design work was completed in the previous application (KP102/07), it is important to recognise this design work and provide comments on how the development has evolved into the current proposal. Furthermore, as discussed in more detail in the Urban Design section of this report, the overall design of the proposed building is largely unchanged from KP102/07 and therefore, the previous comments provided by Council’s Urban Designers and Council’s external design consultant are relevant to the current application before Council. These comments are discussed in more detail later in this report. The following comments relate to the current application before Council;

• Council officers have reviewed the Urban Design Context Report and Design Response for residential development of four (4) or more storeys prepared for the current application. This report is considered to be satisfactory. • The Urban Design merits of the proposal are discussed in more detail in the Urban Design section of this report. However, subject to the inclusion of suitable conditions being placed on any permit issued, it is considered that the proposal is appropriate and warrants support.

REFERRALS:

The application was referred to the following external authorities pursuant to Section 55 of the Act. Where appropriate amended applications under Section 57C have been re-referred. The referral responses below relate to the current application only:

• VicRoads; and • Director of Public Transport: Department of Infrastructure.

The above-mentioned referral authorities had no objection to the proposal, subject to conditions being included on any permit issued.

It is also noted that the application was referred to the following authorities for comment:

60 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 • VicTrack; and • United Energy.

The above-mentioned authorities had no objection to the proposal, subject to conditions being included on any permit issued.

The application was referred to the following internal departments within Council (where appropriate amended applications have been re-referred):

• Council’s Development Approvals Engineers; • Council’s Vegetation Management Officers; • Council’s Traffic Engineering Department; • Council’s Strategic Planning Department; • Council’s Urban Designer; • Council’s Maintenance Contracts & Waste; and • Council’s Road and Drains Department.

It is also noted, the previous application for a mixed use development on the subject site was also referred to the following internal departments within Council. It is considered that the current application did not warrant a formal referral to these departments giving consideration to the previous comments provided and the relatively similar type and scale of the current and previous applications.

• Council’s Heritage Advisor; • Council’s Social Planning Department; • Council’s Leisure Planning Department; and • Council’s Economic Development Department.

The relevant comments from each of the abovementioned departments are detailed below.

Development Approvals Engineers:

Council’s Development Approvals Engineers advised of no objection to the proposed development subject to the inclusion of suitable drainage conditions being placed on any permit issued. These conditions are included as part of Council officers recommendation.

Vegetation Management Officers:

Council’s Vegetation Management Officer advised of no objection to the proposed development subject to the inclusion of suitable vegetation conditions being placed on any permit issued. It is noted that the landscape plans submitted as part of the application were considered to be satisfactory by Council’s Vegetation Management Officers. These conditions are included as part of Council officers recommendation.

61 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 Traffic Engineering Department:

Car parking and the loading bays have been discussed in previous sections of this report. This section will provide comment on the anticipated traffic generated by the proposed development and any other traffic related considerations.

• Traffic Generation: A development of this size and various uses will obviously contribute to increases in traffic. Similar to the car parking demands previously discussed, the various uses will generate traffic at different periods throughout the day and night. For example, the majority of future residents are likely to exit the site during the peak morning periods and return to the site during the peak evening periods, while it is likely that the peak gymnasium arrivals would be either before the morning peak or towards the end of the evening peak.

While the proposed development is likely to generate some single use trips such as customers specifically shopping at the proposed specialty retail premises, or specifically going to the gymnasium, it is just as likely that there will also be multiple purpose trips to the site. It is also noted that some patrons and even staff will visit the proposed development for multiple purposes. For example, an on-site resident or guest of the hotel may shop at the specialty retail premises and use the proposed gymnasium or a patron at the gymnasium may then eat at the proposed restaurant.

It is considered that the traffic generated by the proposed development will be distributed along the main road network surrounding the site which amongst others includes Swanston Street and Balcombe Road. Swanston Street and Balcombe Road are part of the key road network within the Mentone Activity Centre and are considered to be able to handle any increase in traffic generated by the proposed development.

It should also be noted that while there is potential for increased traffic as a result of higher density development and various commercial uses within the proposed development, it is considered that there will also be increased public transport usage. It is considered that as a result of the proposed development, many future residents / visitors to the site will chose to use public transport as an alternative to private vehicles. The site is located within the Mentone Activity Centre and directly opposite the Mentone Railway Station and bus terminal. It is considered that public transport is an integral part of this development and should be encouraged where ever possible.

It is acknowledged that there may be times when vehicles entering or exiting the site will be required to wait to turn right into the site or turn right into Swanston Street during peak periods, however, it is considered that sufficient gaps exist for entering and exiting the site without undue delay. Measures including ‘Keep Clear’ line markings on Swanston Street would also ensure that vehicles entering or exiting the subject site are not unduly required to wait to enter or exit the site as a result of the traffic signals at the intersection of Swanston Street and Balcombe Road.

Overall, Council Officers are satisfied that the existing road network (including Balcombe Road and Swanston Street) should adequately handle any potential increase in traffic movements either to or from the site or in the immediate vicinity of the site, subject to the inclusion of specific conditions being placed on any permit issued.

62 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 Strategic Planning Department:

As with the previous application for the subject site (KP102/07) Council’s Strategic Planning Department has been involved throughout the development of the proposal currently before Council. Council’s Strategic Planning Department has collaborated to provide internal feedback in the areas of Urban and Architectural design as well as how the proposal fits within the broader existing State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks.

The following comments have been provided by Council’s Strategic Planning Department with reference to the current application.

• The current application before Council effectively replicates (although with a number of changes) the previous application (KP102/07) which was considered for this site and ultimately refused by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal on 21st November, 2008.

• Amongst other changes, the current application differs from the previous application by the removal of the originally proposed Aldi supermarket, the inclusion of a commercial office tenancy at ground floor level and the increase from four (4) to five (5) retail premises also at ground floor level. It is also noted that the five (5) storey height of the proposed building remains the same as when originally considered by Council.

• Considering that the nature of the proposed use and development for this site remains largely unaltered, comments regarding its appropriateness according to strategic policy objectives remain in accordance with the comments previously provided and reflected in the Officers report as submitted to Council on 17th December, 2007.

The following comments were provided as part of the previous application (KP102/07), however, these comments are considered relevant in the assessment process of the application currently before Council.

• Relationship To State And Local Planning Policy: Issues relating to State and Local Planning Policy and in particular, provisions of the Kingston Planning Scheme have been discussed in previous sections of this report. As such this component of the report provides some broader context in terms of associated considerations related to this proposal.

• Land Use And Public Transport Inter-relationship: As identified, State Planning Policy (Clause 12.01, Clause 12.08 and Clause 18.01) and Local Planning Policy (Clause 21.05 and Clause 21.12) reinforces the integration between land use activities and the availability of public transport infrastructure. The City of Kingston has to a degree, a limited number of locations whereby this relationship can be meaningfully reinforced and as such, sites such as the subject land become critical in providing for land use outcomes that will deliver upon key policy objectives relating to facilitating land use outcomes that encourage non-car dependant transport.

Survey work undertaken by Council’s Strategic Planning Officers illustrates a strong inter-relationship between the proximity of a resident’s home and that resident’s decision in relation to accessing public transport for commuting to work purposes. This work

63 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 illustrates that providing accommodation close and in this instance immediately adjacent to a range of public transport options will lower car trips and meaningful address objectives to increase pubic transport utilisation. A significant broader environmental benefit is therefore derived through such proposals that warrant recognition.

• Inter-Relationship Between New Development & Services: The City of Kingston has spent substantial time in recent years restructuring its Local Planning Policy Framework to provide for greater levels of housing change around designated Activity Centres (Clause 21.05 and Clause 22.11) whilst seeking to preserve its more suburban areas. Beyond the strong alignment this Local Policy position has with the State Planning Policy Framework (stretching back to District Centre planning of the mid 1980’s), its tangible benefits are substantial for the future residents occupying completed developments such as that proposed. Outcomes gained are that future residents will have immediate non car dependant access to the full array of retail, health, commercial and community services located in the Mentone Activity Centre without being reliant on vehicular transport, unlike those residents living further away from the Activity Centre (i.e. east side of Nepean Hwy in Mentone). Beyond clear policy aspirations, Council’s decisions regarding such projects play a pivotal role in influencing the future lifestyle choices available to residents seeking to purchase or rent property in the municipality.

• Surveillance Objectives: A less tangible, however in this instance, most important outcome derived from the proposal is its ability to create extensive passive surveillance over the surrounding non residential interfaces. This objective is encouraged through State Planning Policy (Clause 19.03) and in this particular instance is most important given the distinct lack of effective surveillance particularly after hours over much of the public area proximate to the subject land (i.e. the railway station and associated gardens). It is considered that the proposed development will improve the passive surveillance of adjoining land which will in turn provide for increased safety throughout the Mentone Activity Centre.

• Accommodation Outcome – Comparative Considerations: Based on the broader housing challenges for metropolitan Melbourne and the City of Kingston, it is appropriate to consider how this project responds to the policy objectives identified throughout this report. As identified, the dwelling component of the proposal alone provides for fifty-nine (59) dwellings (53 two bedroom dwellings and 6 one bedroom dwellings) over an overall site area of approximately 4,823m2. The table below provides some illustration of the comparable outcomes derived in development scenarios in Kingston where the land area is essentially the same:

Scenario No. of Net possible gain in Approximated Dwellings dwellings through fully developed redevelopment population Subject Land = 4,823m2 59 59 1.5pph = 89 residents 76 – 78 Balcombe Road, Mentone Nearby properties = 9 Maximum 2.3 pph (2001 4,800m2 (approx) approximately ABS Kingston average) = 39 11 – 19 Swanston Street 4 (assumes all sites are

64 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 and 32 Teague Avenue, redeveloped in the residents Mentone future)

Greenfield Development 8 0 2.3 pph (2001 2 ABS Kingston 4,800m average) = 18 Waterways Residential residents Estate, Waterways

Irrespective of the assumptions made, this table illustrates that the subject land provides an outcome that when compared with traditional urban infill development or greenfield development would yield a substantive increase in both the number of dwellings and number of likely residents.

For the following reasons, it is considered strong planning merit beyond explicit policy statements to support the outcomes produced by the proposal:

o A substantive number of residents potentially in excess of double that of a typical suburban infill situation or 4-5 times that of greenfield development could be accommodated under this proposal, and thus delivering substantive environmental benefits in relation to land utilisation.

o Analysis recently undertaken by Council indicates that on average, new infill development yields a net gain in new dwellings of approximately 1.4 dwellings per proposal. It would therefore take approximately forty-two (42) new medium density proposals in suburban areas across Kingston to yield the amount of dwellings achieved under this single proposal.

o The size and type of dwellings respond well to the housing needs of segments of Kingston population Council is struggling to sustain (20 – 34 year olds) or the emerging challenge of catering for an aging population some of whom will seek alternate housing options / lifestyles closer to services.

o It is beyond challenge that due to the sites location advantages and proposed format, the end development will:

ƒ Provide a sustained economic benefit to the Mentone retail centre through the immediate consumption of goods and services by future residents,

ƒ Provide its residents with a ‘meaningful’ choice in relation to the level to which they are car dependent for journey’s to work, leisure activities and shopping.

ƒ Deliver a contemporary form of housing that will provide for greater choice and relative affordability in a most desirable and service rich part of the municipality.

• Summary: Having spent substantial time considering the key areas of design (Urban and Architectural) and the strategic planning context it is considered that the proposal suitably responds to the concerns previously held by Council Officers. It is understood that this contemporary form of mixed use development is new to Mentone and more

65 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 broadly the City of Kingston and is clearly inconsistent with the housing aspirations or lifestyle desires of many well established residents of Mentone.

However, Council is charged with making a planning decision which must weight these views against significant State and Local Planning Policy which identify this site as one whereby substantial change is appropriate and justified. In considering the origins of these policies it is important to recognise that they are direct responses to socio demographic change which generates alternate lifestyle / housing needs, land scarcity throughout urban Melbourne and the lack of community support for the alternative which is unabated incremental urban infill in established suburban streets.

Having considered matters of urban and architectural design and broader Strategic Planning Policy Context it is considered that the proposal warrants support.

The following comments relate to the progress of the proposed height and setback controls for the Mentone Activity Centre in the Mentone Integrated Framework Plan also known as P.L.A.N. It should be noted that these do not relate specifically to the subject site which for the reasons outlined below was not included in the Mentone framework plan.

• Moorabbin to Mordialloc Integrated Framework Plan (PLAN): On 7 July 2008, Kingston City Council adopted its Moorabbin to Mordialloc Integrated Framework Plan (P.L.A.N). On the back of this significant work Council is currently seeking interim controls for a number of Activity Centres through proposed Amendment C100. The amendment seeks to introduce, through new Schedules to the Design and Development Overlay, interim controls relating to design and built form of development within the Moorabbin, Cheltenham, Mentone Major Activity Centres and the Parkdale Neighbourhood Activity Centres. The authorisation request for Amendment C100 was sent to the Minister for Planning on August 27th 2008. At that time the previous application (KP102/07) was being considered by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The decision for this application (affirming the Responsible Authority’s Refusal to Grant a Planning Permit) would eventually be issued by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal on November 21st, 2008.

As a result of the site being subject to an ongoing planning permit application throughout the development of the P.L.A.N document and the preparation of the interim controls for Amendment C100, no specific controls have been defined for the subject site.

It should be noted that authorisation for Amendment C100 has not been granted at this time. Council is currently involved in discussions with the State Government pertaining to the nature of the controls being sought. Preliminary advice received states that the wording of the height and setback controls for a number of precincts in the Mentone Activity Centre (which were proposed to be mandatory), including those immediately to the east (A1) and west (C) of the subject site, should be amended so that they are discretionary and can be exceeded with a permit.

Urban Design:

The previous application (KP102/07) which as previously discussed is of a similar type and scale was referred to Council’s in house Urban Designer as well as an external design consultant who advised of no objection to the proposed development subject to the inclusion

66 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 of suitable conditions being placed on any permit issued. It is considered that the previous comments provided are relevant with regard to the current application before Council as the proposal is of a similar scale and nature and the concerns and objection received by residents remain unchanged. The following comments are a summary of the comments provided by Council’s in house Urban Designer and Council’s external design consultant prior to the previous application being decided at an Ordinary Council Meeting held on Monday 17th December, 2007.

• Given the location of the subject site as a key point of entry into the Mentone Major Activity Centre it is apparent that issues of urban and architectural design are paramount in considerations regarding development on the subject site. From the outset it is recognised that the existing buildings presented on the subject land are suboptimal when considering the important design objectives that should be sought for such strategically located land parcels. Irrespective of the differing views regarding the appropriateness of the current design proposal, it is useful to consider the existing deficiencies brought about by the current land uses and physical form of development on the subject land, which include:

o The inability of the site to provide passive surveillance over the surrounding public areas outside the operating hours of the existing businesses. o The poor presentation and condition of the existing buildings in relation to providing a suitable entry statement into the Mentone Activity Centre. o An apparent existing disconnection between the activities on the subject land and the broader Mentone Major Activity Centre. o A less than ideal unrestricted vehicular entry point into the subject land proximate to the railway crossing on Balcombe Road.

Council Planning Officers believe that a redevelopment of the subject site represents a significant opportunity to address the abovementioned matters.

• Given the scale of the proposal and its contemporary architectural form Council Officers felt it appropriate to obtain external architectural advice to assist in Council’s considerations. Council’s external architect and internal urban designer have spent substantial time considering both the original proposal and suggesting changes to it as well as reviewing the proposal now before Council for consideration.

• The overall form and scale of the development is much improved. The three level podium to Balcombe Road and Swanston Street is considered a more appropriate and sympathetic response to achieving a desirable building edge to the street edges. The height of the podium at 11.5 metres, whilst higher than most building facades in the centre, (averaging 8.5 metres) is not uncharacteristic of the centre when it is compared to the facade of Kilbreda College along Mentone Parade which varies between 10 and 11 metres in height. The two (2) upper storeys, which are of a more lightweight appearance, now appears a more subtle solution to the presentation of the upper levels and will have a reduced impact on public areas below given the setbacks which have now been incorporated into the revised design.

67 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 The following comments have been provided by Council’s in house Urban Designer with respect to the current application before Council.

• It is noted that this application is a revision to the previous application (KP102/07) which was considered for this site and ultimately refused by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal on 21st November, 2008. Urban Design comments and discussions at the time of the previous proposal addressed fundamental design considerations to the satisfaction of Council Officers;

For this reason, the Urban Design comments provided do not seek to address the fundamental aspects of the design where they are either unchanged or the premise for that aspect of the design remains unchanged since the previous application (KP102/07). Therefore its is considered important to provide important feedback and comments on the current application while recognising not undermining the previous Urban Design comments and outcomes sought.

Contemporary State and Local Government Planning Policy recognise sites of this nature as opportunity sites for increased density development to transition from the Activity Centre core to surrounding residential. The proposed uses: a gymnasium, small scale retail premises, a commercial office tenancy, residential hotel, restaurant / bar and residential dwellings complement neighbouring uses and the Mentone Major Activity Centre as a whole.

The location of the subject site presents a number of constraints which need to be carefully considered with respect to any proposed development which include sensitive interfaces with the public realm and smaller scale residential development to the north of the subject site and the character of the existing Mentone Activity Centre and the existing.

• Built Form: The proposed active edges addressing Balcombe Road and Swanston Street provided by smaller retail tenancies and the active edge to the Frankston Railway Line provided by the gymnasium create engaging interfaces which will add to the public realm by increasing surveillance and activity.

The proposal demonstrates consideration for orientation, light and ventilation with the prevailing northern aspect and finger like footprint which also creates appropriate floor plate depth for the various used proposed within the development. Similarly the skylights proposed to the ground level take advantage of opportunities to use natural light where appropriate.

The inclusion of proposed set backs, particularly at the third and fourth floor levels along the Balcombe Road and Swanston Street property frontages reduce visual bulk and overshadowing of the foot path on the opposite side of Balcombe Road and Swanston Street. This design element is strongly supported and considered appropriate in this instance.

Development should recognise the sensitivity of the northern interface to adjoining residential properties. It is considered that the perceived visual bulk and mass exhibited

68 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 by the proposed development can be further reduced with articulation and material variation. Landscaping and screening will also improve the amenity of neighbouring lots.

It is considered that greater material variation and articulation should be provided to the northern façade. The use of various materials such as timber, aluminium (or other metal) panels, exposed brick, stone, feature glass can provide visual interest to the northern façade while reducing visual bulk and mass as viewed from adjoining dwellings to the north. Furthermore, screens, shades and the incorporation of more planter boxes in the design of balconies will also provided for improved visual interest and articulation to the northern façade. It is considered that this should be included as a condition of any permit issued.

• Environmental Sustainable Design: It is considered that Environmental Sustainable Design principles are an important consideration, particularly in developments of this size and scale. It is considered that a development such as the one proposed could set a precedent for future developments in the Mentone Activity Centre and the incorporation of Environmental Sustainable Design principals is extremely important.

A development of this size must have a water management plan for reduced water use including water reuse / recycle (grey water), harvest of rain water and / or water sensitive urban design including filtering water before it reaches storm water drains. It is considered that an appropriate drainage condition requiring the applicant to submit a drainage plan incorporating some / all of the abovementioned features should be included on any permit issued.

Furthermore, the incorporation of planters and roof top gardens in the proposed design is encouraged. Incorporating planting in the building design is beneficial to the environment and future occupants of the development as it mitigates increased air pollution resulting from the development, provides carbon capture opportunities, filters water as part of water sensitive urban design, reduces heat gains and glare, provides screening and improves amenity. Furthermore, the incorporation of planter boxed and vegetation on balconies / roof areas provided a reduction in the visual bulk and mass exhibited by the proposed development and helps to break up a perceived ‘concrete jungle’ with suitable and appropriate vegetation.

Passive solar design is also important for the control of solar gains for reduced energy consumption. Passive solar design measures include external shades and louvers. Again, not only will such elements provide for an incorporated Environmental Sustainable Design solution for the development, they can also provide a design feature which reduces visual impact and provides a point of visual interest for the development as a whole. Again, it is considered that a condition of any permit issued should require the provision of suitable solar controls in the form of screening / louvers. The design of these screen / louvers should be in consultation with Council’s in-house urban designers and may include elements significant to the Mentone Activity Centre.

As noted in the abovementioned points, it is considered that the proposal should incorporate Environmentally Sustainable Design features including but not necessarily limited to:

69 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 o Drainage plan showing water saving measures including: Rainwater harvest, water sensitive urban design and/or water recycling systems such as grey water systems; and o Solar Control measures for passive sustainable design such as shades or louvres.

The abovementioned requirements should be included as conditions of any permit issued.

• Articulation and Materiality: As discussed above, the Urban Design comments provided do not seek to address the fundamental aspects of the design, rather provide important feedback and comments on the current application. It is considered that through appropriate recommendations and conditions, the proposal can be improved to achieve a better design outcome for the site and the Mentone Activity Centre as a whole. The following comments related to improvements which can be made with regard to pedestrian safety, improved visual impact and reduction in amenity concerns.

o Ground Floor: It is considered that there is an opportunity to provide improved pedestrian safety measures through increased visibility and the provision of improved pedestrian spaces, particularly along the site’s Swanston Street property frontage.

It is considered that a reduction in the number of vehicle crossovers along Swanston Street from three (3) to two (2) will allow improved pedestrian safety through improved sightlines as well as improved pedestrian waiting areas. Furthermore, the incorporation of low lying planter boxes along the site’s Swanston Street property frontage where appropriate will provide a better visual treatment while providing a safety barrier for pedestrians.

Concern is also raised with regard to the northern interface and the minimal setbacks provided at ground floor level. It is considered that increased setbacks for the north facing gymnasium walls as well as material treatment to these walls will help reduce amenity impacts to adjoining dwellings to the north of the subject site.

It is considered that there is an opportunity to improve and enhance the main entry areas to the development, particularly with regards to the residential and commercial entry / exit areas. It is considered that improved articulation and materiality at the ground level are pivotal for the development’s contribution to the Mentone Activity Centre streetscape. The proposal needs to demonstrate appropriate detailing, texture and quality of finishes at the interface with the public realm. Furthermore, at the street level, the entry areas to non-retail functions must be clearly articulated so that the building can be easily read by visitors and users. These entries should be wide, clearly distinguished and well lit during the evening. Important entry points such as these are places to consider landscaping, seating and feature lighting.

A condition requiring the applicant to provide improved materiality to these areas should be included on any permit issued. The ultimate design of these areas should be developed in consultation with Council’s in-house Urban Designers and may include elements significant to the Mentone Activity Centre.

o From the abovementioned comments and design considerations, it is considered that the following conditions should be included on any permit issued;

70 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

• Consolidate driveways to the hotel pick-up / drop-off and loading bay areas and ensure improved visibility for pedestrians and vehicles by setting back walls, and providing low planter boxes to demark pedestrian waiting spaces;

• Provide further articulation of key entry points to non-retail functions at street level, specifically at the commercial and residential entry areas which recognises the pedestrian scale and fine grain character of architecturally significant buildings in the area;

• The front wall of the commercial tenancy entrance located a minimum six (6) metres from the site’s Balcombe Road property frontage, with this commercial entry hallway to have a minimum three (3) metre internal hallway width for its entirety;

• The provision of a minimum four (4) metre minimum width to the residential entry where it meets the site’s Balcombe Road property frontage, with this entry area to have a minimum three (3) metre internal hallway width for its entirety;

• Relocation or redesign of the ground floor chutes;

• The gymnasium provided with a minimum 3.6 metre setback to the site’s north property boundary with any ground floor north facing walls to incorporate improved wall treatments such as highlight windows with a minimum sill height of 2 metres and / or varied materials such as stone, timber, aluminium or the like.

o First And Second Floors: It is considered that the podium element is an important design feature because it is intended to recognise traditional streetscape and character of the Menton Activity Centre. The proposed treatments recognise the rhythm and massing of architecturally significant buildings in the area.

Again, concern is raised with regard to the impact to the northern interface and how the proposal responds to the neighbouring residential properties to the north. It is considered that an increased setback at first floor level and improved wall treatments will reduce the amenity impacts to adjoining properties to the north.

o From the abovementioned comments and design considerations, it is considered that the following conditions should be included on any permit issued;

• The first floor north facing walls of hotel room No.32, No.33, No.36, No.37, No48 and No.49 provided with a minimum six (6) metre setback from the site’s north property boundary with any first floor north facing walls to incorporate improved wall treatments such as highlight windows with a minimum sill height of 2 metres and / or varied materials such as stone, timber, aluminium or the like.

• The function room balcony relocated adjacent to hotel room No.25 in lieu of its current location.

71 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 o Third And Fourth Floors: The proposed light weight materials to the third and fourth floor levels clearly distinguish upper floors of the development from the first and second floor podium element, particularly when viewed from the street. However, it is considered that a higher degree of vertical articulation than what is currently proposed is desirable in order to break up the solid appearance of the continuous glazed façade. Vertical articulation to the third and fourth floor levels should comprise of similar light weight materials or undulation of glazed element.

While some solar control treatments have already been included in the design, further control to the exposed glazing to the west and east would present opportunities to reduce unwanted internal solar heat gains while also providing vertical articulation and visual interest.

o From the abovementioned comments and design considerations, it is considered that the following conditions should be included on any permit issued; • The provision of vertical articulation to break up visual bulk of the continuous glazed element to the site’s Balcombe Road and Swanston Street building façade; • The provision of solar control treatments to all glazed areas to the east and west building elevations which are exposed to the summer sun by way of a screen, shade or other treatment to the to be integrated into vertical articulation where appropriate.

• Summary: As previously noted, these comments are intended to recognise the past written urban design feedback as part of the previous application (KP102/07) for the subject site lodged in 2007. As much of the fundamental design premise remains the same now as at the time of the previous application, the design recommendations and outcomes sought through abovementioned comments could largely be met through the inclusion of suitable conditions being placed on any permit issued.

The subject site is ideally suited to a higher density mixed use development such as the development currently before Council. The proposed varied used incorporating ground floor commercial and retail premises with a hotel and apartments above is considered to provide an appropriate transition between the commercial precinct of the Mentone Activity Centre and the traditional residential component of the Mentone Activity Centre.

As previously discussed, it is considered that suitable conditions providing for the following should be included on any permit issued;

o increased setbacks at ground and first floor levels from the site’s northern property boundary; o improved materiality to the northern façade with the potential incorporation of planter boxes and varied materials such as stone, feature glazing, brick, render, timber and / or aluminium; o the provision of solar screening treatments to the upper east and west facing levels; o the provision of vertical articulation to the light weight glazing element of the third and fourth floors;

72 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 o the provision of improved pedestrian safety, particularly along Swanston Street by the reduction in the number of vehicle crossovers; and o the provision of improved non-retail entry and exit points through improved details and materialisation.

Maintenance Contracts and Waste Department:

Council’s Maintenance Contracts and Waste Department advised of no objection to the proposed development subject to the inclusion of a suitable condition requiring the applicant to submit a Waste Management Plan being placed on any permit issued. This condition is included as part of Council officers recommendation.

Roads and Drains Department:

Council’s Roads and Drains Department advised of no objection to the proposed development subject to the inclusion of suitable conditions requiring the applicant to construct all public paths which abut the subject site in accordance with Council requirements / details and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. These conditions are included as part of Council officers recommendation.

Council Heritage Advisor

As noted above, the previous application (KP102/07) which is of a similar type and scale was referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor who advised of no objection to the proposed development. It is therefore considered appropriate that the proposal in its current form would not raise any area of concerns or objections from Council’s Heritage Advisor. The following comments have been taken from the report and recommendation prepared for the Ordinary Council Meeting held on Monday 15th December, 2007 for the previous application. These comments are considered to be relevant with regard to the current application before Council as the proposal is of a similar scale and nature and the concerns and objection received by residents remain unchanged.

• It is apparent in reviewing the submissions made in relation to the proposal that some residents have identified the significant relationship the subject land has with notable ‘heritage features’ in Mentone including the Railway Station and its gardens and the Kilbreda School. It is important that Council appreciate the subject land is not covered by a Heritage Overlay given the site contains no features of significance and as such Council Officers consideration has focused on ensuring that the proposal does not compromise the readily identifying heritage features spread through the broader activity centre.

• In order to do this, comment has been specifically sought from Council’s Heritage Advisors on two matters. The first being the appropriateness of the scale of the development on the subject land in reference to considerations including view lines to the significant Kilbreda spire as approached from Swanston Street and its perception from the Mentone Station Gardens. The second being the architectural response of the proposal and whether or not it compromises the legibility of those elements which define the heritage fabric of the Mentone Major Activity Centre.

73 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 • The following comments have been provided by Council’s Heritage Advisor John Statham of Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd in response to the proposed development:

o The current proposal would see the construction of a five storey structure - a substantially lower outcome than was originally proposed. The facade to Balcombe Road, as revised, would present three storeys to the Balcombe Road railway line crossing with the additional storeys located at a reasonably modest setback from the street. The building would present to more distant vantage points as a five storey building.

o The subject site is not located within a Heritage Overlay area nor is the existing building on the site of any substantial heritage interest. The site is located directly opposite the Mentone Railway Station and associated Mentone Reserve (HO106). This complex is included on the Victorian Heritage Register (H2099). While early built form is reasonably abundant in this section of Mentone, most of this is located to the south of the Station in the vicinity of the former Coffee Palace/Brigidine Convent.

o The current proposal is substantially larger than other built form in this section of the Municipality. However, it would not impact on key views within the station or gardens and would be prominent only as viewed from the extreme northern end of the reserve. While the proposal may raise issues in terms of urban design or neighbourhood character it raises few issues in terms of the heritage character of the area. In any event, Council's heritage controls do not extend to built form adjacent to Heritage Overlay areas and it would be difficult to frame permit conditions or other constraints in terms of Council's existing policy.

• Overall, as previously discussed, the proposed development does not detrimentally impact on the heritage values of the Mentone Railway Station or the Kilbreda Tower and as such, it is considered that the application adequately satisfies the heritage requirements of the Kingston Planning Scheme.

Social Planning Department

A social impact assessment was prepared by Council’s Social Planning Department as part of the referral process of the previous application (KP102/07). A summary of the social impact assessment is detailed below.

The social impact assessment was prepared in order to assess the extent of impact the proposed development would cause on the economic and social structure of the community surrounding 76 –78 Balcombe Road, Mentone. The impact of the proposal is measured in the following ways;

• Positive – result in benefits to the economy and community. • Negative – result in decreased benefits to the economy and community. • Neutral – either the positive and negative impacts are counteracted or there is no change at all.

74 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 The social impact report explores a number of themes which include:

• Impact on Socio-Economic; • Impact on Culture, Heritage and Community Values; • Impact on Health and Safety; • Impact on Residential Amenity, Housing, and Public Space; • Impact on Accessibility and Social Services; • Impact on Population and Community Connectedness; and • Community Consultation.

Impact on Socio-Economic: Overall, it is considered that the proposed development with have a positive impact with regard to the socio-economic factors considered. These include increased employment opportunities through the commercial components of the proposal which include a gymnasium, a hotel, a restaurant, a function facility, café and various retail premises. These uses will also provide employment opportunities having a positive impact on training and education opportunities in Mentone. There will be a positive impact with regard to spending given the proposed retailing component of the development. Furthermore, the function facility, hotel and restaurant uses will provide a positive impact for the entertainment and hospitality industries.

Impact On Culture, Heritage And Community Values: Overall, it is considered the proposal will have a neutral impact with regards to the cultural, heritage and community values considered. It is likely that in the long term, the development will have a positive impact with regards to culture and ‘a way of life for the community’.

Given the proposal is the first development of its kind in the area, this could encourage other similar developments which would bring more younger people into the area and thereby having a positive impact on the culture of the community as a whole.

It is considered that the impact on heritage considerations is neutral. While concerns have been raised by residents and objectors with regards to the impact on the heritage listed Mentone Railway Station and the Kilbreda Tower, it is considered that the proposal will not impact on these heritage places.

Impact On Health And Safety: Overall it is considered that the proposal will have a neutral impact with regards to health and safety considerations. Some elements will have a positive effect while others may have a negative or perceived negative impact.

The proposal is expected to have a positive impact on recreation through the gymnasium use which provides additional recreation, leisure and social facilities for the community. In the short term, there is potential for a negative health and safety impact with regards to the construction phase of the development, although there are provisions to ensure any such impacts are minimised through the inclusion of suitable permit conditions being placed on any permit issued. Furthermore, there is a perceived negative impact by the community with regards to increased traffic and pollution as a result of the proposed development (car parking and traffic concerns has been discussed previously in this report).

75 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 Impact On Residential Amenity, Housing, And Public Space: Overall it is considered that the proposal will have a neutral impact with regards to residential amenity, housing and public space. Some elements will have a positive effect while others may have a negative or perceived negative impact.

The current site is run down and considered an ‘eye sore’ by residents. However, there will be an impact on residents with regards to the height, and scale of the proposed development. The proposal will have a positive impact on the Mentone Activity Centre by introducing various commercial uses and new housing for residents, thereby increasing housing stocks in the area.

Impact On Accessibility And Social Services: Overall it is considered that the proposal will have a neutral impact with regards to accessibility and social services.

The increase in population due to the proposed development (including future residents and employees) may put a strain on some social services such as general practitioners in the short term, while pedestrian accessibility to and from the site is considered good and will be improved through new paving and the widening of the existing footpath in certain areas (i.e. at the intersection of Balcombe Road & Swanston Street).

Impact On Population And Community Connectedness: Overall it is considered that the proposal will have a positive impact with regards to population and community connectedness.

The proposal will increase the population in the Mentone Activity Centre given there are fifty-nine (59) dwellings proposed as part of this application. The proposal will also provide various opportunities for social interaction through the various uses proposed.

Community Consultation: It is considered that adequate community consultation has taken place with respect to the application given the statutory time frames available to make a decision on the application. The application was advertised to all objectors of the previous application (KP102/07) and a preliminary conference was held to discuss the concerns and objections raised as part of the planning process.

Conclusion: Overall it is considered that the proposal will have a positive effect on the economic and social structure of the community surrounding the subject site at 76 –78 Balcombe Road, Mentone.

Leisure Planning Department:

As noted above, the previous application (KP102/07) which is of a similar type and scale was referred to Council’s Leisure Planning Department who advised of no objection to the proposed development. It is therefore considered appropriate that the proposal in its current form would not raise any area of concerns or objections from Council Leisure Planning Department.

Economic Development Department:

As noted above, the previous application (KP102/07) which is of a similar type and scale was referred to Council’s Economic Development Department who advised of no objection

76 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 to the proposed development. It is therefore considered appropriate that the proposal in its current form would not raise any area of concerns or objections from Council Economic Development Department.

RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS VCAT DECISION P33/2008:

As previously discussed, the application was decided by at an Ordinary Council Meeting held on 17th December, 2007. Council planning officers recommended approval of the application subject to a number of conditions being placed on any permit issued. However, the application was not supported at this Ordinary Council Meeting and subsequently a Notice of Refusal to Grant a Permit for the above proposal was issued. The applicant then lodged an appeal with the VCAT on 9th January, 2008. The application was heard at VCAT on a number of occasions including addressing preliminary matters regarding amended plans / proposal and legal matters. A full hearing of the application was held on 8th – 10th September, 2008, with a decision being handed down on 21st November, 2008.

VCAT directed that the decision of the Responsible Authority is affirmed, and it was directed pursuant to Section 85(1)(a) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 that a Planning Permit must not be granted.

In its summation VCAT found that the two (2) main areas of concern with the proposal were as follows:

• The northern interface with the adjoining dwellings fronting Collins Street; and • The implications of the traffic and access arrangements as set out in the latest revised plan following deletion of No.5 Swanston Street from the area available for the proposal.

The abovementioned points are discussed separately below.

The Northern Interface: As previously discussed within the Urban Design section of this report, it is considered that a number of concerns continue to be raised with regard to the northern interface and the amenity impacts the proposal has on adjoining dwellings to the north of the subject site. It is considered that improved setbacks at ground and first floor levels from the site’s north property boundary as well as improved materiality to the whole northern façade of the proposed development will provided for improved articulation, reduced amenity impacts such as visual bulk and mass and improved visual interest, particularly when viewed from adjoining dwellings to the north of the subject site.

It is considered that subject to the inclusion of suitable conditions as previously discussed with respect to the northern interface, it is considered that the proposal adequately satisfies the previous concerns raised in the VCAT with respect to the northern interface.

Traffic & Access Arrangements: Having regard to the major concerns raised by VCAT with regard to the access arrangements for the proposed hotel and in particular, the proposed Aldi Supermarket, the applicant decided to remove the Aldi Supermarket from the current development. However, while a major contributor (the Aldi Supermarket) to the access concerns raised has been removed from the current proposal, concerns continue to remain with the new proposed access arrangements, particularly with regard to the hotel pick-up / drop-off area and loading bay facilities provided. These issues have been discussed in depth

77 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 in the traffic sections of this report where a number of conditions and design changes were discussed.

It is important to comment on how and why the proposed access, loading bay and hotel pick- up / drop-off arrangements differ from the previous application as it was made clear that VCAT Members Gerard Sharkey and J A Bennett believed the previous access arrangements were fatal to the previous application heard at VCAT.

Paragraph 56 and 57 of the VCAT Order for P33/2008 dated 21st November, 2008 outline the potential conflict the previous arrangements raised and the concerns Members Gerard Sharkey and J A Bennett had with those access arrangements. Paragraph 56 and 57 state the following:

• Paragraph 56: “A loading area containing a single bay and compactor is proposed south of the “port cochere” and this would be screened from public view. This bay has been designed to accommodate a 14 metre long articulated vehicle. Such a vehicle would enter via the southern crossover when the screen is open, would reverse into the bay, provided that the vehicle was properly located in the bay or is not too long for the bay. There could be difficulties if a vehicle occupies the “porte cochere” for any length of time. We consider that single vehicle provision is itself inadequate. The fact that this access is shared by delivery vehicles and for the supermarket waste collection vehicles intending to use the loading dock compactor area could cause further problems and lead to such vehicles banking up in Swanston Street, particularly having regard to the fact that the southern crossover is only some 15 or 20 metres from Balcombe Road. It must also be noted that resident entry to the hotel/apartment lift lobby is from Balcombe Road whilst the “porte cochere” is on Swanston Street.”

• Paragraph 57: “We acknowledge that conflict between delivery vehicles, waste collection vehicles and hotel guest vehicles might be infrequent, having regard to the relatively infrequent visits to the site by delivery vehicles and waste collection vehicles. We nevertheless expect such conflicts to occur. We did ask Mr Walsh, the consultant traffic engineer called for the Applicant for Review/Permit Applicant as an expert witness, if he was comfortable with this arrangement. It was his evidence that he was comfortable. We are not comfortable and we consider that this alone is fatal to the proposal.”

It is considered that the potential traffic conflicts between loading vehicles, waste collection vehicles and hotel guest vehicles as mentioned in paragraph 56 have been resolved. The conditions proposed by Council Officers which redesign the access arrangements for this area of the development are considered to solve the concerns raised by Members Gerard Sharkey and J A Bennett.

The proposed access arrangements for the hotel pick-up / drop-off area and loading bay facilities:

• Allow delivery vehicles to enter and exit the site in a forwards direction;

78 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 • provide a suitable waiting bay for hotel guest vehicles / taxi’s; • is provided with suitable vehicle turning areas; and • is provided with five (5) metre wide access lanes.

It is considered that the abovementioned access arrangements resolve any potential conflicts within the hotel pick-up / drop-off area and loading bay facilities without vehicles banking up in Swanston Street. Furthermore, as noted above, the Aldi Supermarket is no longer party of the proposal and as such removes one of the major loading and waste generators from the development as a whole.

It is considered that subject to the inclusion of suitable conditions as previously discussed with respect the proposed access arrangements, it is considered that the proposal would adequately satisfy the previous concerns raised in the VCAT with respect to traffic and access.

RESPONSE TO GROUNDS OF OBJECTION:

The majority of the grounds of objection have been discussed throughout the course of this report. The following is a brief discussion of the main objections raised and Council’s response to the objections raised.

1. Overdevelopment of the site (including height, scale, visual bulk and mass, neighbourhood character, heritage concerns, drainage concerns etc):

The proposal is considered to be an appropriate development for the site. The following can be said with respect to the abovementioned concerns:

• The proposal adequately satisfies the policy directions and objectives of the Kingston Planning Scheme including the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework; • The site is located within a Major Activity Centre; • The site has great access to various forms of transportation including public and private transport modes and networks; and • The height, scale and overall built form is considered appropriate and adequately addresses various elements with regards to the character and built form of the Mentone Activity Centre.

Overall the development is consistent with the development provisions of the Kingston Planning Scheme and is not considered to be an overdevelopment of the site. The proposal, subject to the inclusion of suitable planning conditions should be supported.

2. Car parking and Traffic Concerns (including lack of car parking, increase in traffic movements etc):

The proposal is considered to be an appropriate development for the site. The following can be said with respect to the abovementioned concerns;

79 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 • The development is considered to provide adequate car parking on site for the future residents, staff, customers and visitors to the site; • It is considered that the existing road network will adequately handle any potential increase in traffic movements to and from the site and in the immediate vicinity of the subject site as a result of the proposed development; and • There are various modes of transportation available in the immediate vicinity of the site including public and private forms of transportation.

Overall the development is consistent with the car parking and traffic provisions of the Kingston Planning Scheme. The proposal, subject to the inclusion of suitable planning conditions should be supported.

3. Amenity based concerns (including overshadowing, overlooking, safety concerns, visual impact concerns and liquor license concerns etc):

The proposal is considered to be an appropriate development for the site. The following can be said with respect to the abovementioned concerns:

• The proposal has been adequately set back from the sensitive residential abuttal to the north of the subject site; • Suitable breaks in the built form have been provided so as to reduce the impact on adjoining properties; • The upper floor levels (level three and level four) have been adequately set back from the site’s Balcombe Road and Swanston Street property frontages in order to reduce any visual impacts from these streets; • Overshadowing and overlooking has been treated through screening measures or increased side/rear setbacks; • The overall height of the proposal has been reduced and is considered appropriate given the site’s location within the Mentone major Activity Centre; and • The proposed liquor license hours will be amended as discussed in previous sections of this report.

Overall the development is consistent with the amenity based provisions of the Kingston Planning Scheme. The proposal, subject to the inclusion of suitable planning conditions should be supported.

CONCLUSION:

The site is located in a strategically appropriate location for high density housing and mixed use development which takes advantage of excellent public transport and recreation facilities. The State and Local planning policies discussed in this report identify the subject site as one whereby substantial change is justified.

The development has been assessed by various Council departments including Council’s Strategic Planning Departments, Council’s Urban Designer, Council’s external design consultant and Council’s Traffic Engineering Department, all of which have advised that the

80 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 proposal adequately satisfies the provisions of the Kingston Planning Scheme and subject to the inclusion of suitable conditions being placed on any permit issued should be supported.

The proposed development adequately satisfies the requirements, objectives and policy directions of the State Planning Policy Framework, the Local Planning Policy Framework, the Zoning provisions and the Particular Provisions of the Kingston Planning Scheme as discussed previously in this report.

Therefore, having considered all of the above, it is considered that the proposal, subject to the inclusion of suitable conditions being placed on any permit issued, should be supported.

RECOMMENDATION:

That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit for the development and use of the site for the purpose of a five (5) storey and basement mixed use development, consisting of a residential hotel (including restaurant / bar), a gymnasium, five (5) retail premises, an office tenancy, food & drink premises, business identification signage, on premises liquor licence, fifty-nine (59) dwellings, basement car parking, altering access to a road in a Road Zone Category 1 and a reduction in car parking and bicycle parking requirements pursuant to Clause 52.06 of the Kingston Planning Scheme.

1. Before the development and/or use starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be substantially in accordance with the plans submitted on 24th April, 2009 but modified to show: a) the provision of an improved landscape plan and associated planting schedule for the site showing the proposed location, species type, mature height and width, pot sizes and number of species be planted on the site, with such plans to be prepared by a suitably qualified landscape professional; b) the provision of a notation on the plans stating that any bicycle parking along Balcombe Road and / or Swanston Street must be constructed in accordance with the engineering plans submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority; c) storage areas 45-48 re-located to an appropriate location within the lower basement car park level, with this area replaced with one (1) new car spaces; d) the provision of a minimum one (1) new car space located to the west of car space No.217 located in the lower basement car park level; e) the secured lower basement car parking spaces (including the proposed three (3) secured car spaces located in the upper basement car park level) allocated to each particular use as follows; i) one (1) car space allocated to each of the proposed fifty-nine (59) dwellings; ii) fifty (50) car spaces allocated for the proposed hotel; iii) ten (10) car spaces allocated to the proposed office tenancy; iv) one (1) car space allocated to each of the proposed five (5) retail premises;

81 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 v) four (4) car spaces allocated to the proposed gymnasium; vi) four (4) car spaces allocated to the proposed restaurant / café; f) the bend in the lower basement car park level adjacent to car space No.154 provided with a minimum four (4) metre radius curve; g) the bend in the upper basement car park level adjacent to car space No.39 provided with a minimum four (4) metre radius curve; h) the car park access aisle located at the foot of the basement access ramp and between car spaces No.45, No.51 and No.52 closed, with the area between car space No.51 and car space No.52 used to provide two (2) additional car spaces within the upper basement car park level; i) the provision of a minimum sixteen (16) secured staff bicycle parking spaces provided within the upper basement car park level; j) the provision of a minimum sixteen (16) visitor bicycle parking spaces provided within the upper basement car park level; k) the provision of suitable line markings and signage for pedestrian crossings within the lower and upper basement car park levels to improve pedestrian safety within the basement car park levels; l) the front wall / door of the commercial tenancy entrance located a minimum six (6) metres from the site’s Balcombe Road property frontage, with this commercial entry hallway to have a minimum three (3) metre internal hallway width for its entirety; m) the provision of a minimum four (4) metre width to the residential entry where it meets the site’s Balcombe Road property frontage with this entry area to a minimum three (3) metre internal hallway width for its entirety; n) the ground floor chutes redesigned / relocated as appropriate in order to allow Condition 1 m) to occur; o) the north facing ground floor gymnasium wall set back minimum 3.6 metres from the site’s north (rear) property boundary; p) the north facing ground floor gymnasium walls provided with improved wall treatments such as highlight windows with a minimum sill height of two (2) metres and / or varied materials such as stone, timber, aluminium or the like; q) the hotel pick-up / drop-off and loading bay areas provided with access via one (1) vehicle crossover located along the site’s Swanston Street property frontage, with this crossover to be a minimum 6.6 metres in width and set back a minimum five (5) metres from the south facing basement ramp wall r) the hotel pick-up / drop-off and loading bay areas provided with clockwise traffic movements; s) the roller door separating the basement access ramp and the hotel pick-up / drop- off and loading bay areas removed; t) the provision of a notation on the plans stating that the hotel pick-up / drop-off and loading bay areas is provided with a minimum height clearance of four (4) metres;

82 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 u) the second delivery bay removed; v) the temporary refuse and retail refuse areas relocated to the rear of the hotel pick- up / drop-off and loading bay areas, with the new temporary refuse and retail refuse areas designed to continue to allow all vehicles (including trucks) to enter and exit the hotel pick-up / drop-off and loading bay area in a forwards direction; w) the external stairs located to the north of hotel room No.33 provided with suitable screening to a height of 1.7 metres above the steps level to prevent overlooking to adjoining properties to the north of the subject site; x) The location of external fans, air-conditioning apparatus and the like must be to Council approval and installed to prevent loss of amenity to the area by its appearance, noise, emission or otherwise. y) the provision of a new two (2) metre high timber paling fence provided to the site’s north (rear) property boundary except for the area along this boundary to be provided with an acoustic fence; z) the first floor north facing walls of hotel rooms No.32, No33, No.36, No.37, No.48 and No.49 set back a minimum six (6) metres from the site’s north (rear) property boundary; aa) the function facility balcony relocated from its current location to adjacent hotel room No.25 partly facing Balcombe Road and the Frankston Railway Line; bb) the provision of vertical articulation to break up the continuous glazed element of the third and fourth floor levels to the site’s Balcombe Road and Swanston Street building façade; cc) the provision of suitable solar screening treatments to the east and west facing glazed areas of the third and fourth floor level which such treatments to be integrated into vertical articulation where appropriate; dd) the provision of improved materiality to the northern façade with the potential incorporation of planter boxes and varied materials such as stone, feature glazing, brick, render, timber and aluminium or the like; ee) the provision of improved non-retail entry and exit points through improved details and the use of varied materials such as stone, feature glazing, brick, render, timber and aluminium or the like; ff) a notation on the plans stating that the “Permissible Noise Levels” for the gymnasium (including the outdoor workout area), as established in accordance with the State Environment Protection Policy No. N-1 must not be exceeded; gg) the conditions required by VicRoads provided on the plans, pursuant to Condition 2 of this Permit; hh) the conditions required by United Energy provided on the plans, pursuant to Condition 3 of this Permit; ii) the conditions required by VicTrack provided on the plans, pursuant to Condition 4 of this Permit; jj) the provision of a full colour and building materials schedule for all external surfaces (including samples). 2. Conditions Required by VicRoads:

83 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 i. No kerbside parking or intended parking along Swanston Street in front of the subject site must be provided; ii. The development must allow for free flow of vehicular traffic into the development especially the left turning traffic into the site so that any queue along Swanston Street will not extend onto Balcombe Road to the satisfaction of VicRoads; iii. Any redundant existing vehicle crossovers serving the subject site along Balcombe Road must be removed and the footpath, nature strip and kerbing reinstated to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority 3. Conditions Required by United Energy: i. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with United Energy Limited for extension, upgrading or re-arrangement of the electricity supply to lots on the plan as required. (A payment to cover the cost of such work will be required and easements internal and external to the subdivision and provision of sites for substations may also be required). 4. Conditions Required by VicTrack: i. All drainage or effluent from the development must be collected and directed to legal discharge points and must not enter VicTrack land without its prior approval and on conditions set by it. ii. No excavation, filling or construction must take place on or near the railway boundary without prior approval from the rail operator. Entry onto the railway reserve is at the discretion of the rail operator and subject to any conditions imposed by it. iii. No waste, soil or other materials resulting from the works are to be stored or deposited on VicTrack land; iv. The proposed development must include a fence or other physical barrier between the railway reserve and the applicant's land. The design of the fence or physical barrier must be approved by VicTrack and the rail operator. v. The design of the proposed development must meet all clearance requirements from the adjacent railway tracks as per Victorian Rail Industry Operators Group Standards (VRIOGS 001-2005). vi. The design of the proposed development must comply with the Derailment Loadings as set out in Australian Standards AS 5100 clause 10.4.3 vii. Prior to the commencement of works the applicant must enter into all necessary agreements with VicTrack, the Department of Transport and the Rail Operator for construction, maintenance and disturbance of land abutting the railway reserve. viii. The fire escape management plan of the proposed development must not rely on the railway reserve for emergency egress. ix. Lighting from the proposed development must not interfere or affect train driver signal sighting. The design of all exterior lighting near the railway reserve must be submitted to and approved by the rail operator. x. No works are to undermine the railway tracks or interfere with railway infrastructure. Prior to the commencing of works, the applicant must submit to

84 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 VicTrack and the Rail Operator, all detailed engineering design drawings, specifications and safe working methodology of the proposed works for review and approval by VicTrack and the Rail Operator. xi. All costs incurred by VicTrack and the Rail Operator in reviewing the proposed designs and works of the development must be paid by the applicant. 5. Conditions Required by the Department of Transport: i. The permit holder must take all reasonable steps to ensure that disruption to train operation within the railway corridor is kept to a minimum during the construction of the development. Foreseen disruption to rail operation during construction and mitigation measures must be communicated to Connex and the Director of Public Transport fourteen (14) days prior. ii. The permit holder must ensure that all track, overhead power and supporting infrastructure is not damaged or that works do not cause unplanned disruption to rail operations. Any damage to public transport infrastructure must be rectified to the satisfaction of the Director of Public transport at the full cost of the permit holder. 6. The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority. 7. The developer / owner is responsible for all costs associated with the construction and maintenance (for a period of no less than 12 months) of all footpath and associated landscape works along Swanston Street and Balcombe Road adjacent to the subject site in accordance with Council requirements, and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 8. The developer / owner is responsible for all costs associated the relocation, removal or replacement of any existing assets that are deemed necessary by the relevant authority, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 9. Prior to the commencement of the use or development authorised by this permit, the applicant must submit a Soil Management Plan to the Responsible Authority. The SMP must be generally in accordance with the plan prepared by JD Environmental Services titled Underground Fuel Storage Tank Removal and Soil Validation Program 76-78 Balcombe Road, Mentone, Victoria 16 February, 2009. When approved, the SMP will form part of the permit under this permit and the actions required by the SMP must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 10. Before construction of the development starts, a Traffic and Car Parking Management Plan to the satisfaction of the responsible authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. Three copies of the plan must be submitted. The plan must include but is not limited to: a) the location of all areas to be used for staff / long term parking for the retail premises, offices and gymnasium within the lower and upper basement car parking levels of the building; b) the provision of a notation stating that a minimum of two-hour free parking be provided for the visitors to the premises;

85 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 c) details of any arrangements for fee payment, including details of fees to be charged and the means by which such payment is to be collected; d) the provision of suitable signs and pavement markings to direct and control the flow of traffic into, within and exiting the site including for the basement and loading bay areas, with this to include suitable warning signs/signals for drivers and pedestrians; e) the provision of all lighting and security arrangements for the basement; f) full details of access arrangements to and from the site including full details of any proposed security arrangements for resident and long term parking in the lower basement level (i.e. boom gates restricting access, swipe cards to be used etc); g) details of any traffic management measure to improve vehicles entry and exit to and from the site (i.e. keep clear line markings on Swanston Street etc). The Traffic and Car Parking Management Plan must be implemented to the satisfaction the Responsible Authority. The Traffic and Car Parking Management Plan must not be modified unless with the further written consent of the Responsible Authority. 11. All loading and unloading for the gymnasium / hotel / retail premises must occur within the specifically designated loading bay and / or hotel pick-up / drop-off waiting bay which is accessed via Swanston Street; 12. The loading bay must be closed off and screened from view except as required for the entry and exit of vehicles to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority; 13. No deliveries must be undertaken by vehicles greater than nine (9) metres in length at any time, unless with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority. 14. Unless with the written consent of the responsible authority, deliveries to and from the site (including waste collection) must only take place between the following hours: • 5am to 10pm Monday to Saturday; and • 7am to 8pm Sundays and Public Holidays. 15. Council’s Waste Management Department must be consulted regarding the location of rubbish bins and the options for collecting waste from the site. 16. Before the use starts, a Waste Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the Planning Permit. Three (3) copies of the plan must be submitted. The plan must include but is not limited to: a) Waste collection in accordance with the loading and collection conditions included on this permit. b) Provision on the land for the storage and collection of garbage and other solid waste. This area must be graded and drained and screened from public view to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. c) All waste material not required for further on-site processing must be regularly removed from the site. All vehicles removing waste must have fully secured and contained loads so that no wastes are spilled or dust or odour is created to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

86 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 d) In accordance with Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) requirements, arrangements for the storage, segregation and disposal of any infectious waste, potentially infectious waste (as defined by the EPA), and any prescribed waste. The waste management plan must be implemented to the satisfaction the responsible authority. The waste management plan must not be modified unless with the consent of the responsible authority. 17. The liquor license is to be restricted to the following times: • Restaurant / Bar & Function Facility; o 10.00am to 11.00pm Monday to Thursday; o 10.00am to 1.00am Friday to Sunday; and • Seventy-one (71) hotel Rooms; o 24 hour hotel room service Monday to Sunday. Or otherwise as approved by the Responsible Authority. 18. Before the use starts, areas set aside for parked vehicles, access lanes and associated access ramps as shown on the endorsed plans must be: a) Constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority; b) Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans; c) Surfaced with an all-weather sealcoat to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority; d) Drained, maintained and not used for any other purpose to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority; e) Line-marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority; f) Generally in accordance with the relevant Australian Standard for car parking facilities; g) Directional signage indicating car parking areas to be erected as required by the Responsible Authority and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority; and h) Parking areas and access lanes must be kept available for these purposes at all times. 19. The dwellings hereby permitted must not be occupied until all buildings and works and the conditions of this permit have been complied with, unless with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority. 20. Before the commencement of any building or works on the land a Construction Management Plan (CMP) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority and when approved shall thereafter be complied with. The CMP must deal with the parking of vehicles during construction, delivery of materials, containment of waste on site and suppression of dust, construction over the public domain etc. 21. The development of the site must be provided with stormwater works which incorporates the use of water sensitive urban design principles to improve stormwater runoff quality and which also retains on site any increase in runoff as a result of the

87 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 approved development. The system must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Council's Development Engineer can advise on satisfactory options to achieve these desired outcomes which may include the use of an infiltration or bioretention system, rainwater tanks connected for reuse and a detention system. 22. Before the development commences, a Stormwater Management Plan showing the stormwater works to the nominated point of discharge must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Stormwater Management Plan must be prepared by a qualified person and show all details of the proposed stormwater works including all existing and proposed features that may have impact (e.g. trees to be retained, crossings, services, fences, abutting buildings, existing boundary surface levels, etc.). 23. Stormwater works must be provided on the site so as to prevent overflows onto adjacent properties. 24. Construction on the site must be restricted to the following times: a) Monday to Friday 7:00am to 7:00pm; b) Saturday 9:00am to 6:00pm: and c) No construction on Sundays or Public Holidays; Or otherwise as approved by the Responsible Authority in writing. 25. Exterior lights must be installed in such positions to effectively illuminate all pathways, car parks and other public areas to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and designed, baffled and located to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to prevent any adverse effect on neighbouring land. 26. The maintenance of the buildings, service areas and the surrounds within the site shall be the responsibility of the Body Corporate, owner or agent and must be serviced at such frequency as will render the service areas and the surrounds to be neat, tidy and clean at all times to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 27. All works on or facing the boundaries of adjoining properties must be finished and surface cleaned to a standard that is well presented to neighbouring properties in a manner to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. 28. All piping and ducting (other than stormwater downpipes) above the ground floor storey of the development must be concealed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. 29. No external equipment (including, but not limited to: ducting and piping, air- conditioning units, heating units, satellite dishes etc), services and architectural features, other than those shown on the endorsed plan, shall be permitted unless with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority 30. All external surfaces of the building elevations must be finished in accordance with the schedule on the endorsed plans and maintained in good condition to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. 31. The location of external fans, air-conditioning apparatus and the like must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and installed to prevent loss of amenity to the area by its appearance, noise, emission or otherwise.

88 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 32. Any plant and equipment proposed on the roof of the building must be screened in a manner to complement the appearance of the building to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 33. The location and details of the signs as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority 34. The signs must not be animated or contain any flashing or intermittent light. 35. The signs as shown on the endorsed plans must be constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 36. The signs illumination must be designed, baffled and located to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to prevent any adverse effect on neighbouring land. 37. Finished floor levels shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered or modified without the prior written consent of the responsible authority. 38. Once the development has started it must be continued and completed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. 39. In accordance with section 68 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, this permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies: • The development and use are not started before two (2) years of the date of the permit issued. • The development is not completed before five (5) years of the date of the permit issued. In accordance with section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the responsible authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires, or within three months afterwards.

Note: Prior to the commencement of the development you are required to obtain the necessary Building Permit. Note: The applicant/owner must provide a copy of this planning permit to any appointed Building Surveyor. It is the responsibility of the applicant/owner and Building Surveyor to ensure that all building development works approved by any building permit is consistent with the planning permit. Note: Before removing/pruning any vegetation from the site, the applicant or any contractor engaged to remove vegetation, should consult Council’s Vegetation Management Officer to verify if a Local Law Permit is required for the removal of such vegetation. Note: Council may, at its choosing, introduce a Parking Policy Scheme in the immediate area. If Council chooses to introduce such a scheme, it is advised that residents and/or visitors of the development may be ineligible to receive such parking permits. Note: Prior to the commencement of the use as a licensed premises, a liquor license must be obtained from Liquor Licensing Victoria.

89 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

L 99 KP1014/08: 168-178 Chesterville Road, Moorabbin Author: Peter Connell Town Planner

APPLICANT: Goldpar Pty Ltd C/- Richard Umbers Peninsula Planning Consultants Pty Ltd APPLICATION NO. KP1014/08 LOCATION: No.168-178 Chesterville Road Cheltenham MELWAYS REF: 77 J9 PROPOSAL: To use the existing building for the purpose of a retail premises for the wholesale selling of goods and to display advertising signs in accordance with the attached plans and letter. ZONING: Industrial 1 Zone KINGSTON Clause 17 State Planning Policy Framework PLANNING Clause 21 Local Planning Policy Framework SCHEME Clause 33.01: Industrial 1 Zone ORDINANCE Clause 52.06: Car Parking CONTROLS: Clause 65: Decision Guidelines

INTRODUCTION

Council has received a permit application seeking permission for the use of land at 168 – 178 Chesterville Road, Cheltenham, for the purposes of "retail premises" – a discretionary "permit required" use for the purposes of the Industrial 1 zone. The permit application relates to an established use – the Moorabbin Wholesale Farmers Fresh Market (Market) – which has been operating on the land since November, 2004.

The permit application was submitted to Council on a without prejudice basis. It follows an application by Council to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal for an order that the Market cease operating on the basis that it constitutes a "shop" – a prohibited use within the Industrial 1 zone – or alternatively that it constitutes a form of "retail premises" for which a permit has not been applied for or granted (Proceeding 1969/2008). That proceeding was adjourned pending determination of this permit application. It remains the permit applicant's stated belief, however, that the existing operations are properly characterised as a "warehouse" – a use for which a permit is not required within the Industrial 1 zone.

This report is written in three parts. The first will set out the background to the permit application. The second will examine the proposal on the basis that the proposed use is properly characterised as "retail premises". Notably, this analysis will include an assessment of whether it is appropriate from a policy perspective to issue a planning permit for "retail premises". The third will consider whether the proposed use is in fact properly characterised as a form of "retail premises".

PART 1 - BACKGROUND

Existing Conditions

There are a number of existing buildings on the land situated at 168 – 178 Chesterville Road:

90 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

• From the plan submitted with the application, Building 1 and Building 2 are both occupied by the existing/proposed Market. These two buildings have frontage to both Chesterville and Keys Road and the site itself is located on the south east corner of the intersection of Chesterville Road and Keys Road, Moorabbin.

• On the subject site there are also two other tenancies, which are used for a clothing business and a snooker hall. In the south east corner of the site there are also two other factory buildings and an existing amenities building.

• The subject site has a frontage width of 91.44m to Chesterville Road, a sideage depth of 111.62m and an overall site area of 10,176sqm. The site can be accessed from either Chesterville Road or Keys Road as both frontages have two vehicular crossings, however, access to the Market is from Keys Road. Surrounding the site to the north, south, east and west are other industrial and commercial uses.

Proposal in Detail

Background to Moorabbin Wholesale Farmers Fresh Market

A letter prepared by Richard Umbers (of Peninsula Planning Consultants Pty Ltd) and submitted with the permit application provided a description of the Market's operations. It notes that the Market is a business run by the Vezzu family. It claims that:

• the Market was established to service the various take-away food premises, restaurants, hotels, cafes, caterers and manufacturers of food products that conduct businesses in the vicinity of the Market;

• the Market has formed strong relationships with local fruit and vegetable growers, as well as with growers in northern Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland (so as to ensure that it can provide a variety of fruit and vegetables year round); and

• in addition to fresh fruit and vegetables, the Market also supplies a limited range of grocery products to service their clients.

At present, the Market operates between the hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m, Wednesday to Saturday.

Method of Purchase by Market Clients

The written submission claims that the following measures have been introduced to ensure that purchases of goods from the Market are made by wholesale customers and not retail customers:

• a customer card system (discussed below);

• the removal of hand shopping/carry baskets;

• a minimum transaction limit of $25.00;

91 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

• stock and bulk packaging encouraging bulk purchases with consistent price labelling;

• a reduction in the number of product lines (from approximately 3000 at the commencement of operations to approximately 300-400 currently on offer);

• the erection of signage both internally and externally to make the terms of sale clear that purchases must only be made for the purpose of resale; and

• the storage and display of goods in boxes and pallets on multiple-levels, typical of industrial and trade supplies premises.

It is understood that the customer card system operates by requiring that each customer produce a membership card as a condition of purchase. An applicant must, as a precondition to obtaining a membership card, possess an Australian Business Number. The membership cards issued do not, however, identify the business or entity to which the card is issued.

The letter from Richard Umbers goes on to claim that all products, including fruit, vegetables and grocery lines, are either purchased in large quantities by the case, box or pallet with delivery very much dependent on what the business customers require. For example, it claims that small sandwich shops, take-away food premises, chicken bars, etc will regularly only require and purchase small quantities of fresh fruit, vegetables and grocery lines to satisfy the daily requirements, or purchase sufficient product for two or three days business.

Method of Delivery

It is understood that Moorabbin Wholesale Farmers Fresh Market employ a transport company to deliver bulk quantities of fruit and vegetables from the Footscray Market to the subject site every Tuesday, Thursday and Friday between 7:30 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. The growers deliver their produce between 3 a.m. and 6 a.m. Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. Milk, eggs and bread are delivered between 5 a.m. and 7 a.m. All other deliveries occur between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. daily.

The application goes on to provide that the Market does not deliver any of the goods sold. It is claimed that clients regularly either telephone, fax or attend the site in person to place an order or purchase their produce and goods. Pre-orders are prepared for the client and collected from the site. Many other clients will choose their own goods from the warehouse display in the quantities they require and load their own vehicles, although staff allegedly assist with orders.

Officer's Observations

Council Officers have inspected the Market on a number of occasions and have made the following observations concerning the operation of the use. We understand that these observations are consistent with the nature of the use proposed as a component of the permit application:

• The main customer entrance to the premises is along the northern (Keys Road) frontage. Check out areas and cash registers are situated near this entrance and are

92 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 operational. Shopping trolleys are stacked and stored near this area between the cash registers and the northern wall adjacent to the ramped entry; • Goods are displayed for sale in both of Buildings 1 and 2 as marked on the plans submitted as a component of the permit application; • Goods are displayed for sale in both buildings on pallets, shelving, in open refrigerators, freezers, on racking and in fruit and vegetable display boxes; • In both buildings there are aisles for the convenience of customers; • In many instances, boxed goods are displayed next to open boxes of the same product line enabling single items of the relevant product line to be selected;

Advertising

The proposal was advertised via a notice on the site and letter to the owner and occupiers of the surrounding and abutting properties. In response to the advertisement period there were 2 objections (Westfield Southland (Ventana) Pty Ltd and Shopping Centre Council of Australia Limited). The grounds of objection can be summarized as follows: • The proposed use is not correctly categorised as "warehouse with associated selling of goods" or “retail premises.” The submission of the proponent that the majority of business is generated by wholesale sales, and that retail sales are restricted by various means, is allegedly inconsistent with inspections carried out by representatives of the objectors. On this basis, the proposed use should be categorised as a "shop" and is therefore prohibited pursuant to the provisions of the Kingston Planning Scheme. • If the proposed use was approved it would have serious implications for the integrity of the Kingston Planning Scheme and for the planning system in Victoria generally. When owners make a substantial investment of capital in a major regional shopping centre such as Westfield Southland they do so only after a careful risk assessment of the present and future competition the asset is likely to face. An important factor in this assessment is the clarity, certainty and integrity of the relevant local planning scheme. It is not only shopping centre owners and developers who look to the planning system to provide reasonable confidence in their investments. Retailers who sign leases in these shopping centres also do so. These are substantial investments and they should not be jeopardised by retailers who manage to evade the same planning requirements demanded by others. A preliminary conference was not held with respect to the application on the basis that the objections to the permit application were such that it was determined that the dispute could not readily be resolved. The concerns of the objectors are addressed in the assessment of the proposal.

PART 2 - ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSAL

As stated above, this part of the report will assess the permit application on the basis that the use proposed is properly characterised as a form of "retail premises". To this end, it is noted that pursuant to Clause 33.01 of the Kingston Planning Scheme, a planning permit is required to use the land for the purpose of "Retail Premises".

93 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 The application will be assessed under the following headings:

• Policy;

• Amenity;

• Car Parking;

• Advertising; and

• Characterisation of the use.

Policy

The following component of the report examines the proposal under the State and Local Planning Policy Framework. Given the discretionary nature of the use of the land, the State and Local Planning Policy plays a critical role in providing guidance as to whether the use of the land for Retail Premises should be supported.

It is self evident to Council Officers that the submission of the permit applicant has not attempted to substantiate its ‘Retail Premises’ proposal by reference to either State or Local Planning Policy. This is unfortunate as it would have provided some measure or guidance in assessing the planning merits of the proposal.

State Planning Policy Framework

Clause 12

It is clear that this Clause, which has been relatively recently introduced into the State Planning Policy Framework, seeks to create even greater clarity around where retailing activity should be located as a consequence of the Metropolitan Strategy – Melbourne 2030. It is apparent that:

The subject land in question is not part of a designated Activity Centre nor could its location be reasonably argued to be on the border of an Activity Centre.

Given the land is located ‘out of centre’, Clause 12.01-2 provides guidance as to how retail proposals in such a context should be considered:

Ensuring that proposals or expansion of single use retail, commercial and recreational facilities outside activity centres are discouraged by giving preference to locations in or on the border of an activity centre.

Ensuring that out-of-centre proposals are only considered where the proposed use or development is of net benefit to the community in the region served by the proposal.

94 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 Council Officers believe that the policy is clear in discouraging this form of ‘single use retail’ activity unless the proposed use provides a net benefit to the community in the region it serves.

Given the weight of policy encouraging retail related activities into designated activity centres, and given that Kingston contains 1 Principal and 5 Major Activity Centres, it is highly apparent that a compelling argument would be needed to justify out of centre retailing in this location. When considering ‘net community benefit’, it is vitally important that this consideration separates a legitimate wholesaling activity (where industrially zoned land may be appropriate and serve a net community benefit), from the significant retailing aspects of the proposed use (which constitutes direct competition with those retailing operations located within designated Activity Centres). Once this distinction is recognised, policy aspirations are critical to determining ‘net community benefit’. Moreover, Activity Centre Policy clearly seeks to reduce private motorised trips, increase public transport utilisation and facilitate strong opportunities for cross-shopping and multi-purpose activities.

In considering ‘net community benefit’ it is necessary to consider the extent to which the proposal is able to mitigate against any ‘dis-benefits’ that may be presented in relation to established planning policy which encourages retail activities in designated Activity Centres. No such analysis is provided as part of the application to support any assertion as to the merit(s) of the proposal. Further in considering ‘net community benefit’ beyond the compelling policy arguments which exist around concentrating retail uses into Activity Centres, it is necessary to consider why the zone in which the land is located specifically ‘encourages’ ‘manufacturing industry, the storage and distribution of goods and associated uses in a manner which does not affect the safety and amenity of local communities’. The purpose of the zone does not even ‘open the door’ to suggestions that a ‘net community benefit’ argument could be advanced for a ‘retail purpose’ given it is contrary to the purpose of the zone and the broader precinct based approach generally found in ‘net community benefit’ arguments associated with a strategic land rezoning linked to population growth etc.

Clause 14

It is clear that, at Clause 14.04-2 of the Scheme, the value of industrial land is reinforced through a strategy that seeks to:

‘Provid[e] an adequate supply of industrial land in appropriate locations including sufficient stocks of large sites for strategic investment’.

Moorabbin is not an insignificant parcel of South East Melbourne’s Industrial Land supply. It is not, for instance, one of the smaller industrial areas Council has recently rezoned on the basis that it can more appropriately serve an alternate land use purpose. The intention to use the subject land for a ‘retail premises’ as advanced by the application is entirely inconsistent with protecting industrial land for the purpose for which it is zoned. Council Officers note that, unless Council pursues this matter rigorously, the obvious consequence will be the further compromising of industrially zoned land by the development of inappropriate retailing activities (not linked to manufacturing).

95 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 Clause 14-01-2 importantly reinforces the role Council plays in developing structure plans beyond the discussion in Clause 12. It must be recognised that the consequence of ‘out of centre’ retail activity goes to the very heart of undermining Councils structure planning program (which, in completed plans, actually identifies where the expansion of retail uses are to be encouraged in activity centres). No structure planning work has been completed to identify the subject land, or anywhere near its immediate surrounds, as an Activity Centre or an area where retailing activity should be concentrated.

Clause 17

The following outlines (in clause 17.02-2) the exceptional circumstances where the ‘exceptions’ for ‘commercial activities’ may be located outside an Activity Centre:

New freestanding commercial developments in new residential areas which have extensive potential for population growth or will accommodate facilities that improve the overall level of accessibility for the community, particularly by public transport.

New convenience shopping facilities to provide for the needs of the local population in new residential areas and within, or immediately adjacent to, existing commercial centres.

Outlets of trade-related goods or services directly serving or ancillary to industry and which have adequate on-site car parking.

No argument can be advanced that the use is situated within a residential area where extensive population growth is proposed, nor is Council seeking to cluster convenience shopping facilities in this location under policy.

With respect to the objectives for Industry at 17.03-2, it is noted that:

Responsible authorities should not approve non-industrial land uses which will prejudice the availability of land for future industrial requirements in industrial zones.

It is clear that approval of the use of the land for a retail premises is entirely inconsistent with the above portion of the SPPF, which reinforces the value of industrial land now and into the future, and in so doing discourages non- industrial land uses from prejudicing this objective.

Based on the above it is considered that a compelling policy argument exists to suggest that when considering the State Planning Policy relevant to Economic Development no policy support is apparent for the proposed use of the land in this location for a ‘retail premises’. As identified earlier in the report the concept of ‘net community benefit’ is relevant to considerations around new retail facilities and it is apparent that when assessing the proposal against Clause 17 which specifically relates to Economic Development it can be strongly argued that a ‘community dis-benefit’ would arise should the proposal be allowed to proceed based on its broader implications with respect to Activity Centre and Industrial Land Use Planning. The

96 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 fact that in this instance it is known that the retail offer on the site would appear attractive to segments of the community, is irrelevant to the questions of consistency with policy objectives outlined for land use planning in the Kingston Planning Scheme.

Local Planning Policy Framework

As a means of providing context to the following analysis, it is relevant to recognise that Council has recently (through Amendment C75 to the Scheme) substantially modified its Local Planning Policy Framework as it related to Retail and Commercial development. Notably, Council has not sought to alter its intentions for its industrial land.

A meaningful review was conducted in preparing Amendment C75 concerning what had occurred in a retail context in Kingston since the inception of the municipality. The following are some of the matters that have influenced the development of the Council’s Local Planning Policy Framework as it relates to retail development (some of which particularly relate to the subject land):

• The acknowledgment with the release of Melbourne 2030 that Kingston was second only to the City of Monash in terms of the number of activity centres located within the municipality: with one (1) Principal Activity Centre – Southland and five (5) Major Activity Centres – Moorabbin, Cheltenham, Mentone, Mordialloc and Chelsea.

• The development of a Structure Plan for the Highett Neighbourhood Activity Centre in conjunction with the City of Bayside and a consequential Planning Scheme Amendment C73. The consequences of this work are briefly later discussed.

• The adoption of Planning Scheme Amendment C81 to provide for a new full line supermarket, specialty shops and a number of other land use activities within the Thrift Park Neighbourhood Activity Centre.

• The adoption of Planning Scheme Amendment C95 to provide for a new full line supermarket and speciality shops to be provided in the Dingley Neighbourhood Activity Centre.

• In addition to the above significant components of strategic planning work, the following investment has been made over recent years to support anticipated retail growth in proximity to the subject land:

o An increase of approximately 64,500m2 at the Southland in the late 1990’s. o A DFO facility at the Moorabbin Airport of 116 retailers constructed in the late 1990’s and more recently expanded to provide 23,000m2*. o The creation of the Kingston Central Shopping Centre on the airport land which includes a number of tenancies including an Aldi Supermarket with approximately 9,450m2*.

* It is noted that the Moorabbin Airport is controlled under the Federal Airports Act 1996, nonetheless the retail activity there is relevant to what exists in the immediate area to illustrate the present supply of retail opportunities.

97 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

With respect to the specifics of the Local Planning Policy Framework the following policy context exists:

Clause 21.02

The role played by Moorabin as a location for industrial activity is reinforced, as is the role of Southland as the Principal Activity Centre at Clause 21.02. It is apparent that at the ‘Municipal Profile’ level, no indications are provided that the subject land or any of its immediate surrounds are being identified for anything other than industrial pursuits.

Clause 21.03 and 21.04

At Clause 21.03, it is apparent that an identified land use challenge is the need to revitalise older industrial areas. Further at 21.04-3 it makes clear the distinction between the role of Activity Centres and the designation placed over the subject land as an ‘Older Industrial Area’ on the Strategic Land Use Framework Plan. What is noted is that the objective for these areas is to consolidate and revitalise older industrial precincts, as opposed to revising their role to operate as activity centres which are otherwise defined on the Strategic Land use Framework Plan.

Clause 21.06

The overview to Clause 21.06 details a number of the recent changes that have occurred in relation to retail and commercial development within the municipality. It serves to reinforce the policy that out of centre development will be discouraged. The overview then reinforces the need for greater supermarket investment in the central part of the City to assist in encouraging higher utilisation of Activity Centres. Comments made earlier in this report reinforce how this investment at Dingley (Amendment C95) and Thrift Park (Amendment C81) have now been substantially advanced. Council is thus providing - and in fact seeking to facilitate - retailing opportunities in designated Activity Centres. This proposal is also fundamentally at odds with this objective.

At 21.06-2 one of the Key Issues identified is ‘ensuring the consolidation of retailing activity within existing commercial centres’. In addition another key issue is ‘The need to strengthen the ability for residents living in the central and southern parts of the municipality to do weekly shopping in local centres’. The subject proposal does nothing to provide an effective response to these key issues. In fact, it actively further entrenches the challenges identified by Clause 21.06.

Objective 1 at clause 21.06 is ‘To protect and strengthen the hierarchy of activity centres within Kingston’. The first strategy designed to achieve this objective is to ‘consolidate new retail land use within the boundaries of existing activity centres’. Objective 2 then reinforces the important Strategic role played by Southland as the Principal Activity Centre and the need to reinforce this from a regional perspective.

98 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 It is then apparent on the Retail and Commercial Development Framework Plan at Clause 21.06 that no policy argument exists to suggest that the subject land is within, or even close to, the edge of any designated Activity Centre.

Clause 21.07

The overview to Clause 21.07 recognises that "the City’s older industrial areas are in need of significant revitalisation in order to remain viable locations for modern manufacturing businesses. The smaller, isolated pockets of industrial land are no longer appropriate or viable locations for industry." The policy goes on to reinforce that:

‘...larger areas such as Moorabbin and Mordialloc/Braeside form the traditional backbone of smaller scale manufacturing in the south-east region of Melbourne. Despite their age and physical constraints, these are will continue to play an important role in generating jobs and wealth for many years to come’.

One of the key issues identified is the:

‘Pressure for retail and office development in older industrial areas’.

Objective 1 then seeks to:

‘To provide a range of industrial land and buildings to meet the needs of a broad range of industries.’

A related strategy is to:

‘Protect industrial land from inappropriate rezonings and encourage retail and office uses to locate in appropriate business zones, except where such uses form part of an integrated development plan for industrial estates.

Objective 2 then outlines a number of methods for Council to provide for investment and redevelopment in Kingston’s older industrial areas of which Moorabbin is one.

Having reviewed 21.07, it is noted that this portion of the Planning Scheme makes it absolutely clear that it is inappropriate to locate retail activity within business zones.

Beyond Council's Municipal Strategic Statement, other immediately relevant Local Planning Policies given the location of the subject land, are:

22.01 Cheltenham Business Centre Policy

It is recognised that this policy seeks to reinforce the role of the Cheltenham Business Centre which incorporates the Southland Principal Activity Centre as a focus for regional retailing activities. The basis for this policy has been well established over many years.

22.17 Highett Activity Centre Policy

99 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 It is useful to reflect on some of the objectives for the Highett Neighbourhood Activity Centre including:

‘To revitalise the Activity Centre as an attractive, vibrant and well used ‘Main Street’ and community focal point’.

‘To revitalise the Activity Centre to provide for a wide range of local shopping, business and community services suited to the needs of people living and working the area’.

Council Officers further understand that within the centre a new supermarket is proposed just over the municipal border in the City of Bayside on the corner of Graham and Highett Roads. This outcome was consistent with the planning intentions developed through the structure planning process and the policy content of the Bayside Planning Scheme.

The above local planning policy content regarding the Highett and Cheltenham Business Centres only assist to provide an even more compelling policy argument as to why the proposed retail use should not be advanced well out of either of these Activity Centres. It is apparent that both these policies reinforce that latent potential exists for further retailing activity within these centres and quite clearly any green light to ‘out of centre’ proposal would certainly serve to undermine the explicit localised objectives.

Based on this review of the proposal against State and Local Planning Policy the weight of policy is all one way and as is evident from the earlier outline this Policy actively discourages the approval of the current proposal. As identified at the commencement of this part of the report, if the proposed use operated without a significant retail component, it could well be understood why it would be advanced in an industrial zone. The existence and apparent dominance of the retailing aspects of the use, which the applicant has not sought to modify through the application, tends to give the use an apparently prohibited character or at best a land use which lacks any coherent policy support.

Amenity

Clause 33.01-Industrial 1 Zone

One of the objectives of Clause 32.01 of the Kingston Planning Scheme is:

‘To provide for manufacturing industry, the storage and distribution of goods and associated uses in a manner which does not affect the safety and amenity of local communities'

It is considered that traffic movements associated with the proposed use do not adequately address the safety and amenity issues arising from people who purchase goods from the subject site, and for traders which surround the site. It is noted from observations of the site during peak periods, that traffic moving in and around the site is considered to be dangerous and uncoordinated. Existing conditions on the site pose a danger to parents with their children who appear to shop at the centre for their

100 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 weekly grocery needs. The main area of concern relates to traffic movement along the site's Keys Road frontage. Car parking appears to be line-marked at different angles east and west of the main entry point. Arrows are painted on the ground which direct the traffic to move in a westerly direction exiting the site onto Chesterville Road. Also, on the eastern side of the main entry point to the store as it faces Keys Road, there is another line marked area behind the angular car parking area where people park.

Observation of car parking in these peak periods suggests that people park in the line marked area behind the angular car parking spaces on the eastern side of the main entry point to the Market. This often results in the queuing of traffic at the main entry point from the crossing along the eastern boundary of the site as it faces Keys Road. This creates further difficulty for drivers when they have to reverse out of the angular spaces and there are cars parked behind them in the line marked areas referred to above. This leads to the concern with respect to the conflict between vehicle movements and pedestrian safety in and around the site. It is also noted that there is no separation between customer parking and the loading dock which is located behind the existing buildings as they face Keys Road and Chesterville Road. With respect to the loading dock it is noted that it would be difficult to access some of the car spaces surrounding the loading dock, if a truck was parked at the loading dock.

It is also noted that the plan submitted with the application with respect to the car parking layout does not show all the dimensions of the car parking spaces. It is unclear as to whether all of the car parking spaces comply with the relevant standards relating to car space dimensions and the respective reversing distances.

The plans submitted with the application also include two site plans. One of the plans depicts the existing wholesale market layout, whilst the other plan depicts the proposed wholesale market layout. It is noted that neither of the plans show the existing car park layout as it currently operates. What is even more confusing is that the site plan which shows the proposed wholesale market nominates the existing internal paved drive as two way for vehicle movement along the Keys Road frontage to the site. It would appear unlikely that vehicles could travel in two directions along this internal road facing Keys Road. There are a number of obstacles including the existing shelter and main entry, which would appear to make this impossible.

Car Parking: Clause 52.06

Clause 52.06 of the Scheme does not specify a car parking "rate" with respect to the land use "retail premises". Instead, for this type of use, Clause 52.06 simply requires that an adequate number of car spaces must be provided to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

It is proposed that the entire site (including the Market) be serviced by 86 car spaces. Council Officers have formed the view that this amount is inadequate having regard to:

ƒ the spill-over demand generated by the existing Market;

ƒ the inability of the surrounding road network to safely and efficiently accommodate the excess demand;

101 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 ƒ the difficulties caused by the existing arrangements with respect to vehicles entering and exiting the site in a safe and efficient manner (as identified above);

ƒ the adverse local amenity impacts generated by the current car parking arrangements (including pedestrian amenity).

Advertising Signs: Clause 52.05

Consideration must also be given to the amount of advertising signage that has been installed mostly along the northern elevation of the existing building. Starting from the eastern end of the building, the details of the signs are as follows:

• Sign No.1 has a red delivery truck emblem and the wording ‘Moorabbin Wholesale Farmers Fresh Market’ is 16 m in length and 5.5 m in height (covering an area of 88 square metres).

• Sign No.2 is painted with the wording ‘Moorabbin Wholesale Farmers Fresh Market’ and is 27 m in length by 1.8 m in height (covering an area of 48.6 square metres).

• Sign No.3 is painted with the words ‘Fresh Fruits, Vegetables and Groceries’ and is 37 m in length by 1.8 m in height (covering an area of 66.6 square metres).

• Sign No.4 (which unlike the preceding signs is located on the western elevation of the building) is painted with the wording 'Moorabbin Wholesale Farmers Fresh Market’ and is 8 m in length by 1.8 m in height (covering an area of 14.4 square metres).

The total area of the signage on the building is 217.6 square metres.

It is noted that pursuant to Clause 73 of the Kingston Planning Scheme, if a sign has an area greater than 18 square metres, it falls within the definition of a "Major Promotion Sign". Similarly, if it exceeds 10 square metres, it falls within the definition of a "Panel Sign".

Pursuant to Clause 52.05 of the Kingston Planning Scheme, a planning permit is required for the proposed signage. In this instance, it is considered that the signage is excessive given its size. The proposed signage is totally out of scale with the size and area of the host building. The applicant has indicated that the growth in business is primarily by ‘word of mouth’. The question then needs to be asked why so much signage is required if the majority of business is done in this manner. Should a permit be issued with respect to the use, the amount of signage would be required to be substantially reduced for it to be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

The proposal has also been assessed against the Outdoor Advertising Signage Policy found at Clause 22.15 of the Kingston Planning Scheme. Part of this policy provides guidance concerning the type of signage that is encouraged and discouraged within Industrial and Office Areas. It is considered that the amount of signage proposed is inconsistent with policy.

PART 3 – CHARACTERISATION OF THE USE

Part 2 of this report has assessed the permit application on the basis that the proposed use is in fact a form of "retail premises", which use is defined in the Scheme as:

102 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 Land used to: a) sell goods by retail, or by retail and wholesale; b) sell services; or c) hire goods. As noted at the commencement of this report, however, it remains the permit applicant's stated belief that the proposed use is properly characterised as a "warehouse", which is defined for the purposes of the Scheme as: Land used to store display goods. It may include the distribution and the wholesale selling of the goods. While a permit is required to use the land for the purposes of "retail premises", no permit is required to use the land for the purposes of a "warehouse" within the Industrial 1 zone. It is noted from a Council Officer perspective, however, that neither of these land uses appear to be a proper characterisation of the proposed use. Instead, the view at Officer level is that the site operates as a supermarket, which is properly characterised as a "shop" for the purposes of Clause 74 of the Scheme: Land used to sell goods or services, or to hire goods. It includes a selling of bread, pastries, cakes or other products baked on a premises. It does not include food and drink premises, gambling premises, landscape gardening supplies, manufacturing sales, market, motor vehicle, boat, or caravan sales, postal agency, primary produce sales, or trade supplies. The use of the land for the purposes of a "shop" is prohibited in the Industrial 1 zone.

The applicant has advised that it has implemented a number of measures to ensure that the site is primarily used for the wholesale selling of goods. Having taken all of this into account, Council Officers remain of the view that the use proposed would and does operate like a shop.

In an effort to characterise the use, Council Officers wrote a detailed further information letter to the permit applicant, seeking information relevant to making a determination in this respect. The applicant declined to provide the requested information creating further doubt as to the nature of the proposed use In this instance, the Council must rely on its perceptions from visits to the site given it is understood that the applicant does not seek through this application to substantially change the nature of the Market operations.

A number of visits have been made to the site and it is not apparent from first impressions that the site is predominately used for wholesale activities. Instead, it would appear that the site is being used for a purpose similar to a supermarket or a shop, which is prohibited within the zone.

The proposed use has also been considered in the context of a retail premises and in this instance it is not considered that the proposed use falls within this definition. It is noted that the layout of the site is typical of a supermarket, where there is a high turnover of shoppers appearing to purchase the family groceries for the week which is typically characterised by the purchase of many one-off items.

103 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 Furthermore to the extent that precedent is relevant, Council officers are conscious of the VCAT decision on characterisation given by Deputy President Dwyer in Hall v Kingston City Council [2008] VCAT 1060. It is considered by Council officers that if the approach taken in that case to characterisation is applied to this proposal, the use would and should be treated as 'shop' and hence be prohibited, consistent with the impressions independently reached by Council officers.

CONCLUSION

The proposed use has been considered on the limited information that has been provided by the applicant. A number of inspections of the site would indicate that the use has the appearance of a shop which is prohibited in the zone. It is understood that the application for a retail premises does not seek to materially change the manner in which the use is presently operating. Council has been hampered in characterising the use in the absence of the further information that was requested. It is considered that the application should not be supported as it appears to be prohibited.

Should Council instead be of the mind to consider the proposal on the basis that it is properly characterised as a form of ‘retail premises’, it is considered that a compelling policy basis exists to oppose the application, given it is entirely inconsistent with State and Local Policy both in relation to its ‘non’ Activity Centre’ status and what is intended for the use of industrially zoned land across the municipality. The fact that no planning policy basis for the use of the land as a retail premises has been made by the permit applicant as part of the planning application only reinforces why the application should be opposed. Council needs to carefully consider the implications of supporting such a proposal given that it fundamentally undermines Council's strategic vision for activity centres within the municipality and is otherwise inconsistent with approaches to enforcing the Kingston Planning Scheme in other locations.

In addition the proposal, for the reasons earlier given, suffers from amenity impacts of a detrimental kind.

Although Council Officers contend that the application should be refused on the grounds identified below, a list of planning permit conditions has been provided should Council wish to grant a planning permit to allow a retail premises use.

RECOMMENDATION:

That a Notice of Refusal to Grant a Permit be issued to use the existing building for the purpose of a retail premises for the wholesale selling of goods and to display advertising signs for the following reasons

1. The proposed use of the land is properly characterised as a "shop" and as such is a prohibited use in the Industrial 1 zone.

2. If, contrary to ground 1, the proposed use is properly characterised as a "retail premises" it should be refused for the following reasons:

a. the proposal is inconsistent with and contrary to State and Local Planning Policy.

104 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

b. the proposal will have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the area with respect to: (i) traffic movement in and around the site. (ii)inadequate separation of the movement of traffic and the patrons of the premises. (iii)increased vehicular movements which will cause traffic congestion in the nearby streets.

c. the proposal is inconsistent with the purposes of the zone

d. inadequate provision has been made for off-street car parking to cope with the demands of the proposal.

e. the advertisement area for the proposed signage is excessive having regard to the advertisement area of signs in the area and is therefore inconsistent with the relevant Decision Guidelines.

f. the proposed signage is not consistent with the Outdoor Advertising Signage Policy.

______

In the event the Council wishes to support the application it can do so subject to the following permit conditions:

Permit Conditions

1) Before the development and/or use starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be substantially in accordance with the plans submitted to Council on 7th November, 2008 but modified to show:-

i) an amended car parking layout in accordance with the recommendation of an updated traffic report and in accordance with the requirements of Council’s Traffic Engineer ii) a modified signage proposal more in scale with the building occupying the use.

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

3. Before occupation of the development hereby permitted, areas set aside for parking vehicles, access lanes and paths as shown on the endorsed plans must be:

i) Constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. ii) Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans.

105 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 iii) Surfaced as shown of the endorsed plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. iv) Drained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. v) Line-marked to indicate each car space, all access lanes and, if necessary, the direction in which vehicles are to travel to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. vi) Signposted to indicate entrances/ exits. vi) In accordance with any Council adopted guidelines for the construction of car parks.

Parking areas and access lanes must be kept available for these purposes at all times and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

4. Any existing vehicular crossing not in accordance with the endorsed plan must be removed and the kerb reinstated in a manner satisfactory to the Responsible Authority and any proposed vehicular crossing must be fully constructed to the Responsible Authority’s standard specification.

5. In areas set aside for car parking, measures must be taken to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to prevent damage to fences or landscaped areas.

6. Vehicles under the control of the operator of the use or the operator’s staff must not be parked on the nearby roads.

7. The loading and unloading of goods to and from vehicles must only be carried out on the land.

8. The areas designated on the endorsed plan for the purpose of loading and unloading of goods from vehicles, and for waste disposal, must be made available for such use and must not be used for any other purpose.

9. The use must operate only between the hours of: Wednesday to Saturday 8.00am to 5.00pm.

10. The amenity of the area must not be detrimentally affected by the development and/or use, through the:

i) Transport of materials, goods or commodities to or from the land. ii) Appearance of any building, works or materials. iii) Emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or oil. iv) Presence of vermin. v) Any other way.

11. Outdoor lighting must be provided, designed, baffled and located to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to prevent any adverse effect on neighbouring land.

12. No security alarm or amplified noise must be audible at the boundary of the premises.

106 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 13. No goods or packaging materials must be stored or left exposed outside the building so as to be visible to the public from a road or other public place.

14. The location and details of the sign(s) shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

15. All signs must be located wholly within the boundary of the land

16. All signs must be constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

17. This permit (or part of the permit that relates to advertising signs) expires within 15 years from the date of the permit issue

18. Once the use has started it must be continued to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

i) The development and/or use is/are not started within one (1) year of the date of this permit. ii) The development is not completed within two (2) years of the date of commencement of construction. The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or within three months afterwards.

Note: Prior to the commencement of the development or use you are required to obtain the necessary Building Permit.

Note: Unless no permit is required under the Kingston Planning Scheme, advertising signs must not be displayed without a further planning permit.

107 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

L 100 KP110/06 Chicquita Park (Secondary Consent Application)

APPLICANT: Aurecon Australia Pty Ltd ADDRESS OF LAND: No. 20 Levanto Street, Mentone (Lot 1 on Plan of Subdivision 315709V and Certificate of Title Volume 10087 Folio 347); known “Chiquita Park.” MELWAY REF: 87 C5 PROPOSAL To amend Planning Permit KP110/06-A (endorsed plans), which allows for the development of the site for the construction of fifty-six (56) dwellings, the construction of buildings and works associated with the existing place of assembly (Scout Hall) and the removal of native vegetation, pursuant to Clause 52.17 of the Kingston Planning Scheme, by making minor changes to the built form of the approved dwellings. CONTACT OFFICER: Angela Hughes FILE NO: KP110/06 ZONING/OVERLAYS: Residential 3 Zone; Development Plan Overlay, Schedule 3 CONSIDERED PLAN 15th May 2009 REFERENCES/DATE RECEIVED

MAIN ISSUES RELATING TO THIS APPLICATION:

- The impact of the changes on the approved development of the site

EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is former Department of Defence land located on the east side of Levanto Street in Mentone, in close proximity to the south-east corner of Levanto Street and Savona Street.

The site benefits from Planning Permit KP110/06 which was granted by the City of Kingston on 3rd July 2006 and allows the development of the site for the construction of fifty-six (56) dwellings, the construction of buildings and works associated with the existing place of assembly (Scout Hall) and the removal of native vegetation, pursuant to Clause 52.17 of the Kingston Planning Scheme. This planning permit was amended on 10th July 2006 to delete Condition 1(u) relating to the building envelope of the scout hall, to be retained on the site.

The site has been has been recently developed in general accordance with Planning Permit KP110/06-4. The development is nearing completion, although it noted that some landscape works are outstanding.

PROPOSAL IN DETAIL: It is proposed to amend the plans endorsed under planning permit KP110/06-A, under secondary consent provision, to provide for the following changes:

Lot Number/s Proposed Changes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and • Changes to north, east and western elevations to reflect internal 10 floor changes;

108 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 • Changes to windows on the west elevation to reflect internal floor changes; and • Changes to materials and colours 11, 12, 13 and 14 • Changes to north, east and western elevations to reflect internal floor changes; • Changes to windows on the west elevation to reflect internal floor changes; and • Changes to materials and colours • Changes to fencing material (timber slats) to comply with elevations; • Canopy revised 15 • West facing canopies omitted • First floor wall finished in painted/rendered finish (east elevation) and brickwork (north elevation) 16 • Modifications to building envelope of dwelling and consequential changes to the internal floor layout and size of balcony; • Changes to materials and colours • Changes to detailing of elevations 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 • Modification and deletion of canopies • Change to materials and colours • Change to detailing of elevations 22, 23, 24 and 26 • Deletion of canopies; • Changes to east elevation in relation to location of windows; • Changes to east and west elevation to reflect internal floor changes; and • Change to materials. 25 • Changes to east, west and south elevation to reflect internal floor changes, including changes to window locations; • Change to materials; and • Gate added to fence on southern elevation 27 • Changes to fencing (including the introduction of a gate and additions to fencing), materials and articulation; • Changes to materials and colours • Changes to elevations and window location to reflect changes to internal floor layout; and • Introduction of a canopy over front door. 28 • Changes to materials and colours (balustrade and garage); • Canopy revised; and • Additional of a timber slat gate. 29, 30, and 31 • Changes to materials and colours (including to boundary fence); • Entryway revised; and • Party wall articulation revised. 32 • Changes to materials and colours (including to boundary fence); • Entryway revised;

109 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 • Party wall articulation revised; and • Changes to elevations and window locations to reflect changes to internal floor layout. 33 and 34 • Reduction in the size of the building envelope by removing the second storey and re-designing the roof. • Changes to elevations and window locations to reflect changes to internal floor layout; • Changes to materials and colours; and • Addition of a canopy to front door. 35, 36, 37, 38 • Change to elevations to reflect changes (including deletion) of windows and extension to boundary wall; • Changes to materials and colours, including boundary fences and balustrades; and • Entryway revised to reflect changes to internal floor layout. 39 and 40 • Changes to materials and colours, including boundary fences and balustrades; • Post position revised; and • Revision to first floor canopies; 41 • Changes to materials and colours, including boundary fences, gates and balustrades; • Post position revised; and • Revision to first floor canopies. 42, 43 and 44 • Changes to materials and colours, including boundary fences, gates and balustrades; • Post position revised; • Revision to first floor canopies; and • Mailbox amended to suit elevation changes. 45 and 46 • Changes to materials and colours, including boundary fences, gates and balustrades; • Changes to elevations to reflect changes to internal floor layout; • Post position revised; • Revision to first floor canopies; and • Front entry and front fencing revised. 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, • Front entry and front fencing revised; 53, 54, 55 and 56 • Changes to elevations to reflect changes to internal floor layout; window locations and alterations to balustrades; and • Changes to materials. These changes have been requested to ensure that the endorsed plans reflect the development that has commenced on site.

ADVERTISING: Under the Development Plan Overlay, where a Planning Permit is generally in accordance with an approved Development Plan, there is no requirement to give notice of an amendment to a planning permit. Therefore this request was not advertised.

ASSESSMENT:

110 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 Condition 3 of Planning Permit KP110/06-A states:

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

Therefore, this condition allows the Developer to apply to Council (as the Responsible Authority) to amend the plans endorsed under this Planning Permit.

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) have established a series of ‘tests’ to be applied when considering an application for ‘secondary consent’ to a planning permit on various occasions, including at Westpoint Corporation PL v Moreland CC [2005]). These tests are listed below and will be used to assess whether this secondary consent application is appropriate:

1. It [proposed amendment] does not result in a transformation of the proposal. 2. It [proposed amendment] does not authorise something for which primary consent is required under the planning scheme. 3. It [proposed amendment] is of no consequence having regard to the purpose of the planning control under which the permit was granted. 4 It [proposed amendment] is not contrary to a specific requirement (or condition of the permit) as distinct from an authorisation within the permit, which itself cannot be altered by consent.

Each of these tests is assessed below: It [proposed amendment] does not result in a transformation of the proposal.

It is not considered that this application will result in a transformation of the development approved under Planning Permit KP110/06-A. The proposed changes constitute minor, cosmetic alterations which will have no bearing on the number of dwellings approved or the general form and development of the site. It is considered that the application is consistent with this test. It [proposed amendment] does not authorise something for which primary consent is required under the planning scheme.

As above, the application comprises minor, cosmetic changes to each of the fifty-six (56) dwellings to be constructed. These changes are generally consistent with Planning Permit KP110/06-A and would not warrant primary consent on their own. It is therefore considered that the application is consistent with this test. It [proposed amendment] is of no consequence having regard to the purpose of the planning control under which the permit was granted.

It is considered that the proposed changes are inconsequential to the overall development of the site. The proposed development is, and remains, generally consistent with the purpose and objectives of the Residential 3 Zone and the Development Plan Overlay, particularly Schedule 3. It is therefore considered that the application is consistent with this test. It [proposed amendment] is not contrary to a specific requirement (or condition of the permit) as distinct from an authorisation within the permit, which itself cannot be altered by consent.

111 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 The proposed changes have been requested voluntarily by the developer. The changes are not contrary to any provisions contained within the Planning Permit; rather the changes are already generally consistent with the form of the development approved in the endorsed plans. It is considered that the proposed changes will have a negligible impact on the overall development of the site and that there, the application is consistent with this test.

CONCLUSION: It is considered that the proposed changes are of a minor nature and will have a negligible impact on the form, bulk, mass and scale of the development approved under Planning Permit KP110/06-A.

RECOMMENDATION: That Council resolve to: (a) Approve the application for secondary consent to Planning Permit KP110/06-A; and, (b) Delegate authority to the Manager of Planning to endorse the plans submitted on 16th May 2009 and advise the Applicant of approval of this application accordingly.

112 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

L 101 KP1158/08: 48 Blantyre Avenue, Chelsea

APPLICANT: Gardencity Consultants Pty Ltd ADDRESS OF LAND: No. 48 (Land in Plan of Consolidation 164898F) Blantyre Avenue, Chelsea Melway Ref: 97C1 PROPOSAL Three (3) Dwellings CONTACT OFFICER: Tess Johnson FILE NO: KP1158/08 ZONING: Clause 32.06 – Residential 3 Zone OVERLAY(S): Not applicable KINGSTON State Planning Policy Framework PLANNING SCHEME Clause 12: Metropolitan Development ORDINANCE Clause 14: Settlement CONTROLS: Clause 16.02: Housing – Medium Density Housing

Local Planning Policy Framework Clause 21.05 MSS – Residential Land Use Clause 22.11: Residential Development Policy Clause 32.06: Residential 3 Zone & Schedule

Particular Provisions Clause 55: Two or More Dwellings on a Lot & Residential Buildings

General Provisions Clause 65: Decision Guidelines RESIDENTIAL Incremental Change POLICY AREA: NEIGHBOURHOOD Area 74 CHARACTER AREA: DECISION BY: 13 July, 2009 STATUTORY DAYS: 35 days @ 18 June, 2009

1.0 KEY ISSUES RELATING TO THIS APPLICATION

- Residential Policy - Private Open Space - Overlooking - Front setback - Landscaping

113 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT TABLE

Criteria ResCode Requirement Proposed Development Provision Private Schedule to the Residential 3 Zone: All does not fully comply. Open Space 40m2, located to the side / rear of the dwelling, achieving a minimum dimension The provision of open space to Dwelling of 5 metres 3 does not fully comply with ResCode. for a 2 bedroom dwelling with convenient This will be discussed later in the report. access from a living room. An additional 20m2 is required for each additional bedroom, which achieves a minimum dimension of 3 metres. Car Parking Two (2) car parking spaces for each three Complies. (3) or more bedroom dwelling, with one (1) space under cover Front The average distance of the setbacks of the Does not fully comply. This will be Setback front walls of the existing buildings on the discussed later in the report. abutting allotments facing the front street or 9 metres, whichever is the lesser.

Site Maximum 50% - as per Schedule to the Complies. Coverage Residential 3 Zone

2.0 PROPOSAL

2.1 It is proposed to demolish the existing dwelling and outbuildings on the land and construct three (3) double storey dwellings on this site.

2.2 Development summary:

Dwelling Floor Area Private Open Space No. of No. of Car (excluding Bedrooms Parking Spaces garage / proposed provided verandah) 1 166.2m² 111.56m² (including Three (3) Two (2) 40.66m2 of secluded private undercover open space) spaces within a double garage and the opportunity for one (1) tandem space in front 2 147.3m² 60.36m² of secluded private Three (3) Two (2); one in open space) a single garage and one uncovered space. 3 134.24m² 89.23m² of secluded private Three (3) Two (2); one in

114 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 open space) a single garage and one uncovered space.

2.3 The proposal has an overall site coverage 40% which represents a total building area of 363.41m2 and a permeability cover of 40% which represents a total permeability cover of 361.58m2.

The proposed building materials, colours and finishes are summarised in the table below:

Roof: Concrete tiled roofing with 22.5 degree pitch Walls: Face brickwork at ground floor with weatherboard finish at first floor (colours not specified) Garage doors Selected panel doors Windows: Not specified Driveways: Coloured concrete (colour not specified) Front fencing: 1.0 metre high, details not specified Boundary fences: 1.8 metres high paling fences to both sides and rear property boundaries

3.0 SITE & SURROUNDS

3.1 The subject site comprises a 908m2 allotment on the south-east side of Blantyre Avenue, Chelsea. The land is typically flat and currently contains a single storey, cream brick veneer dwelling, with a pitched tiled roof and a single brick garage located behind the dwelling, on its north-western property boundary (side). There is no existing front fence across the site’s frontage, nor does the site contain any significant vegetation. The site is encumbered by a 3.05 metre wide easement along the rear property boundary. There appears to be no restrictions listed on the Certificate of Title.

3.2 Vehicle access to the site is currently via a single width crossover located on the west side of the site’s Blantyre Avenue frontage.

3.3 A mature street tree and power pole are located on the nature strip in front of the site.

3.4 The site is located within an established residential area. Development on land surrounding the site generally comprises of single storey, brick and weatherboard dwellings, with hip / gabled roofs. Dwellings are sited with generous side setbacks, creating a regular rhythm to the streetscape. There is no predominant fencing style in the neighbourhood.

3.5 There are a number of emerging examples of multi dwelling developments within the immediate area including the following examples;

• a two (2) dwelling development at No. 50 Blantyre Road, Chelsea, comprising of two (2) double storey dwellings (Dwelling 2 is yet to be constructed), immediately adjoining the subject site to the east. Planning Permit No. KP955/07.

115 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 • a two (2) dwelling development at No. 46 Blantyre Road, Chelsea, comprising the construction of two (2) single storey dwellings fronting Drinan Road, immediately adjoining the subject site to the west. Planning Permit No. C8404659 (Approved January 1984).

• a three (3) dwelling development at No 45 Blantyre Road, Chelsea, corner of Blantyre Avenue and Drinan Road, comprising two (2) single storey dwellings fronting Drinan Road and one (1) double storey dwelling fronting Blantyre Avenue, diagonally opposite the subject site. Planning Permit No. KP510/05/A.

• Two (2) dwelling development at No. 38 Blantyre Avenue, Chelsea. Comprising two (2) single storey dwellings. Reference No. KP859/04.

• Two (2) dwelling development at No. 62 Blantyre Avenue, Chelsea. Comprising two (2) single storey dwellings. Reference No. KP738/01.

• Three (3) dwelling development at No. 21 Sherwood Avenue, Chelsea. Comprising three (3) single storey dwellings, located approximately 180 metres to the south-east of the subject site. Reference No. KP51/03.

The site is within close proximity of local services, facilities and recreational areas, and is within approximately 450 metres (as the crow flies) of the Chelsea Railway Station and Chelsea Activity Centre which includes local shops and a Safeway supermarket.

4.0 TITLE DETAILS

4.1 The Permit Applicant has completed the planning application form declaring that there is no restrictive covenant on the title.

5.0 PLANNING CONTROLS

5.1 The subject site is located within a Residential 3 Zone.

6.0 PLANNING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS

6.1 Pursuant to Clause 32.06, a planning permit is required to construct two (2) or more dwellings on a lot.

7.0 RELEVANT HISTORY

7.1 There is no relevant planning history relating to this site.

8.0 ADVERTISING

8.1 The proposal was advertised by sending notices to adjoining and opposite property owners and occupiers and by maintaining a notice on site for fourteen (14) days. Six (6) objections to the proposal were received. The valid grounds of objection raised can be summarised as follows:

• Loss of privacy

116 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 • Noise related issues

• Proposed vegetation

• Neighbourhood character

• Overlooking

• Overshadowing

• Visual Bulk

8.2 The following objections raised are not valid planning considerations:

• Precedent being set in the neighbourhood

• Boundary fencing issues

9.0 PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE

9.1 A preliminary conference was held on 11 June, 2009 with the relevant Planning Officer, a South Ward Councillor, the Permit Applicant and four (4) objectors in attendance. The above-mentioned issues were discussed at length.

9.2 Some of the above concerns were resolved at the conference, as follows;

ƒ The objector of Unit 5 / 57 Catherine Avenue, Chelsea, to the rear of the subject site, requested that a trellis fence extension be attached to the existing rear boundary fence to afford additional screening between the kitchen window of Dwelling 3 and the objector’s rear habitable bedroom. The applicant agreed to provide lattice fence extension from the north eastern (rear) corner of the site for a length of 7.5 metres (up to this window).

For completeness, Council considers that the lattice fence extension should continue along the full length of this boundary.

In addition to the above, the development plans show indicative landscaping for the site and denotes a medium / large sized tree within the rear private open space area of Dwelling 3. The canopy of this tree is shown as overhanging onto the objector’s property and dwelling. The applicant has agreed that a suitable species would be selected which would not encroach onto this property, and in particular does not drop leaf foliage onto the roof / gutters of this dwelling.

ƒ The objector of No. 50A Blantyre Avenue, Chelsea, to the north (side) of the subject site, requested that the first floor window of bedroom 2 of Dwelling 2 be deleted to ensure there is no overlooking into their property. There was discussion during the preliminary conference from the Planning Officer about screening this window as an alternative and how features such as windows break up the perception of visual bulk. However, the objector was not concerned with the visual appearance of the development with regards to this particular issue (overlooking) and the applicant agreed to delete this window.

117 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

Although the issues were resovled, no objections have been withdrawn.

10.0 REFERRALS

10.1 The following internal and/or external referral departments were notified:

• Council’s Development Engineer • Council’s Vegetation Management Officer

10.2 The above-mentioned referral authorities had no objection to the proposal, subject to specific conditions being included on any permit issued.

11.0 RELEVANT POLICIES

11.1 State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF)

Clause 12 (Metropolitan Development) Clause 14 (Settlement) Clause 16 (Housing) Clause 19 (Particular Uses and Development)

11.2 Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF)

Clause 21.05 (Residential Land Use) Clause 22.11 (Residential Development Policy)

11.3 Particular Provisions

Clause 55 (Two or More Dwellings on a Lot & Residential Buildings) Refer to Appendix A for the Planning Officer’s full assessment against this Clause.

11.4 General Provisions

Clause 65 (Decision Guidelines)

11.5 Other

11.6 Neighbourhood Character Area Guidelines (Incorporated Document)

11.7 The land is located within Area 74 of the Neighbourhood Character Guidelines. The proposal is generally in accordance with the applicable character profile. Any areas of non-compliance are discussed in the following sections of this report.

12.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

12.1 It is considered that the proposed development generally complies and satisfies the State and Local Planning Policy Framework guidelines which aim to encourage well- designed medium density housing in appropriate locations.

118 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

Clause 22.11 of the Kingston Planning Scheme encourages single dwellings or dual occupancy style developments on ‘average sized lots’ within areas designated for Incremental Housing Change. Council’s Strategic Planning Department undertook a study across the municipality in 2003 to identify any emerging patterns with regard to average lot sizes. As such, six (6) areas were identified within the municipality, each having their own ‘average lot size’ calculation.

The subject site is identified within Area 6 of this study. The average lot size within this area has been calculated to be 578.1m2, which results in a suggested development density of 1 dwelling per 289.05m2. The subject site has a total site area of 908m2, which would result in a dwelling density of 1 dwelling per 302.6m2 and, therefore, the proposal meets this strategy.

12.2 Local Planning Policy Framework

12.2.1 Clause 21.05 - Residential Land use

Incremental Housing Change Area

The type of housing change anticipated in these areas will take the form of extensions to existing houses, new single dwellings or the equivalent of new two dwelling developments on average sized lots. The existing single dwelling character of these areas is to be retained.

The objectives of the Municipal Strategic Statement (as relevant to this application) include:

• Objective 1: To provide a wide range of housing types across the municipality to increase housing diversity and cater for the changing needs of current and future populations, taking account of the differential capacity of local areas in Kingston to accommodate different types and rates of housing change. • Objective 2: To ensure new residential development respects neighbourhood character and is site responsive, and that medium density dwellings are of the highest design quality. • Objective 3: To preserve and enhance well landscaped/vegetated environments and protect identified significant vegetation. • Objective 4: To promote more environmentally sustainable forms of residential development. • Objective 5: To manage the interface between residential development and adjoining or nearby sensitive/strategic land uses. • Objective 6: To ensure residential development does not exceed known physical infrastructure capacities.

Relevant strategies to achieve these objectives (as relevant to this application) include:

119 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 • Promote lower density housing in established suburban areas that do not have direct access to activity/transport nodes and “encourage” only incremental change in housing density (incremental housing change areas). Such areas will retain their predominantly single dwelling character and incremental change will occur in the form of single dwellings or the equivalent of dual occupancy developments on average sized lots. • Promote new residential development which is of a high standard, responds to the local context and positively contributes to the character and identity of the local neighbourhood. • Promote new residential development which provides a high standard of amenity and quality of life for future occupants. • Encourage the retention of existing vegetation wherever possible. • Improve landscape character by accommodating appropriate landscaping within new residential developments. • Ensure that the planning, design, siting and construction of new residential development responds to best practice environmental design guidelines for energy efficiency, wast and recycling, and stormwater management. • Promote medium density housing development in close proximity to public transport facilities, particularly train stations. • Ensure the siting and design of new residential development sensitively responds to interfaces with environmentally sensitive areas, including the foreshore. • Ensure that where medium and higher density residential areas are proposed adjacent to lower density residential areas, the design of such development takes proper account of its potential amenity impacts. • Ensure that the siting and design of new residential development is consistent with Urban Stormwater Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines and that new development contributes to the maintenance and upgrade of local drainage infrastructure as required, where such new development will impact on the capacity of such infrastructure. • Require the provision of car parking to satisfy the anticipated demand having regard to average car ownership levels in the area, the environmental capacity of the local street network and the proximity of public transport and nearby on and off street car parking. • Ensure that all new medium density housing provides adequate private open space that is appropriately landscaped.

It is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the relevant objectives of Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement as outlined above. The proposal creates an adequate standard of amenity for the future occupants of each dwelling, as well as for occupants of existing dwellings in the immediate area. It is considered that the development will have minimal impact on the existing streetscape character, and the broader local neighbourhood character.

12.2.2 Clause 22.11 - Residential Development Policy

120 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 The proposal has been assessed against the objectives and policy of the Residential Development Policy.

The significant issue with regards to this application is whether three (3) double storey dwellings are appropriate on this site, which is designated for Incremental Housing Change and zoned Residential 3. In determining whether this development is suitable in this location, an assessment against Council’s Residential Development Policy should be considered, as follows;

The Residential Development Policy identifies a number of policy objectives which relate to;

• Neighbourhood Character

• Site landscaping

• Built form, siting and scale of development

• Car parking and vehicle access

• Stormwater run-off mitigation and quality management

• Heritage features.

Each of these will be discussed in relation to the proposed development, as follows;

Neighbourhood Character

Objectives relevant to this application include;

• Apply the Kingston Neighbourhood Character Guidelines – August 2007 in consideration and assessment of local neighbourhood character in Kingston.

• Ensure that new development is responsive to the character elements identified in the Kingston Neighbourhood Character Guidelines – August 2007, particularly those identified as making a major or critical contribution to neighbourhood character.

• Encourage all new residential development to respond positively and creatively to neighbourhood character. Unless a preferred neighbourhood character is specified, the existing character is that which is to be considered.

• In areas where building placement makes a major contribution to neighbourhood character, design new developments to reinforce the established rhythm of buildings in the street and retain the existing single dwelling character of the streetscape.

• Design duplex and side-by-side development to have a visual interconnection with the street rather than presenting merely as garages and front doors only. Staggered front building lines and variation in designs and materials should be used to avoid poor urban design impact upon streetscapes.

The site is located within Area 74 of the Neighbourhood Character Guidelines. There are four (4) typical characteristics within this profile that are considered to make a major contribution to the neighbourhood character. These include varied building

121 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 footprints, white weatherboard walls and tiled roofs of various colours, varied window shapes, use of porches / verandah’s and low front fencing and landscaping.

It is considered that the style, design and siting of the dwellings are sympathetic with the above major character elements. All dwellings would have pitched, tiled rooves and light coloured weatherboard incorporated at the upper level. A 1.0 metre high front fence is proposed across the site’s frontage, and there would be adequate space within the front setback to provide landscaping and to incorporate trees with spreading crowns. An entry porch is proposed along the front facade of each dwelling with varied window types.

The proposed building footprints are varied and consistent with the building footprint of the adjoining properties and that of the surrounding neighbourhood. All of the properties that abut the site have been developed for multi units and therefore the building footprints are diverse. The proposed development has been designed to abut / be consistent with the built form off the abutting dwellings i.e. the built form of Dwellings 1 and 2 is predominantly in-line with the built form of No. 50A Blantyre Avenue to the north and in-line with the adjoining dwelling and rear shed of No. 46 Blantyre Avenue and Dwelling 3 is in-line with the proposed double storey dwelling at No. 50B Blantyre Avenue and single storey dwelling No. 23 Drinan Road.

The proposed development satisfies the typical and major characteristics identified within the guidelines and provides a modern style development that is sympathetic to the existing neighbourhood character of the area.

Site Landscaping

Objectives relevant to this application include;

• Encourage the retention of existing semi-mature and mature canopy trees wherever possible.

• Unless significant existing vegetation is to be incorporated as part of a redevelopment, encourage the planting of semi-mature canopy trees with spreading crowns in front setbacks and open space areas, with at least one semi-mature tree with a spreading canopy provided in the front setback area.

The development plans were referred to Council’s Vegetation Management Officer’s who advised of no objection to the proposal, subject to the inclusion of suitable conditions requiring a landscaping plan be submitted.

The proposal has a relatively low site coverage of 40% and the proposed setbacks will allow for landscaping within the front, side and rear setbacks, of the site, including the provision of spreading canopy trees.

122 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

Built form, siting and scale of development

Objectives relevant to this application include;

• Encourage the two storey component of new medium density housing to be located towards the front of a site.

• Ensure that two storey dwellings are designed to respond to the character of the local neighbourhood. Where the local neighbourhood is characterised by single storey development and this characteristic makes a major or critical contribution to neighbourhood character, new two storey development should incorporate rooms within the roof form of attic style dwellings, and should set the second storey building envelope back from the ground level envelope.

• Ensure that any upper storey components towards the rear of sites are sensitively designed to avoid unreasonable adverse amenity impacts on neighbours.

• Encourage well articulated and graduated elevations in order to avoid 'box-like' double storey designs, thus reducing visual bulk.

• Ensure that the siting of new buildings respects the amenity of adjoining neighbours with regard to rear yards and garden outlooks from habitable living room windows.

• Ensure that the design and layout of new dwellings incorporate features which minimise overlooking of adjacent properties.

• Address potential overlooking through site layout planning as well as individual dwelling planning.

The proposed three (3) double storey dwellings are an appropriate design response on this site and have been sensitively designed and sited to avoid any adverse amenity impacts on the adjoining properties and the streetscape.

The first floor components of each dwelling are well set in from the corresponding ground floor and provide well articulated and modulated elevations. First floor windows have been appropriately screened to avoid any overlooking, with the exception to the Bedroom 2 window of Dwellings 2 and 3, which can be addressed via conditions of any permit issued.

When determining if the size of a first floor area is appropriate in context with the adjoining properties, it is important to consider any sensitive areas that may abut the site i.e. areas of secluded private open space or habitable room windows, to ensure that the neighbouring properties are not unduly affected by overlooking, overshadowing and visual bulk.

The subject site abuts common driveways (in part) to the north and south, and the amenities side of dwellings to the west and south (in part). As previously stated, all abutting properties have been developed for multi dwellings, and in particular No. 50 Blantyre Road is developed for two (2) double storey dwellings, which are of a large scale (dwelling 2 yet to be constructed).

123 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 The dwellings provide generous first floor setbacks from property boundaries ranging from 2.6 metres to 9.4 metres. Based on the proposed wall heights of approximately 5.7 metres, the required setback is 1.63 metres.

The height and scale of the development is consistent with the adjoining dwelling to the north and there is good separation provided between the dwellings at first floor level to distinguish each dwelling and reduce the perception of building bulk and mass.

Car parking and vehicle access

Objectives relevant to this application include;

• Ensure that adequate on-site car parking is provided to meet the needs of future residents and visitors and sited to reduce its impact on the streetscape. Performance measures;

o Locating garages or carports at the rear of dwellings fronting a street wherever possible.

o Ensuring that where garages are located in the street elevation, they are set back a greater distance than the front wall of the building.

o Ensuring that garages and carports are sited so that a tandem car parking space can be provided in front of the garage or carport.

o Incorporating garages and carports within the main roof line of the dwelling.

The development satisfies the above objective as each dwelling is provided with a minimum of two (2) car parking spaces, with one undercover. The garage of Dwelling 1 is set back from the main façade and provides for an additional third car parking space in tandem. The turning circle within the common driveway allows for vehicles to enter and exit the site in a forwards direction and the garage of Dwelling 1 is incorporated within the main roof line of the dwelling.

Stormwater run-off mitigation and quality management

Objectives relevant to this application include;

• Ensure that new residential development limits the impact of increased stormwater run-off on drainage systems.

The development plans were referred to Council’s Development Engineer who advised of no objection to the proposal subject to the inclusion of suitable conditions.

Heritage features.

Not applicable to this application.

124 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 It is considered that the proposal satisfactorily meets these requirements of Clause 22.11 and is a site responsive design.

13.0 RESCODE ASSESSMENT

The proposal has been assessed against the objectives and standards of Clause 55 (ResCode) of the Kingston Planning Scheme. It is considered that the proposal satisfactorily meets the requirements of ResCode. There are however some areas of non-compliance which are as follows:

Clause 55.03 - Site Layout and Building Massing

Standard B6 Street Setback - in accordance with requirements under this standard Dwelling 1 should have a minimum setback of 7.89 metres, based on the average of the adjoining properties front setbacks. The proposal incorporates varied and transitional setbacks that range from 6.5 metres for the living room of Dwelling 1, to 7.9 metres for the garage of Dwelling 1.

It is considered that the current rhythm and spacing of dwellings within the streetscape is maintained and that the proposed front setback provides a reasonable transition between the adjoining properties which are set back 6.5 metres at No. 46 Blantyre Avenue and 9.3 metres at No. 50A Blantyre Avenue.

Having regard to the layout of the proposed dwellings and the street configuration, it is considered that the proposal respects the neighbourhood character, and is considered appropriate.

Clause 55.04 - Amenity Impacts

Standard B22 Overlooking – there is the potential for overlooking from the first floor window of bedroom 2 of Dwellings 2 and 3. It is considered that these windows should be screened in accordance with the requirements of Clause 54.04-6 of the Kingston Planning Scheme. This matter can be address via a suitable conditions being placed on any permit issued.

Standard B23 Internal Views – external screening should be provided to the first floor rumpus and bedroom 2 window of Dwelling 2 to ensure there is no internal views into the secluded private open space of Dwelling 1. This matter can be addressed via a suitable condition being placed on any permit issued.

Clause 55.05 - On-Site Amenity and Facilities

Standard B28 Private Open Space – in accordance with the Schedule to the Residential 3 Zone, a minimum area of 40 square metres is required to be provided at the side or rear of a dwelling, with a minimum dimension of 5 metres at ground level. Where a dwelling has more than 2 bedrooms, an additional ground level open space area of 20 square metres with a minimum width of 3 metres is required to be provided for each additional bedroom (to a maximum of 80m2). The area of private open space for Dwelling 3 fails to meet these requirements as it provides an area of 39.6m2 of the required 40m2 with a minimum

125 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 dimension of 5 metres, and this parcel is not accessible from a living room. The shortfall of 0.4m2 is considered negligible in this instance as the dwelling provides a total secluded private open space area of 89.23m2, which is well in excess of the required 60m2. The location of the open space is appropriate in this instance and will maximise solar access. An additional area of open space is accessible from the living room with a minimum dimension of 3.64 metres which is considered acceptable in this instance. The private open space areas of this dwelling are connected to one another and should provide for reasonable areas of recreation for future occupants of the dwelling.

14.0 RESPONSE AGAINST GROUNDS OF OBJECTIONS

14.1 Noise related issues

The objector adjoining the subject site to the north at No. 50 Blantyre Avenue has raised concerns regarding the potential noise impacts of the vehicles parking in the tandem car parking spaces of Dwellings 2 and 3. Having regard to the location of the proposed driveway and turning circle of the double storey dwelling at No. 50B Blantyre Avenue, it is not considered that there are any sensitive areas which abut this section of the site. Further, the proposed dwelling at No. 50 B Blantyre Avenue would be set back between 6 – 9.5 metres from the common property boundary with the subject site.

It should be noted that the applicant offered to halve the costs associated in erecting an acoustic fence to address the concerns of the objector, however, the objector did not agree to this.

The objector adjoining the subject site to the south at No. 23 Drinan Road has raised concerns regarding the potential noise impacts of the vehicles manoeuvring within the turning circle of the site and the impacts to the amenity of the habitable room window facing the site.

It is not considered that the level of noise generated by the vehicles should significantly compromise the amenity of this habitable room.

14.2 Proposed vegetation . As discussed above at point 9.2 of this report the objector of Unit 5 / 47 Catherine Avenue, and the applicant have come to an agreement for a suitable species to be selected for the proposed spreading canopy tree within the rear private open space area of Dwelling 3, so as to not encroach onto this property or drop leaf foliage onto the roof / gutters of this dwelling.

14.3 Neighbourhood character

Concern has been raised regarding the construction of three, new, double-storey dwellings on this site. Specifically, the objectors believe that the construction of three double-storey dwellings in this area would be contrary to neighbourhood character.

126 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 As previously discussed within this report, Council officers believe that the siting and design of the proposed dwellings is site responsive and should be sympathetic to existing residential development of the area.

As previously outlined within this report, there are a number of existing multi dwelling residential developments / dwellings located within close proximity to the subject site that are of varying styles and built form.

There are no preferred neighbourhood character guidelines, and therefore the existing character must be taken into consideration. The development complies with the four (4) typical characteristics of the Neighbourhood Character Guidelines which that are considered to make a major contribution to the neighbourhood character.

14.4 Overlooking

As previously discussed within this report the objector of No. 50A Blantyre Avenue, Chelsea, requested that the first floor window of bedroom 2 of Dwelling 2 be deleted to ensure there is no overlooking into their property. The applicant agreed to delete this window. A condition can be placed on any permit issued to address this matter.

In relation to the first floor bedroom 2 window of Dwelling 3, Council officers believe that the overlooking opportunities should not detrimentally affect the safety or amenity of the adjoining rear dwelling as it abuts the garage / driveway within a 9 metres radius, however, it is considered that the window should be appropriately screened as just beyond this distance is habitable rooms and the dwelling entry of the proposed dwelling 2. This can be required as a condition on any permit issued.

14.5 Overshadowing

Submitted plans indicate that the proposed dwelling would only result in a marginal increase in the amount of shadow cast onto properties to the south is limited to the morning period (9:00am). Accordingly, Council officers consider that the amount of additional shadow to be generated by the proposed dwelling should not unreasonably affect the adjoining properties.

14.6 Visual Bulk / Overdevelopment

The objectors have raised concerns with regard to the number of dwellings proposed on the site and consider this, combined with the double storey nature of the dwellings, to be an overdevelopment of the site.

The proposal has a site coverage total of 40%, which meets both the objective and standard of Clause 55.03-3 of ResCode and the Schedule requirement of 50%.

It is considered that the question of overdevelopment cannot be answered or manifested simply by looking at site coverage and building size alone. Overdevelopment is usually characterised by development not meeting a majority of the assessment criteria of Clause 55 of the Kingston Planning Scheme (ResCode), which in this instance, is not apparent. It is considered that the proposal does not

127 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 exhibit any of the usual indicators of overdevelopment, including unreasonable overlooking, insufficient private open space or insufficient car parking.

15 CONCLUSION:

15.1 The proposed development is considered appropriate for the site as evidenced by: • The design and siting of the proposed development to be compatible with the surrounding area; • The proposal should not have a detrimental impact on surrounding properties (subject to appropriate conditions); and, • The proposal generally satisfies the requirements of the Kingston Planning Scheme, including the MSS, Residential Development Policy (inclusive of the Neighbourhood Character Area Guidelines and the Designing Contextual Housing Guidelines), Residential 3 zoning and the Schedule to the zone, Clause 55 – Two or more dwellings on a lot and Residential Buildings, and Clause 65 – Decision Guidelines (subject to appropriate conditions).

15 It is considered that the objectors’ concerns have been addressed where appropriate, and on balance and subject to the inclusion of suitable conditions, the proposal is considered reasonable and warrants support.

16 RECOMMENDATION:

That Council resolve to issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit for the development of this site for three (3) dwellings, subject following conditions: 1. Before the development starts amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be substantially in accordance with the plans submitted to Council on the 20 March, 2009, but modified to show: a. the provision of a landscape plan in accordance with the submitted development plan and the City of Kingston Landscape Plan Checklist, with such plans to be prepared by a suitably qualified landscape professional and incorporating: i. an associated planting schedule showing the proposed location, species type, mature height and width, pot sizes and number of species to be planted on the site. The schedule must be shown on the plan; ii. the delineation of all garden beds, paving, grassed areas, retaining walls, fences and other landscape works including areas of cut and fill throughout the development; iii. all existing trees on the site and within three (3) metres to the boundary of the site on adjoining properties, accurately illustrated to represent actual canopy width and labelled with botanical name, height and whether the tree is proposed to be retained or removed; iv. a range of plant types from ground covers to large shrubs and trees;

128 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 v. adequate planting densities (e.g.: plants with a mature width of 1 metre, planted at 1 metre intervals); vi. the provision of two (2) suitable medium sized (at maturity) canopy trees within the front setback of the property and one (1) small (at maturity) tree within the private open space area of each dwellling, with species chosen to be approved by the Responsible Authority. vii. sustainable lawn areas and plant species taking current water restrictions into consideration; viii. all trees provided at a minimum of two (2) metres in height at time of planting; ix. medium to large shrubs to be provided at a minimum pot size of 200mm; x. the provision of notes on the landscape plan regarding site preparation, including the removal of all weeds, proposed mulch, soil types and thickness, subsoil preparation and any specific maintenance requirements; xi. a notation on the plans stating that the canopy tree species nominated within the rear open space area of Dwelling 3 shall not overhang onto the rear property boundary. b. a reduction in the driveway width to 2.6 metres where possible with the additional area created to be used for landscaping along the side(s) of the driveway; c. the deletion of the west facing first floor bedroom 2 window of Dwelling 2; d. the provision of a highlight window with a sill height of 1.7m above the first finished floor level directly below to south elevation of bedroom 3 of Dwelling 1, to afford this room with additional sunlight; e. the provision of a fixed external screen to the first floor Bedroom 3 and rumpus / landing area window of Dwelling 2 with a sill height of 1.7m above the first finished floor level directly below, to ensure the privacy within the rear private open space of Dwelling 1 is maintained, with full details of the screening device, including building materials and permanent fixture, provided; f. the first floor window of bedroom 2 of Dwelling 2 and Dwelling 3 fitted with fixed (unopenable) obscure glazing to a minimum height of 1.7m above the first floor finished floor level, directly below; g. the first floor bedroom 2 windows of dwelling 3 fitted with fixed (unopenable) obscure glazing to a minimum height of 1.7 metres above the first floor finished floor level directly below; h. an elevation plan of the front fencing, which provides full details of its height (not exceeding 1.2 metres), materials and colours; i. the surface material of all driveways / accessways and car parking spaces nominated in all-weather coloured concrete sealcoat, or similar; j. the provision of a full colour, finishes and building materials schedule, including samples (illustrated on an A4 or A3 sheet), for all external elevations, of the dwelling and driveways of the development;

129 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 k. the provision of a new 1.8 metre high timber paling fence along the site’s east and west (side) property boundaries with these fences tapering down to 1.2 metres at 3 metres from the site’s property frontage; l. the provision of bollard lighting adjacent to the entrance of Dwellings 2 and 3 within the landscaping area along the site’s west (side) property boundary to better identify the entrances of these dwellings to visitors when viewed from the common driveway; m. the provision of a new 400mm high boxed, lattice fence extension attached securely to the top of the site’s existing south (rear) property boundary fence, commencing at the north-east corner of the site and continuing through to the south-west corner of the site; n. the deletion of the highlight window within the kitchen of Dwelling 2; and o. the provision of a water tank clearly nominated for each dwelling; 2. The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority. 3. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, the new fence(s) / fence extensions required under Condition 1k) and m) of this permit must be erected to Council’s satisfaction, at the full cost of the applicant/owner(s). 4. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, the landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The landscaping must then be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 5. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, all buildings and works and the conditions of this permit must be complied with, unless with the further prior written consent of the Responsible Authority. 6. The development of the site must be provided with stormwater works which incorporates the use of water sensitive urban design principles to improve stormwater runoff quality and which also retains on site any increase in runoff as a result of the approved development. The system must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Council's Development Engineer can advise on satisfactory options to achieve these desired outcomes which may include the use of an infiltration or bio retention system, rainwater tanks connected for reuse and a detention system. 7. Before the development commences, a Stormwater Management Plan showing the stormwater works to the nominated point of discharge must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Stormwater Management Plan must be prepared by a qualified person and show all details of the proposed stormwater works including all existing and proposed features that may have impact (e.g. trees to be retained, crossings, services, fences, abutting buildings, existing boundary surface levels, etc.). 8. Stormwater works must be provided on the site so as to prevent overflows onto adjacent properties. 9. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, or by such later date as is approved by the Responsible Authority in writing, the nature strip, kerb and channel,

130 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 vehicle crossover and footpath must reinstated to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

10. Any existing vehicular crossing not in accordance with the endorsed plan must be removed and the kerb reinstated in a manner satisfactory to the Responsible Authority and any proposed vehicular crossing must be fully constructed to the Responsible Authority’s standard specification.

11. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, all boundary fences must be repaired and/or replaced as necessary to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, at the cost of the applicant/owner.

12. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, areas set aside for parking vehicles, access lanes and paths as shown on the endorsed plans must be: a. Constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. b. Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans. c. Surfaced in accordance with the endorsed plans under this permit or in an all weather coloured concrete seal-coat, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. d. Drained and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Parking areas and access lanes must be kept available for these purposes at all times and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 13. All works on or facing the boundaries of adjoining properties must be finished and surface cleaned to a standard that is well presented to neighbouring properties in a manner to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 14. Construction on the site must be restricted to the following times: a. Monday to Friday 7:00am to 7:00pm; and b. Saturday 9:00am to 6:00pm. Or otherwise as approved by the Responsible Authority in writing. No construction permitted on Sundays or Public Holidays.

15. A street number of 100mm minimum height and contrasting in colour to its background, must be fixed at the front boundary of the property and as near as practicable to, or on the letterboxes with such numbering to be in accordance with Council’s Street Numbering Policy. Separate unit numbers of 75mm minimum height must be placed adjacent to the front entrance of each dwelling. Such numbers must be clearly legible from the access driveway. 16. Exterior lights must be installed in such positions as to effectively illuminate all pathway and porch areas. Such lighting must be controlled by a time clock or sensor unit, and must be designed, baffled and located to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to prevent any adverse effect on neighbouring land. 17. Convenient taps must be provided to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority capable of watering all communal and private lawns and landscaped areas.

131 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 18. All works on or facing the boundaries of adjoining properties must be finished and surface cleaned to a standard that is well presented to neighbouring properties in a manner to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 19. All piping and ducting above the ground floor storey of the development (other than rainwater guttering and downpipes) must be concealed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 20. Finished Floor Levels shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered or modified without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority. 21. External clothes drying facilities must be provided for each dwelling. 22. Once the development has started it must be continued and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 23. In accordance with section 68 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, this permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

• The development is not started within two (2) years from the date of permit issue.

• The development is not completed within four (4) years from the date of permit issue. In accordance with section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the responsible authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires, or within three months afterwards.

Note: It is noted that the development includes a eaves to be built over an easement. Separate consent from Council and the relevant service authority is required to build over the easement and will need to be obtained prior to the issue of a building permit. Note: Prior to the commencement of the development you are required to obtain the necessary Building Permit. Note: The applicant/owner must provide a copy of this planning permit to any appointed Building Surveyor. It is the responsibility of the applicant/owner and Building Surveyor to ensure that all building development works approved by any building permit is consistent with the planning permit. In the event that Council wish to oppose the application, it can do so on the following grounds: 1. The proposal would adversely affect the amenity of the area. 2. The proposal does not satisfy all of the requirements of Clause 55 of the Kingston Planning Scheme (ResCode) in particular Clause 55.02-1 Neighbourhood Character, Clause 55.03-1 Street Setback Objectives, Clause 55.03-8 Landscaping Objectives, Clause 55.03-10 Parking Location Objectives, Clause 55.04-6 Overlooking Objectives and Clause 55.06-1 Design Detail Objectives.

132 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

L 102 KP49/09: 34-94 Oak Avenue, Mentone

APPLICANT: CHOF4 Mentone P/L (Charter Hall) c/- SJB Planning ADDRESS OF LAND: No. 34-94 (Lot 2 on PS 531771J) Oak Avenue, Mentone Melway Ref: 87A4 & 87 B4 PROPOSAL One-Hundred & Nineteen (119) Dwellings CONTACT OFFICER: Jennifer Pippo FILE NO: KP49/09 ZONING: Clause 32.01 – Residential 1 Zone OVERLAY(S): Clause 43.02 – Design & Development Overlay 14 (DDO14) Clause 44.05 – Special Building Overlay Clause 45.03 – Environmental Audit Overlay KINGSTON State Planning Policy Framework PLANNING SCHEME Clause 12: Metropolitan Development ORDINANCE Clause 14: Settlement CONTROLS: Clause 15: Environment Clause 16: Housing Clause 18: Infrastructure Clause 19: Design & Built Form

Local Planning Policy Framework Clause 21.03: Land Use Challenges for The New Millennium Clause 21.04: Vision Clause 21.05: Residential Land Use Clause 22.11: Residential Development Policy

Particular Provisions Clause 52.06: Car Parking Clause 52.17: Native Vegetation Clause 52.29: Land Adjacent to a Road Zone Clause 52.36: Integrated Public Transport Planning Clause 55: Two or More Dwellings on a Lot & Residential Buildings

General Provisions Clause 65: Decision Guidelines RESIDENTIAL Increased Housing Diversity POLICY AREA: NEIGHBOURHOOD Area 18 CHARACTER AREA: DECISION BY: STATUTORY DAYS:

1.0 KEY ISSUES RELATING TO THIS APPLICATION

- Traffic considerations (access and parking) - Amenity impact (internal and external) - Neighbourhood character and design matters

133 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 - Vegetation/landscaping considerations

2.0 PROPOSAL

2.1 It is proposed to construct one-hundred and nineteen (119) double storey dwellings, including associated landscaping and internal roadworks.

2.2 The Master Site Plan (DRG No. TP08) that accompanies this application is colour coded and specifies the mix of housing proposed for the development. The mix of housing is described in the table below:

Dwelling Bedrooms Car Parking Bathrooms Study Nook or Total number Type Spaces room of Dwelling Type 1 3 2 2 - 7 2 3 2 2 Nook 12 3 3 2 2 - 14 4 3 2 2 - 9 5A 3 2 2 Nook 15 5B 3 2 2 Room + Nook 6 5C 3 2 2 Room + Nook 2 6 3 2 2 - 19 7 2 1 2 Nook 13 8 3 2 2 Room 1 9 3 2 2 Room 10 10 3 2 2 Nook 1 11 3 2 2 Room 3 12 2 1 2 Nook 3 13 3 2 2 - 4 Total 119

2.3 Of the one-hundred and nineteen (119) dwellings proposed, one-hundred and three (103) dwellings will include three (3) bedrooms, with the balance of dwellings (i.e. sixteen – 16) comprising of two (2) bedrooms.

2.4 Each dwelling is provided with an individual garage. Approximately half of the dwellings have a double garage that adjoins the dwelling. Other dwellings are provided with single attached garages with tandem car parking spaces and those dwellings that comprise of two (2) bedrooms, contain a single space garage.

2.5 A total of thirty (30) visitor car parking spaces are provided, which exceeds ResCode requirements (discussion provided at Section 12.3).

2.6 Two (2), two way, vehicle crossovers are proposed along the site’s Oak Avenue frontage. An internal road network is proposed, which is based on a grid layout, to provide access to one-hundred and eleven (111) dwellings.

134 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 2.7 Eight (8) single vehicle crossovers are proposed at the far western end of the site’s Oak Avenue frontage, providing direct access from Oak Avenue to dwellings 1 to 8. Vehicle access to the balance of dwellings is from within the site’s road network.

2.8 No vehicle access to Warrigal Road is proposed, in accordance with VicRoads’ requirements.

2.9 As outlined by the Permit Applicant, the dwellings will be constructed around an internal street network generally laid out in a regular grid pattern. These streets and other common areas in the development will be landscaped accordingly.

2.10 The proposal has an overall site coverage of 41 percent and a permeability percentage of 20.

2.11 As part of the proposal, Reg Marlow Reserve is proposed to be increased in size by 31%.

2.12 A variety of building materials, textures, colours and finishes are proposed for the subject development, which are detailed on Drawing Nos. TP21 to TP27, and can be summarised as follows:

ƒ Face brickwork ƒ Rendered masonry ƒ Rendered polystyrene wall panels ƒ Villaboard lining ƒ Villaboard eaves lining with paint finish ƒ Fibre cement sheet cladding with vertical show-line grooves and paint finish ƒ Timber cladding ƒ Aluminium window frames ƒ Translucent glazing ƒ Colorbond metal deck roofing ƒ Frameless glass balustrades ƒ Plywood panel garage doors with paint finish ƒ Colorbond panel-lift garage doors with horizontal v-grooves and woodgrain finish.

3.0 SITE & SURROUNDS

3.1 The subject site is located on the south side of Oak Avenue, Mentone. The land is the remainder of the former Nylex site, which is located on the eastern side of the Nepean Highway, Mentone and is generally bound by Oak Avenue to the north and Johnston Street to the south. The site was zoned Residential 1 via Planning Scheme Amendment C51 to the Kingston Planning Scheme.

3.2 More specifically, the subject site is identified as No. 34-94 Oak Avenue, Mentone and referred to as Lot 2 on Plan of Subdivision 531771J, Volume 11089 and Folio 546.

135 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 3.3 The site has an overlay area of some 3.33 hectares and is irregular in shape. The site is generally level; however there is a slight fall from north to south.

3.4 The site is encumbered by the following easements:

ƒ A triangular shaped easement (E-4) located in the north western corner of the site, in favour of United Energy Limited for powerlines;

ƒ A 3 metre wide and 13.2 metre long easement (E-7) located in the south western corner of the site, which is in favour of South East Water; and

ƒ A 6.10 metre wide easement (E-9) that traverses diagonally through the south- western end of the dog-leg shaped section of the site, which is in favour of Melbourne Water and Metropolitan Board of Works (MMBW).

3.5 The subject land is also affected by two (2) S.173 Agreements. Both of these Agreements, as confirmed by the Permit Applicant, do not relate to the development site specifically. These two (2) Agreements relate to the balance of the former Nylex site, which has approval for a commercial form of development (restricted retail).

3.6 The land is largely vacant; with the exception of a large, unoccupied, single storey office building located towards the eastern side of the site and associated car parking spaces. An additional car parking area is located towards the site’s Oak Avenue frontage and is currently accessible by the public.

3.7 There are a number of large trees, mostly eucalyptus, scattered on the site. It is understood that these trees were planted in association with the former use of the site by Nylex and, therefore, are not classified as remnant vegetation.

3.8 Vehicle access to the site is currently via four (4) crossovers located along the site’s Oak Avenue frontage and one (1) vehicular crossing from the site’s Warrigal Road frontage.

3.9 The surrounding area typically comprises of a mix of development. Located directly north of the subject site, on the opposite side of Oak Avenue, is a range of residential development type/styles (including both single and double storey forms). Vehicular access for these dwellings is provided directly from Oak Avenue.

3.10 Located to the south side of the subject site are also residential properties, which front Johnston Street. It is the rear yards of these dwellings that share a common property boundary with the subject site.

3.11 Located on the corner of Warrigal Road and Oak Avenue, to the east side of the subject site, is Reg Marlow Reserve. The Reserve contains park furniture and playground equipment and enjoys a well vegetation perimeter.

3.12 Also adjoining the subject site to its east is Warrigal Road. 3.13 To the west side of the subject site is the balance to the former Nylex site, which fronts Nepean Highway. This land has been recently (2006) rezoned from an

136 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 Industrial 1 Zone to a Business 4 Zone. This site, as earlier mentioned, has received approval for various restricted retail premises. As part of this development, it is expected that an acoustic fence will be constructed along the site’s west common property boundary, to separate and mitigate noise of a non-residential nature from the subject site.

4.0 TITLE DETAILS

4.1 The Permit Applicant has completed the planning application form declaring that the proposal does not breach any restrictions, including any Section 173 Agreements, as listed on the Certificate of Title.

5.0 PLANNING CONTROLS

5.1 The subject site is located within a Residential 1 Zone and is subject to a Design and Development Overlay – Schedule 14, Special Building Overlay and Environmental Audit Overlay.

5.2 Warrigal Road is identified in a Road Zone Category 1.

5.3 Oak Avenue is identified as a second class local roadway.

6.0 PLANNING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS

6.1 Pursuant to Clause 32.01 – Residential I Zone, a planning permit is not required to use the site for a one-hundred and nineteen (119) dwellings.

6.2 Pursuant to Clause 32.01 – Residential 1 Zone, a planning permit is required to construct two (2) or more dwellings on a lot.

6.3 Pursuant to Clause 43.02-2 – Design and Development Overlay Schedule 14 (DDO14), a planning permit is required to construct a building or construct and carry out works.

6.4 Pursuant to Clause 44.05 – Special Building Overlay, a planning permit is required to construct a building or construct and carry out works.

6.5 Pursuant to Clause 52.29 – Land Adjacent to a Road Zone, a planning permit is required to construct or alter an access to a Road Zone Category 1.

7.0 RELEVANT HISTORY

7.1 There is no relevant planning history relating to this site.

137 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 8.0 ADVERTISING

8.1 The proposal was advertised by sending notices to adjoining and opposite property owners and occupiers and by maintaining a notice on site for fourteen (14) days. Eight (8) objections to the proposal were received. The valid grounds of objection raised are summarised as follows:

• Traffic concerns • Neighbourhood character / Visual Bulk along Oak Avenue • Front fencing concerns along Oak Avenue • Overdevelopment • Devaluation of property prices • Vegetation removal and loss of wildlife

9.0 PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE

9.1 A preliminary conference was held on Wednesday, 1 July 2009 with the Planning Officer, one (1) Ward Councillor, eight (8) objectors, the Permit Applicant and accompanying support by their Traffic Engineer, Architect and Land Owner. The above-mentioned issues were discussed at length.

9.2 The above concerns were unable to be resolved at the preliminary conference, and the objections still stand.

9.3 The main issue discussed at length related to traffic issues, in particular the current traffic volumes along Oak Avenue and the belief that the proposed development will only exacerbate this issue. This matter is further discussed in detail at Section 13.3 and 14.1 of this report.

10.0 REFERRALS

10.1 The following internal and/or external referral departments were notified:

• Council’s Development Engineer • Council’s Vegetation Management Officer • Council’s Traffic Engineer • Council’s Roads and Drains Department • Council’s Strategic Planning Department – Urban Designer • Council’s Environment Department – Parks Projects & Design • Council’s Leisure Planning Department • Council’s Capital Works Co-ordinator • VicRoads • Melbourne Water • Department of Transport • MFB

10.2 The above-mentioned referral authorities generally had no objection to the proposal, subject to conditions being included on any permit issued.

138 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

10.3 Further discussion regarding VicRoads position and comments on this application can be found at Sections 13.3 and 14.1.

10.4 It should be noted that the original plans for this application proposed a left only egress arrangement onto Warrigal Road from the subject land. As required under the Planning Scheme requirements at Clause 52.29, the application was referred to VicRoads for comment. VicRoads advised Council that they would not support any access or egress arrangement along the site’s Warrigal Road frontage.

10.5 Accordingly, the Permit Applicant substituted plans on 26 May 2009, whereby two (2) crossovers were proposed from Oak Avenue only, with no access to Warrigal Road. The revised set of plans is the current plans under consideration by Council.

10.6 It is acknowledged that the main concern of most objectors relates specifically to the current traffic conditions experienced along Oak Avenue and the foreseen traffic generation that the proposed development will cause along Oak Avenue, given access is only being proposed along the site’s Oak Avenue frontage rather than Warrigal Road.

10.7 Some of the objectors mentioned in the preliminary conference meeting that they would prefer to see some form of access proposed along Warrigal Road, to reduce the amount of traffic likely to flow onto Oak Avenue from the development. Council’s Planning Officer advised the objectors that further discussions would be had with VicRoads to see whether there would be any flexibility for them to revisit their initial comments to allow some form of access to be provided to Warrigal Road.

10.8 Following on from the preliminary conference meeting, Council’s Planning Officer contacted VicRoads to ascertain their position. Subsequently, VicRoads continue to advise that they do not support any new access arrangement onto Warrigal Road.

11.0 RELEVANT POLICIES

11.1 State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF)

Clause 12: Metropolitan Development Clause 14: Settlement Clause 15: Environment Clause 16: Housing Clause 18: Infrastructure Clause 19: Design & Built Form

11.2 Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF)

Clause 21.03 Land Use Challenges for The New Millennium Clause 21.04: Vision Clause 21.05: Residential Land Use

139 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 Clause 22.11: Residential Development Policy

11.3 Particular Provisions

Clause 52.06: Car Parking Clause 52.17: Native Vegetation Clause 52.29: Land Adjacent to a Road Zone Clause 52.36: Integrated Public Transport Planning Clause 55: Two or More Dwellings on a Lot & Residential Buildings

11.4 General Provisions

Clause 65 (Decision Guidelines)

11.5 Other

11.6 Neighbourhood Character Area Guidelines (Incorporated Document)

11.7 The land is located within Area 18 of the Neighbourhood Character Guidelines. There are no critical or major contributions notes for this character area. Accordingly, the proposal is generally in accordance with the applicable character profile.

12.0 RELEVANT POLICIES IN DETAIL

12.1 State Planning Policy Framework

The State Planning Policy Framework sets out the relevant state-wide policies for residential development at Clause 11 (Goals and Principles), Clause 12 (Metropolitan Development), Clause 14 (Settlement), Clause 15 (Environment), Clause 16 (Housing), Clause 18 (Infrastructure) and Clause 19 (Design and Built Form). Clause 11 requires Council to integrate the range of policies relevant to the issues to be determined and to balance conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development.

The provisions of Clause 12 override other strategies in the SPPF where there are strategy differences. Clause 12 essentially reproduces the policy directions of Melbourne 2030 and it outlines objectives and strategies under each policy to achieve the goals of Melbourne 2030. Of specific relevance to the consideration of this application, it encourages urban consolidation in appropriate locations. Further, under the ‘Housing’ strategies, it requires to locate a substantial proportion of new housing in or close to activity centres and other strategic redevelopment sites that offer good access to services and transport. Importantly, the subject land is identified as a ‘residential opportunity site’ under Council’s Residential Land Use Policy found within the Municipal Strategic Statement at Clause 21.05.

Further to these key policy components broadly outlined through Clause 12.01, part of the ‘Neighbourhood Design’ principles looks at providing for ‘compact

140 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 neighbourhoods that are orientated around walkable distances between activities and where neighbourhood centres provide access to services and facilities to meet day-to-day requirements. The ‘Open Space’ initiatives seek to ensure that the provision of buildings and infrastructure are consistent with the management objectives of parks and protecting regional parks and any significant conservation areas.

Clause 14 aims to ensure there is a sufficient supply of land available for residential development to facilitate the orderly development of urban areas.

Clause 15 aims to assist the protection and, where possible, restoration of catchments, waterways, water bodies, groundwater, and the marine environment.

Clause 16.01-1 aims to encourage residential development that is cost-effective in infrastructure provision and use, energy efficient, incorporates water-sensitive design principles and encourages public transport use.

Clause 19.03 relates to the Design and Built Form of developments and aims to ensure that developments achieve high quality designs that contribute positively to the urban character of the area.

It is submitted that the proposed development satisfies the aforementioned State strategies and policy direction. Specifically, the subject site is recognised as a residential opportunity site, which includes all the attributes for a medium density project. The site enjoys convenient linkages to public transport modes, community facilities and the like.

12.2 Local Planning Policy Framework

The Local Planning Policy Framework contains Council’s strategic direction, the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS), which is an extension of direction established by the SPPF, and the local policies that implement the LPPF.

Within Clause 21 (MSS) of the Kingston Planning Scheme, the following four (4) attributes are submitted as being the most relevant to the consideration of the proposal:

ƒ Clause 21.03 Land Use Challenges for The New Millennium ƒ Clause 21.04: Vision ƒ Clause 21.05: Residential Land Use ƒ Clause 22.11: Residential Development Policy

After reviewing the relevant strategic directions that emerge from the above- mentioned Clauses, the following can be summarised:

ƒ Clause 21.03: Land Use Challenges for The New Millennium identifies the need for the Municipality to provide suitable housing stock that meets future

141 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 housing demands and to sustain an appropriate mix of supporting urban infrastructure. It is further stated that recent pressures for new development, consolidation and medium density housing has resulted in change to the amenity and character of local areas. It is acknowledged that careful management will be required in order to integrate urban consolidation objectives with an understanding of specific character issues applicable to certain neighbourhoods.

ƒ Within Clause 21.04-3: Strategic framework plan (Clause 21.04 Vision), it promotes medium density housing opportunities in areas designated for increased housing diversity. Further to this, it goes on to state that ‘larger residential opportunity sites, where new residential development (including medium density housing) should be pursued’.

ƒ Policy at Clause 21.05 – Residential Land Use specifically focuses on large residential opportunity sites. This section recognises that in recent times, Kingston has experienced housing growth on greenfield sites in suburbs such as Dingley, Aspendale Gardens, Chelsea Heights and the like. Importantly this policy recognises that ‘all large residential opportunity sites will provide [an] integrated mix of lot sizes and housing types, and medium density housing will become a more important housing element on these sites’.

ƒ The objectives of the Municipal Strategic Statement at Clause 21.05 – Residential Land Use (as relevant to this application) include:

o Objective 1: To provide a wide range of housing types across the municipality to increase housing diversity and cater for the changing needs of current and future populations, taking account of the differential capacity of local areas in Kingston to accommodate different types and rates of housing change. o Objective 2: To ensure new residential development respects neighbourhood character and is site responsive, and that medium density dwellings are of the highest design quality. o Objective 3: To preserve and enhance well landscaped/vegetated environments and protect identified significant vegetation. o Objective 4: To promote more environmentally sustainable forms of residential development. o Objective 5: To manage the interface between residential development and adjoining or nearby sensitive/strategic land uses. o Objective 6: To ensure residential development does not exceed known physical infrastructure capacities. o Objective 7: To ensure all residential neighbourhoods in Kingston are provided with supporting social infrastructure adequate to the population’s needs. o Objective 8: To recognise and respond to special housing needs within the community.

142 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 Relevant strategies to achieve these objectives (as relevant to this application) include:

o Encourage residential development within activity centres via shop-top housing and mixed use developments, and on transitional sites at the periphery of activity centres. The intensity and scale of such development will need to be in keeping with the scale of these centres. o Support innovative residential infill development on former industrial sites adjacent to established residential areas, and on other mixed use or traditionally non-residential sites where appropriate. o Promote a range of lot sizes and housing types, including medium density housing, on large residential opportunity sites, particularly where such sites have good access to public transport and other facilities. o Ensure development plans are prepared and implemented for all large residential opportunity sites to address the provision of a diversity of housing opportunities and to ensure that other site and contextual issues are addressed. o Promote new residential development which is of a high standard, responds to the local context and positively contributes to the character and identity of the local neighbourhood. o Promote new residential development which provides a high standard of amenity and quality of life for future occupants. o Ensure that the planning, design, siting and construction of new residential development responds to best practice environmental design guidelines for energy efficiency, waste and recycling, and stormwater management. o Ensure that where medium and higher density residential areas are proposed adjacent to lower density residential areas, the design of such development takes proper account of its potential amenity impacts. o Require the provision of car parking to satisfy the anticipated demand having regard to average car ownership levels in the area, the environmental capacity of the local street network and the proximity of public transport and nearby on and off street car parking. o Ensure that all new medium density housing provides adequate private open space that is appropriately landscaped. o Ensure that large residential opportunity sites provide contributions towards the creation and/or enhancement of public open space within, or in reasonable proximity to, such sites. o Ensure the development of large residential opportunity sites contributes to identified social infrastructure needs.

ƒ On a similar level to that sought by the State Planning Policy Framework, Clause 21.05 seeks to encourage a range/mix of infill residential development on residential opportunity sites. The subject site is earmarked for residential development and is further identified within Council’s Residential Land Use Framework Plan as a residential opportunity site. In response to this policy direction, a two (2) storey, townhouse style development, sought across the entire site, is before the Council for consideration. Although each dwelling takes on a

143 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 two (2) storey form, the internal layout and external façade treatments vary across the site with thirteen (13) different housing types proposed.

ƒ Clause 22.11 Residential Development Policy extends upon the provision contained at Clause 21.05 (Residential Land Use) along with the State Planning Policy Framework provisions found at Clause 14.02-2 – Settlement and Clause 16.02 – Medium Density Housing, effectively promoting high-density development around activity centres and locations close to public transport.

In summary the proposal is seen to be strongly consistent with Council’s Local Planning Policy Framework and, importantly, it delivers on some very specific objectives for residential opportunity sites as well as the type and form of medium density development expected, in general.

12.3 Particular Provisions

A number of particular provisions are considered relevant to the consideration of this application. They are identified as follows:

ƒ Clause 52.06 Car Parking of the Kingston Planning Scheme outlines the parking requirements for a variety of uses. The overriding purpose of this Clause is to ensure that car parking facilities are provided in accordance with the State and Local Planning Policy Framework.

Notwithstanding the requirements of Clause 52.06, when a site is zoned for residential purposes and the proposal on the land is for the same, the car parking rate applicable is provided under Clause 55, Standard B16, of the Kingston Planning Scheme. Accordingly, a prescribed rate of one (1) car parking space to each one (1) or two (2) bedroom dwellings is required. For dwellings that include three (3) or more bedrooms, a rate of two (2) car parking spaces is required.

Further to the above requirements, Standard B16 specifies that for developments of five (5) or more dwellings, a rate of one (1) visitor car parking space should be provided for every five (5) dwellings.

In response to the above provisions, the proposal generates a statutory car parking requirement for two-hundred and twenty two (222) resident car parking spaces and twenty-four (24) visitor car parking spaces.

In the case of the proposed development, each dwelling is provided with the required amount of on-site car parking and exceeds the visitor car parking requirements by supplying a total of thirty (30) spaces.

ƒ Clause 52.17 Native Vegetation seeks to protect and conserve native vegetation to reduce the impact of the land and water degradation and provide habitat for plants and animals. This Clause seeks to minimise the removal of native vegetation through appropriate planning and design outcomes or alternatively, appropriate offsets for the loss of native vegetation.

144 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 Pursuant to Clause 52.17-2, a planning permit is required to remove, destroy or lop native vegetation, including dead native vegetation on land greater than 4,000m2. However, this does not apply if the table to Clause 52.17-6 specifically states that a permit is not required for the removal, destruction or lopping of native vegetation.

The table of exemptions provided at Clause 52.17-6 specifies that no permit is required for ‘planted vegetation’, including that planted for aesthetic or amenity purposes such as in the case of gardens and site landscaping.

The Permit Applicant has indicated that the vegetation proposed to be removed for the development falls within this exemption criteria. Council’s Vegetation Management Officer has conducted a site inspection and examined the vegetation proposed to be removed by way of this application, and concurs that the subject vegetation has been planted on the site for aesthetic / amenity purposes and, therefore, does not require a permit for its removal.

ƒ Clause 52.29 Land Adjacent to a Road Zone

The primary purpose of this Clause is to ensure appropriate access to identified roads. As Warrigal Road is identified as a Road Zone Category 1 Road and the existing crossover is proposed to be altered (i.e. footpath and naturestrip reinstated) as part of this application, a planning permit is required and VicRoads (the relevant road authority) is therefore a formal referral authority in this matter.

As mentioned earlier within this report, Council referred the original application, which proposed a new, single lane, egress arrangement (‘left only’) from the subject land to Warrigal Road, to VicRaods who provided the following response:

‘The proposed access arrangements with three two-way crossovers along Oak Avenue would be in accordance with VicRoads’ Access Management Policy. The intersection of Warrigal Road/Oak Avenue is signalised and suitable to handling all turning movements to and from the development.

There is a question of whether the existing access along Warrigal Road can be retained and modified with left out only onto Warrigal Road. This arrangement would see motorists exit this point rather than waiting at the signals given the ‘green time’ along Warrigal Road. On this basis, the access would be better served as a ‘left in’ only. However, in any instance that an access is available and despite the turning retractions imposed, motorists may be tempted to undertake illegal turning manoeuvres which would present itself as a safety issue. It is therefore a requirement of VicRoads that the access be removed and the footpath and nature strip reinstated.

In the current application, vehicle access to the subject site is freely available via Oak Avenue and for the above reasons it is considered that this situation should continue with the proposed development.

145 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 Given the above, VicRaods objects to the grant of a planning permit for the retention and modification of the access to Warrigal Road on the grounds that this would hinder the safe and efficient operation of Warrigal Road.

VicRoads would be prepared to reassess the proposal subject to the application being amended so that the Warrigal Road access point is deleted and that all vehicle access and egress to the proposed residential development is via Oak Avenue.

Following receipt of this response, the Permit Applicant submitted revised plans whereby the proposed access to Warrigal Road was deleted, with the existing access proposed to be closed off and the naturestrip and footpath reinstated, in accordance with VicRoads’ comments.

As highlighted earlier, Council is aware that a number of the objectors raised concern with regard to the proposed access arrangements. This matter is discussed in detail within Section 13.3 and 14.1 of this report.

It is important to recognise that considerable regard has been made to the placement of proposed crossovers to Oak Avenue and the removal of access to Warrigal Road by VicRoads, who have concluded that the proposed arrangement as advanced by the latest plan to be the optimal arrangement.

ƒ Clause 52.36 Integrated Public Transport Planning

Relevant to this application, the intention of this Clause, amongst other things, is to ensure development supports public transport usage and to ensure that development incorporates safe, attractive and convenient pedestrian access to public transport stops.

Pursuant to this Clause, an application of 60 or more dwellings must be referred to the Director of Public Transport. Accordingly, the application was referred to the Department of Transport whereby they advised Council that they do not object to the proposal, subject to conditions to be included on any permit issued.

ƒ Clause 55: Two or More Dwellings on a Lot & Residential Buildings

It is acknowledged that the provisions of Clause 55 (ResCode) of the Kingston Planning Scheme apply to this application to construct one-hundred and nineteen (119) double storey dwellings on the subject land.

An assessment against the provisions of Clause 55 has been undertaken by Council’s Planning Officer and it should be noted that the proposed development attains a high level of compliance.

Notwithstanding the development’s general compliance with Clause 55, there are some minor areas of non compliance that are noteworthy of discussion, these being:

146 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 Does the Proposal Clause 55: Title and Objective Discussion Comply with the Standard? B17 Side and Rear Setbacks All dwellings The Permit Applicant seeks a Ensure the height and setback comply with the 0.7 metre variation to this respects the existing or preferred Standard except standard with regard to the first neighbourhood character and for Dwelling 1 floor master bedroom and limits the amenity impacts on ensuite of Dwelling 1 for the existing dwellings. following reason: ƒ The dwelling abuts a Business 4 Zone and, therefore does not result in any unreasonable amenity impacts, as a result of the proposed minor variation to the site setback requirements.

B18 Walls on Boundaries All dwellings The Permit Applicant seeks a Ensure the location, length and comply with the .05 metre variation to this height of a wall on a boundary Standard except standard with regard to the respects the existing or preferred for Dwelling 1 overall height of the wall neighbourhood character and proposed to be built along the limits the amenity impacts on site’s west property boundary existing dwellings. for Dwelling 1 for the following reason: ƒ The dwelling abuts a Business 4 Zone and, therefore does not result in any unreasonable amenity impacts, as a result of the proposed minor variation to the site setback requirements.

B29 Solar Access to Open Space All dwellings The requirements to this Allow solar access into the comply with the standard are not met for the secluded private open space of Standard except setback of the southern new dwellings/buildings. for Dwelling boundary to the wall on the Type 3 north of the secluded private (Dwellings 20 to open space (SPOS) area of 33) Dwelling Type 3. Accordingly, the Permit Applicant seeks a variation to this standard for the following reasons:

Although the SPOS area for

147 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 these dwellings do not enjoy the same access to sunshine as the SPOS provided to the balance of the dwellings in the development, it is important to recognise that Type 3 dwellings are provided with reasonably sized areas of POS to the front of these dwellings, which benefits from access to northern sunlight. Although not located to the rear of the dwellings, these areas will receive excellent access to sunlight and are proposed to be fenced from the street, to afford these areas some level of privacy. B32 Front Fences All dwellings A 1.7 metre high picket front Encourage front fence design that comply with the fence is proposed for dwellings respects the existing or preferred standard except 8 to 33, which runs along the neighbourhood character. for Dwellings 8 to site’s Oak Avenue frontage. 33, The Permit Applicant has advised that this fencing will achieve 25% transparency. To justify this variation, the Permit Applicant states that fencing of this height is not atypical to Oak Avenue, particularly where it nears the intersection with Warrigal Road.

Apart from the minor areas of non-compliance discussed above, the proposed development achieves a high level of compliance with the provisions of Clause 55 of the Kingston Planning Scheme.

The variations sought to Standards B17 (Side and Rear Setbacks) and B18 (Walls on Boundaries) for Dwelling 1 are considered appropriate, particularly given that this dwelling does not abut a sensitive interface and, therefore, shares its common boundary to the west with Business 4 zoned land. It should also be highlighted that the variations sought under these Standards are minor in nature (only 0.7m and 0.05m variations) and, therefore are considered negligible in the context of the site’s immediate neither non-residential nor sensitive abuttals.

With regard to the variations sought under Standard B29 (Solar Access) and B32 (Front Fences), the justification provided for these dispensations are considered reasonable and sound. It is acknowledged that when designing developments of a magnitude (i.e. large number of dwellings) such as this, some dwellings will generally

148 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 receive greater amenity outcomes than others, given site constraints and site orientation etc. Accordingly, the variations sought for Dwelling Type 3 are considered to be appropriate, in this instance.

In summary, it is considered that the variations sought by the Permit Applicant are minor in nature and will not cause undue detriment to adjoining properties, the surrounding neighbourhood character or unreasonably compromise the amenity of future occupants.

It is for these reasons that it is submitted that the slight variations sought under ResCode by this application, are deemed appropriate in this instance and warrant support.

13 PLANNING CONSIDERATION & ASSESSMENT OF KEY ISSUES

Before delving into the planning consideration and focal topics presented below, it should be recognised that the Subject Land is suitable and intended for some form of residential development. Both the State and Local Planning Policy Framework set out clear guidelines and direction for the intended use and development of the subject site.

As previously outlined, Council’s Residential Land Use Framework Plan at Clause 21.05, identifies the Subject Land as a ‘Residential Opportunity Site’. Therefore, it is widely accepted and acknowledged that the site is suitable for residential development.

It is now the position of Council to determine whether the proposal would achieve an “acceptable” outcome having regard to the applicable policies, decision guidelines and the provisions of the Kingston Planning Scheme.

The following is a detailed response to the imperative matters associated with this planning application. It has been decided to address each of these matters in turn, in no particular order, however grouping them under their corresponding theme.

13.1 Proposed Use and Development of the Site for One-Hundred and Nineteen Dwellings

The subject land is located within a Residential 1 Zone. The proposed use of the site, as sought by this application, is of a residential nature for the development of the land for one-hundred and nineteen (119) dwellings. As presented in Section 6.1 of this report and pursuant to the zoning provisions, a planning permit is not required to use the site for residential development.

As the site is located in a Residential 1 Zone, the proposal is a Section 1 Use i.e. ‘as if right’ use, where approval is not required and, therefore, assessment of this application relates largely to the development, the layout and built form proposed. Accordingly, the following sections of this report will now focus on the fundamental merits of this proposal, these being: housing density and layout, the provision of car parking, access and traffic, any unreasonable built form impacts and urban design

149 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 concerns, external or internal amenity effects, site contamination, landscaping and pedestrian treatments. Each of these matters shall be addressed in turn.

13.2 Density & Layout

As the proposed use is deemed to be fitting for the site, given its residential zoning, this then turns the discussion to housing density and the general siting and layout proposed.

It has been established that the proposal achieves the urban consolidation initiatives and strategies set out by both the State and Local Planning Policy Framework. The proposed density equates to 37.2 dwellings per hectare. Whilst this density is somewhat higher than that experienced for more conventional forms of housing, the site is recognised by Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement as a large residential opportunity site and a good opportunity to provide a significant amount of housing in the municipality to meet both the projected future housing demands put forth by the State Government and the expected population growth of more than 15,000 people for the City of Kingston alone, specified in the Municipal Profile (Clause 21.02). Accordingly, this opportunity should not go overlooked.

The form of housing and density sought by this application is further supported by the site’s proximity to:

o Retail: 1. Adjoining Homemaker site and smaller centres within a convenient 10 minute walk. 2. Proximity to Mentone Activity Centre, which is approximately 1km from the subject site. 3. Proximity to DFO and the Moorabbin Airport, which is approximately 1.5 - 2km from the subject site.

o Public Transport:

- Warrigal Road Smart Bus route passes the subject site - Mentone Railway Station is approximately 1km from the subject site.

o Airport: - Moorabbin Airport is approximately 1.5km from the subject site.

o Beach: - Approximately 2km from the subject site.

The Permit Applicant has proposed a mix (i.e. 13 different housing types) of contemporary style townhouses that although may vary from the established residential built form found in the immediate area, it is not dissimilar to the expected type of development that will and is slowly emerging within the municipality. It is the form of housing envisaged for our ‘residential opportunity areas’. As stipulated

150 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 by the Permit Applicant, the proposal seeks to cater for diversity in the population and housing market, with a direct link to both State and Local Planning Policies.

It is important to note that in response to the Planning Officer’s initial concerns that were presented to the Applicant regarding general on-site amenity issues, greater diversity in housing forms and general urban design issues, in response and to correct these concerns, the Applicant revised the layout by reducing dwelling numbers, providing a significant increase to Reg Marlow Reserve and redesigning the internal road network.

13.3 Traffic, Access and Car Parking

Prior to discussing the planning consideration regarding the proposed access arrangements to the subject site, the following information is raised as context to the conditions which presently apply to the subject land.

ƒ The subject site is bound by three roadways, these being: Nepean Highway, Oak Avenue and Warrigal Road.

ƒ Nepean Highway is identified as a Road Zone Category 1 and falls under the jurisdiction of VicRoads.

ƒ Nepean Highway is a two-way road that is separated by a central median and comprises of three (3) lanes in each direction.

ƒ On-street car parking is available along the service roads.

ƒ Nepean Highway experiences approximately 63,000 vehicles per day.

ƒ Oak Avenue is identified as a local road and falls under the jurisdiction of Kingston City Council.

ƒ Oak Avenue is aligned on an east-west direction, connecting to Nepean Highway and Warrigal Road.

ƒ Oak Avenue is a two-way road with kerb-side parking available on both sides of the road.

ƒ Currently, Oak Avenue experiences approximately 1550 vehicle movements per day.

ƒ Warrigal Road is identified as a Road Zone Category 1 and falls under the jurisdiction of VicRoads.

ƒ Warrigal Road is a two-way road that comprises of two (2) in each direction, for the section of the road that abuts the subject site.

ƒ On-street car parking is not permitted on either side of the road, within close proximity to the subject site.

151 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

ƒ Warrigal Road experiences approximately 19,000 vehicles per day.

As outlined earlier within this report, the existing access arrangement to Warrigal Road is proposed to be altered by reinstating the kerb and channel and extending the footpath. Two (2), two-way, vehicle crossovers are proposed to Oak Avenue, along with eight (8) single width crossovers to the dwellings located to the far western end of the site’s Oak Avenue frontage.

Those dwellings (i.e. the remaining 111 dwellings) that do not enjoy their own vehicle crossover/access to Oak Avenue will be constructed around an internal street network generally laid out in a regular grid pattern. These streets and other common areas in the development are proposed to be landscaped accordingly and form part of the onus corporation.

It is widely recognised that the Permit Applicant revised the plans and access arrangements to the development in response to comments and recommendations received by VicRoads.

The Permit Applicant relies on a Traffic Impact Report; prepared by GTA Consultants, to demonstrate that the proposed road network, access layout and car parking provisions for the development are effective and appropriate. Taking the information provided within this report, including surveys and findings, into consideration, GTA consultants make the following conclusions: ƒ The proposed development generates a statutory parking requirement of 222 resident parking spaces and 24 visitor car parking spaces; ƒ The proposed supply of 222 off-street resident parking spaces meets the statutory requirements as set out in the Kingston Planning Scheme; ƒ The provision of 30 visitor parking spaces exceeds the statutory requirement of 24 parking spaces and is expected to satisfactorily cater for the peak visitor parking demand within the site; ƒ The proposed parking layout is consistent with the dimensional requirements as set out in the Kingston Planning Scheme; ƒ The proposed development includes a provision for 20 visitor bicycle parking spaces; ƒ An 8.8m Austroads service vehicle can successfully operate along all internal roads within the development (noting that service vehicle access to dwellings 1-33 will be via their Oak Avenue frontage); ƒ All internal access roads meet the minimum requirements of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade; ƒ The site is expected to generate 72 and 714 vehicle movements in any peak hour and daily respectively; and ƒ There is adequate capacity in the surrounding road network to cater for the traffic generated by the proposed development.

152 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 As outlined earlier within this report, each dwelling is provided with the required amount of on-site car parking and exceeds the visitor car parking requirements by supplying a total of thirty (30) spaces (24 required by the Kingston Planning Scheme).

Furthermore, the application has been referred to Council’s Traffic Department for review, assessment and comments. Council’s Traffic Engineer has supported the findings undertaken by the external Traffic Engineer in relation to its assessment of on-site parking demand, the proposed road layout and access arrangements.

It is agreed that the proposed development, earmarked for a medium density ‘residential opportunity site’, provides an adequate amount of on-site car parking to cater for the anticipated amount of vehicles likely to be generated from a development of this size.

The application was formally referred to VicRoads for comments, who have advised that they do not object to the proposed development, providing that no new access/egress is proposed to Warrigal Road and the existing crossover is made redundant with the kerb, footpath and channel reinstated.

Neither VicRoads nor Council’s Traffic Engineers have raised concern with regard to the expected increase of vehicle movements to and from the site. Further to this, the traffic report prepared by GTA Consultants suggests that the proposed development would result in approximately seven-hundred and fourteen (714) vehicle movement per day, which can be accommodated on Oak Avenue. When breaking this figure down, this equates to each dwelling making six (6) vehicular movements a day. It is understood through traffic studies that Oak Avenue currently experiences in the order of 1700 vehicles per day. In reference to Clause 56 of the Scheme, Oak Avenue is classified as a second level local access street with the ability to cater for up to 3,000 vehicles per day. The Permit Applicant suggests that as a result of the proposed development, Oak Avenue would still be significantly under its anticipated vehicle quota (i.e. approximately 2,500 vehicles).

If Council was to take a conservative approach to these calculations and estimate that each dwelling is likely to experience approximately 10 vehicle movements per day, this would amount to 1,190 vehicles movements for the entire development. When taking this figure and combining it with the current traffic study levels experienced along Oak Avenue, this would amount to approximately 2,890 vehicles movements per day, which again, would still come in at less than the expected tolerance level for Oak Avenue.

It is therefore submitted that although no access/egress is proposed to Warrigal Road, nor permitted by VicRoads, Oak Avenue is capable to accommodate the anticipated traffic levels associated with the proposal.

Further to this point, it should be noted that when considering the number of additional vehicle movements proposed from the subject land as a consequence of the development this number is negligible when compared with a commercial, retail or other form of non-residential use for the subject land.

153 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

In conclusion on the matters of traffic, access and car parking it is submitted that:

ƒ The development is expected to generate around 714 vehicle additional movements per day which can easily be absorbed by the surrounding road network via the proposed accessways onto Oak Avenue.

ƒ The existing crossover to Warrigal Road be made redundant and removed with the kerb & channel reinstated, including the extension to the existing footpath, constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

ƒ The bicycle racks provided near the entrance to Reg Marlow Reserve reduced by at least half the number of what is currently proposed; and

ƒ The provision of on-site car parking and visitor car parking is deemed satisfactory.

13.4 Urban Design & Amenity Associated Issues

Collectively, it is understood that Council Officers as well as most residents recognise the development potential of the site. Further to this point, the zoning of the land, its location, size, lack of restrictive built form overlays and enabling planning policy all substantiate the potential for a medium density form of development, alike the one proposed, to be accommodated on this site.

With the site being earmarked for a large residential opportunity site, the question then turns to whether the form, design, layout and associated amenity issues are deemed acceptable and appropriate.

Council’s Urban Designer has advised that the revised drawings for the development, received on 26 May 2009, show a significant improvement in urban design principles in the overall layout and streetscape. Essentially, it is considered that the proposed development will achieve a good urban design outcome that will provide an appropriate transition to the surrounding neighbourhood and built form.

Importantly, a number of preliminary design concerns were put to the Permit Applicant, by Council’s Planning Officer, on 27 February 2009. The concerns presented within this letter touched on numerous areas of concern, varying from the original road network layout, waste collection, dwelling presentation and repetition, vegetation and street tree matters, dominance of garages and minimal separation in built form, public open space and the like.

After establishing Council’s view on the original plans, the Permit Applicant chose to revisit the development plans and undertook changes in response to the same.

However, in light of the above comment, Council’s Urban Design has identified a few minor issues that necessitate discussion, these being:

154 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 • Corner dwellings, namely numbers 13, 14, 19, 20, 27 and 28 have blank walls along their secondary facades. Greater articulation should be provided to these dwellings to create a sense of entry to the site and provide interest.

• Drawing TP06 shows Middle Lane as a major pedestrian connection between the development and the Reg Marlow Reserve. However, there is no pedestrian path provided along Middle Lane between Centre Way and East Way.

• Similarly, Dwelling 33 which is adjacent to Reg Marlow Reserve should have some articulation on the façade that faces the Park. This would also provide for improved views to the park.

• There are a large number of bicycle racks provided near the Park entrance which not all may be necessary; it is recommended that this number could be easily halved.

• It should be noted that all the work to Reg Marlow Park, including bollards at the edge of the development, have been identified to be carried out by Council. At a minimum, the developer / applicant should contribute to the cost of works proposed at the interface between the Park and the development.

It is submitted that in the event that a permit issues, suitable permit conditions should be included to address the matters presented above.

Finally, in consideration of the design approach adopted in this application, it should not be lost on the Council of the transition in built form into Oak Avenue. The development has successfully mediated a more intense form of development in the core of the site and opposite areas of lesser amenity (business zoned lands), while providing a more conventional arrangement to Oak Avenue in response to the housing stock on the opposite side of the street, thereby maintaining the streetscape. Additionally, the proposal provides generous setbacks to its most sensitive interface (i.e. the adjoining residential properties to the site’s southern property boundary, ensuring that no undue detriment is caused as a result of the proposal.

13.5 Public Open Space Areas, Vegetation & Pedestrian Access

Reg Marlow Park is located adjacent the Subject Land and totals 0.42 hectares in area.

The subject site is identified within Local Area 4D / 6B of Council’s Public Open Space Strategy. Local Area 4D / 6B is identified as being severely underserved in the provision of open space (0.2 hectares per 1000 population). Although this Strategy is not a reference document within the City of Kingston’s Planning Scheme, the findings and recommendations specified within this document are of key relevance to the consideration of this application.

This Strategy notes that the future redevelopment of the Nylex site will assist to substantially define the future land use direction for the central and southern sections

155 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 of the study area (i.e. Local Area 4D / 6B). Furthermore, this Strategy identifies primary gaps, these being:

o There is no substantial park in this local area, and there is a lack of diversity in the few very small parks in this locality; and o The Nylex site currently provides visual benefit to this locality through provision of trees and open space.

Guidance on development opportunities is also provided in the Exploring Leisure needs in M2030 Activity Centres (2007) document. With reference to the needs of the Mentone Major Activity Centre, which the proposed development falls in, the pertinent opportunity that this then presents is:

o Should the Nylex site be redeveloped for housing, a more central social and family recreation reserve of generous proportions could be taken to replace Marlow Park abutting Warrigal Road. Also, in this event, all efforts should be made to retain existing mature trees and open space for visual amenity and off-road trails throughout the development.

In subsequent internal discussions Leisure Planning also indicated that retention and expansion of the footprint of Reg Marlow Park as part of an Open Space Contribution would be a reasonable alternative response to the open space provision in the planning area.

Responsive to the Council’s Public Open Space Strategy, the application proposes to include an extension to the Reg Marlow Reserve, which in-turn will provide for the recreational open space needs of the area. The proposed increase in the size of Reg Marlow Park by 1,317 square metres, accounts for a 31% increase, which equates to approximately a 4% public open space contributions in the form of land. It should be noted that the Section 173 Agreement applicable to the site when it was rezoned required a 5% public open space contribution in land. This should be reflected in conditions of any permit issued.

As mentioned earlier within this report, the landscape plans and associated material was referred internally to Council’s Environment Department – Parks Projects & Design as well as Council’s Leisure Planning Department for assessment. The following comments and recommendations were received:

GENERAL COMMENTS

The extension of the existing open space at Council’s Reg Marlow Reserve is very welcome. The expansion of open space along Warrigal Road will provide a larger section of open space with better access to a larger section of the proposed residential area and it will provide more opportunity to provide the community with a more diversified space.

Many of the tree species substitutions suggested in our previous correspondence have been made.

156 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 TREE SPECIES Secondary Street Trees & Small-Medium Evergreen Canopy Trees

The colour symbol used in the drawings to represent both of these categories is very difficult to distinguish. Tilia cordata ‘Green Spire’ remains on the Secondary Street Trees list. To reiterate our comments from 12 March, 2009, this species is not a suitable street tree. This species struggles in the sandy soil type typical in this area and it does not perform in drought/hot summer conditions. It is therefore advised that this specie be substituted for Melia azedarach ‘Elite’.

Mop-head Robinia is included in the Design Images section of Drawing TP01A. This species is not listed in any of the species lists. Similarly, this species is not recommended for street tree use.

FEATURE ENTRY TREES & MAIN BOULEVARD TREES

The recommended change to Ulmus parvifolia ‘Todd’ has been made. It is listed as Ulmus parviflora in the species list. Please note that the species name should read parvifolia.

OAK AVENUE STREET TREES

Drawing TP01A specifies that in-fill planting of Secondary Street Trees will be planted on existing Oak Avenue nature strips. Council already has a preferred species planted on Oak Avenue nature strips – Fraxinus ‘Raywood’ (Claret Ash). It is recommended that the drawings be altered to reflect this.

REG MARLOW RESERVE

While the extension of the existing open space at Reg Marlow Reserve is supported, it appears that some of the pedestrian paths, park furniture, park tree planting and overall connection between the proposed development and Reg Marlow Reserve have been lost. Drawings TP01A and TP03A, note that Council will be responsible for the ramps, fencing gates and future path systems at Reg Marlow Reserve.

This then raises the following questions:

ƒ Will a park integration plan be prepared that demonstrates the integration of Reg Marlow Reserve with the development? ƒ Who will be responsible for funding these works? ƒ Why have so many bicycle racks been proposed at the entrances to Reg Marlow Reserve?

Given the change in park access design and the importance that Reg Marlow Reserve will play in fulfilling the open space needs of existing and future residents, a park integration landscape plan is essential to meet the following objectives:

ƒ Pedestrian access in the park to cater for playground access, and through access to Warrigal Road;

157 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 ƒ Provision for Car parking on East Way; ƒ Public lighting details; ƒ Reg Marlow Reserve playground has been identified as a destination playground for children with autism because of its fenced/gated perimeter. Details as to how the integrity of the reserve will be maintained on the East Way perimeter are required; and ƒ Consideration should be given to improving existing facilities such as the playground and the provision of additional park amenities such as a barbecue or park shelter/rotunda.

Council’s Vegetation Management Officer has assessed the proposed plans (i.e. the revised version) and has no objection with the proposal, subject to the inclusion of a Tree Management Plan condition, on any permit issued. Further comments included that WSUD principles should be used throughout the site top direct water runoff into street tree planting areas and passive landscape areas. Further, permeable surfaces should be used to reduce water runoff from the site.

In response to the above discussion, it is advised that suitable conditions should be included on any permit issued, to address the concerns presented above.

13.6 Environmental Matters & Site Contamination

The Permit Applicant has advised that a Certificate of Environmental Audit (CoEA) was issued for the subject site on 3 December 2007. The CoEA was issued by Mr Phil Sinclair of Coffey Environments. Mr Sinclair was the Environmental Auditor appointed pursuant to the Environmental Protection Act 1970.

Further to the above, the Applicant states that the findings of the CoEA verify that the subject land has been appropriately remediated and is now suitable for residential use and development. Additionally, the Audit specifies that the site is not limited by any management, remediation of other limitations associated with its former contamination.

It should be noted that a copy of the Certificate of Environmental Audit was submitted with the application, to verify this information and should be required by way of a condition on any permit issued, for consent and endorsement purposes.

13.7 Waste Collection

A detailed report, prepared by Leigh Designs, accompanied the application, which detailed rubbish collection for the development. The report proposes Municipal Waste Collection, whereby residents will transfer their bins to either Oak Avenue (dwelling Nos. 1 – 19) or within the internal access ways to nominated bin collection points. These areas are highlighted on the plans for the intended kerbside collection by Council.

The Permit Applicant has indicated that the road layout has been designed to accommodate an 8.8 metre Council garbage vehicle, with appropriate swept paths with no requirement for reversing.

158 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

14 RESPONSE AGAINST GROUNDS OF OBJECTIONS

14.1 Traffic concerns

It is submitted that extensive discussion and justification has been provided in sections 12.3 - Particular Provisions (Clause 52.06: Car Parking and 52.29: Access to a Road Zone Category 1) and 12.6 – Traffic, Access & Parking of this report, which demonstrate support for the proposed development, subject to a number of recommended permit conditions on any permit issued.

Within the objections received and the views presented at the preliminary conference meeting, concern has been raised with regard to a number of traffic related matters. Specifically, these relate to the following:

1. ADDITIONAL VOLUME OF TRAFFIC ALONG OAK AVENUE, AND,

2. ACCESS ARRANGEMENTS

One of the main points of concern expressed by a number of the objectors relates to the two (2), two-way, crossovers proposed from the development site to Oak Avenue and the foreseen increase in traffic movements that will result along Oak Avenue. Objectors outlined at the preliminary conference meeting that Oak Avenue is already impeded due to four (4) traffic calming speed humps that have been installed along Oak Avenue, allowing only one (1) vehicle to pass at a time. Objectors also expressed concern that a significant amount of traffic currently uses Oak Avenue and frequently vehicles queue at the end of Oak Avenue, in order to make a left-hand turn into Nepean Highway.

As such, a large number of the objectors feel that there is no capacity for Oak Avenue to absorb the additional volume of traffic proposed by way of the development without regular users of Oak Avenue to experience serious congestion issues.

A number of the objectors also outlined that they do not object to the development in principle, however as the development makes no provision for vehicle access to Warrigal Road, the objector’s believe that Oak Avenue will experience an unreasonable and unmanageable increase in traffic. Accordingly, it was requested at the preliminary conference meeting that further discussions be had with VicRoads to ascertain whether they would revise their position and, ultimately, support some form of new access from the subject land to Warrigal Road.

The following comments can be made in response to the objector’s concerns:

ƒ First and foremost, it must be acknowledged that both Nepean Highway and Warrigal Road are both primary arterial roads that are governed by VicRoads, under State Government jurisdiction. VicRoads are, therefore, the overriding and administrative body for assessing and allowing any form of new or altered access proposed along either of these roads.

159 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 ƒ At the request of third parties in this matter, further consultation has taken place (following the preliminary conference meeting) by both Council and the Permit Applicant. Vic Roads has revisited the matter and reaffirms their position (on 7 July 2009) that they will not support any access/egress to Warrigal Road.

ƒ Both Council’s Traffic Engineer and the Permit Applicant’s Traffic Engineer believe that Oak Avenue, albeit a local road, is designed in such a way that it can comfortably accommodate the additional amount of traffic envisaged to be generated by the subject development.

ƒ It should be noted that the number of additional vehicle movements proposed from the subject land as a consequence of the development can be considered negligible when compared with a commercial, retail or other form of non- residential use for the subject land.

ƒ In response to the later ground of objection and as explained above, given that VicRoads are not supportive of a new accessway to Warrigal Road, both the Permit Applicant and Council are unable to consider such an arrangement. Therefore, the plans which are currently before Council, that demonstrate access only to Oak Avenue, are those for consideration and those only.

14.2 Neighbourhood character / Visual Bulk along Oak Avenue

The purpose of the Residential 1 Zone, planning policies and the various objectives at Clause 55 require development be designed in a manner that is respectful of neighbourhood character. This concept of ‘respecting’ neighbourhood character is something that has been discussed and debated before the Tribunal, and in the decision Iloray Pty Ltd v Darebin CC and Ors [2003] VCAT 692, the Member at Paragraph 53 stated the following:

‘…In considering this issue, the first point to be made is that the notion of development which is ‘respectful’ of neighbourhood character does not imply that such development must be the same as what already exists. If policy, the purpose of the zone and the objectives of clause 55 were calling for the development that is more of the same, then they would say so. Rather, the notion of ‘respectful’ development must embrace the need for change and diversity in the type of dwellings that are provided and an increase in the intensity of development in circumstances where this is encouraged by planning policy and the purpose of the zone’

The rezoning of areas identified for incremental change to a Residential 3 Zone reinforces the statement above and provides clear direction that the Residential 1 Zone is an area where Council has consciously decided that new medium density (comprising of a variety of housing types and layouts) should be promoted. This is demonstrated in the housing/unit stock currently emerging in the immediate area, which takes the form of more intense development, either in conventional redevelopment (one in from of the other) or semi-detached arrangements.

Further to the above, the site is located with the ‘residential opportunity site’ as set out at Clause 21 and Clause 22 of the Scheme. In this area, a greater level of change

160 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 is encouraged. This is reaffirmed in the VCAT case of Pace Development Group Pty Ltd v Kingston CC [2007] VCAT 1869 (11 October 2007)

The above VCAT appeal related to Planning Permit Application KP849/06, for a 57- apartment style retirement village refused by Council. The following comments are noted from the sitting Member, Peter O’Leary:

‘…..We do not agree with Mr Soding that there are no exceptional circumstances that warrant an intensive redevelopment of the subject site…..…. Indeed, given the size and location of the subject site, we consider that the Council could perhaps have identified it as a “Large Residential Opportunity Site” on the Clause 21.05 Residential Land Use Framework Plan… (Paragraph 46)

‘…Furthermore, the subject site is not within the residential “hinterland”. Rather, it abuts an arterial road, is opposite extensive parklands and there are other non-residential uses in the vicinity, such as the bowling club and the RSL club. In that respect, we agree with Ms Heggen’s description of the site as occupying:

...a transitional location between the main residential area of Edithvale to the north and west and the recreational open space areas to the south and east and the extensive wetlands area further east between Edithvale and Chelsea Heights’ Paragraph 47).

The above quote from the sitting Member gives a strategic direction that opposes the current Council classification of ‘Incremental Change’, which aims to retain the low scale building form of the area. The location of the site at the edge of a residential subdivision, on a main road and adjoining large areas of public open space to the south suggests that it is an ideal site for a form of development that deviates from the norm.

It was for these reasons that the sitting Member concluded that:

‘…..the strategic context warrants a departure from the prevailing form and intensity of the nearby residential area. In other words, there is no imperative that redevelopment of the subject site should be restricted to a built form or intensity that matches that of the neighbourhood to the west and north…(Paragrapgh 66)

As such, one must expect a level of change with the Residential 1 Zone, both intensity and design presentation that will evolve the character of the area. It is submitted that the intensity of this development is appropriate and consistent with that outlined above.

14.3 Overdevelopment

The proposal has a site coverage total of 41 %, which meets both the objective and standard (maximum 60%) of Clause 55.03-3 of the Kingston Planning Scheme. The

161 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 objective of this Clause requires site coverage to respect the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and respond to the features of the site. With regard to this, although a contemporary form of housing is sought by this application, it is considered that the proposed development is responsive and respectful of the existing and preferred neighbourhood character of the area and, furthermore, is responsive to the conditions of the site.

It is considered that the question of overdevelopment cannot be answered or manifested simply by looking at site coverage and building size alone. Overdevelopment is usually characterised by not meeting a majority of the assessment criteria of Clause 55 of the Kingston Planning Scheme (ResCode), which in this instance, is clearly not apparent. As demonstrated within section 12.3 of this report under the heading ‘Clause 55’, the proposed development does not raise any major concerns or critical areas of non-compliance with the provisions (standards and objective) for medium density development.

It is therefore considered that the proposal evidently does not exhibit any of the usual indicators of overdevelopment, these including: unreasonable overshadowing, unreasonable overlooking, insufficient private open space or insufficient car parking.

14.4 Vegetation removal and loss of wildlife

It is submitted that extensive discussion and justification has been provided in section 13.5 Public Open Space Areas, Vegetation & Pedestrian Access of this report, which demonstrates support for the proposed development, subject to a number of recommended permit conditions on any permit issued.

Importantly, an arboricultural assessment and report, prepared by Treelogic, accompanied the application upon lodgement. The findings of this report and also that of Council’s Vegetation Management Officer are that there are a number of trees located on the site that are of high or moderate retention value. All trees are either semi-mature or maturing, which clearly verifies that there is no remnant vegetation on the land. As specified earlier within this report, the removal of vegetation from the subject land is exempt from planning approval, pursuant to Clause 52.17-6 of the Kingston Planning Scheme.

Notwithstanding the above information, a total of fifteen (15) semi mature trees are proposed to be retained on the subject site. It should be noted although not all trees are able to be retained on the subject site; those that are proposed to be retained have essentially been catered for to ensure proper tree protection measures can be put in place during time of construction and that these trees can fit within the spatial needs of their proposed built environment.

As highlighted earlier, Council’s Vegetation Management Officer has assessed the proposed landscape plans (i.e. the revised version) and has no objection with the proposal, subject to the inclusion of a Tree Management Plan condition, on any permit issued.

162 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 15. CONCLUSION:

15.1 For reasons discussed within this report, it is submitted that the proposal be supported subject to the adoption of the recommended permit conditions to ensure that the proposed development achieves a high quality design, achieves good internal amenity as well as responding appropriately to the site and its immediate interfaces.

15.2 The basis of this recommendation to support the proposed development is evidenced by: • The design and siting of the proposed development to be compatible with the surrounding area; • Suitability of the site for medium density residential development having regard to the policy context and planning provisions; • Acceptability of the built form of the proposed development; • Consideration of any external amenity impacts; • Adequacy of internal amenity; • Consideration of the provision of car parking and traffic related matters; and • The proposal satisfies the requirements of the Kingston Planning Scheme, including the State and Local Planning Policy Framework, Residential 1 Zone, the relevant Overlay Controls, the relevant Particular Provisions and Clause 65 – Decision Guidelines (subject to appropriate conditions).

15.3 On balance and subject to the inclusion of suitable conditions, the proposal is considered reasonable and warrants support.

16 RECOMMENDATION:

That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit for the development of this site for one-hundred and nineteen (119) dwellings, to construct buildings and works within a Design and Development Overlay 14 and to alter access to a Road Zone Category 1 within land subject to a Special Building Overlay be issued, subject following conditions: 1. Before the development starts amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be substantially in accordance with the plans submitted to Council on [INSERT DATE], but modified to show: a. the provision of an improved landscape plan and associated planting schedule for the site showing the proposed location, species type, mature height and width, pot sizes and number of species be planted on the site, with such plans to be prepared by a suitably qualified landscape professional and incorporating: i. distinct / clear colour variation between Secondary Street Tree and Small- Medium Evergreen Canopy Trees; ii. Tilia cordata ‘Green Spire’ replaced with Melia azedarach ‘Elite’ on the Secondary Street Tree list;

163 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 iii. Mop-head Robinia substituted in the Design Images section of Drawing TP01A, with an appropriate replacement specie; iv. Ulmus parvifolia ‘Todd’ correctly labelled; and v. Fraxinus ‘Raywood’ (Claret Ash) nominated as the preferred species to be planted along the Oak Avenue naturestrip (ref: Drawing TP01A).

b. all requirements of Melbourne Water, in accordance with Condition 5 of this permit. c. all requirements of VicRoads, in accordance with any relevant Condition XX of this permit. d. all corner dwellings (i.e. dwelling numbers 13, 14, 19, 20, 27 and 28) provided with greater articulation along their secondary facades, to create a sense of entry to the site and provide interest; e. the façade of Dwelling 33 that faces Reg Marlow Reserve provided with greater articulation to improve this dwelling’s presentation; f. the provision for a pedestrian access along Middle Lane, between Centre Way and East Way; g. a reduction of half the number of bicycle racks provided near the entrance to Reg Marlow Reserve; h. all fencing located along the site’s Oak Avenue frontage reduced to a maximum height of 1.5 metres and provided with suitable screen type landscaping behind the fence, to afford the front private open space areas to these dwellings some privacy; i. an elevation plan of the front fencing in accordance with Condition 1.h. of this permit, which provides details of its height, materials and colours; j. an elevation plan of all fencing to Reg Marlow Reserve, including details of gate(s), height, materials and colours; k. a notation on the respective site plan(s) stating: “The redundant vehicle crossing to Warrigal Road must be removed, kerb & channel must be reinstated and the extension to the existing footpath up to the wing of the vehicle crossing must be constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority”; l. the surface material of all driveways / accessways and car parking spaces nominated in all-weather coloured concrete sealcoat, or similar; and m. the provision of a full colour, finishes and building materials schedule, including samples (illustrated on an A4 or A3 sheet), for all external elevations and driveways of the development; and n. a total of five percent (5%) of all the land subject to this application provided in the form of land abutting the existing Reg Marlow Reserve to be used for the purpose of public open space 2. The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority. 3. Condition required by Melbourne Water

164 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 a) Prior to the issue of Certification of Occupancy, the Owner shall enter into and comply with an agreement with Melbourne Water Corporation for the acceptance of surface and storm water from the subject land directly into Melbourne Water’s drainage systems and waterways, the provision of drainage works and other matters in accordance with the statutory powers of Melbourne Water Corporation. b) No polluted and / or sediment laden runoff is to be discharged directly or indirectly into Melbourne Water’s drains or watercourses. c) All finished floor levels are to be a minimum of 300mm and Garage finished floor levels to be a minimum of 150mm above the 1 in 100 year flood level associated with an existing or proposed Melbourne Water asset. The developer will be required to enter into a S.173 Agreement with Council and Melbourne Water to ensure minimum floor levels are attained. d) Engineering plans of the subdivision (in electronic format) are to be forwarded to Melbourne Water for comment / approval. e) A Certified Survey Plan is to be submitted for approval after the completion of filling, verifying that the specified fill levels have been achieved. This will be required prior to an issue of a Statement of Compliance for the Subdivision. f) Any roads or access way intended to act as a stormwater overland flow path must be designed and constructed to comply with the floodway safety criteria outlined with Melbourne Water’s Land Development Manual. 4. Conditions required by the Department of Transport (awaiting a response) – if they require conditions, please include in Condition 1 as per Melbourne Water. 5. Prior to the commencement of the use and development hereby permitted, the owner of the land must enter into an executive agreement with the Responsible Authority pursuant to Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority in which it shall be covenanted as follows:

a) Pursuant to the provisions of Section 181 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 this agreement shall be registered with the Registrar of Titles and shall run with the land;

b) That the requirements contained in the agreement shall form part of any lease of the premises which the owner of the land under this permit may enter into with another party; and

c) The owner of the land under the permit shall pay the legal costs and be responsible for the preparation and registration of the said agreement

The Section 173 agreement must specifically provide for the following:

a) Assurance that minimum finished floor levels will be attained in accordance with Melbourne Water requirements and Condition 3.c. of this permit;

165 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 b) The implementation and maintenance responsibilities of all required works to be provided for internal road networks, traffic management and signage plan; c) A detailed maintenance schedule outlining the responsibilities of the parties (i.e. ‘who is going to maintain what’) in relation, but not limited, to the ongoing maintenance of Reg Marlow Reserve and associated equipment, fencing, gate(s) lighting, and the like, landscaping and street lighting within the development, the internal road network, visitor car parking, the ground floor car parking area etc; and d) The protection and retention of all existing trees to be retained.

6. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a Tree Management Plan (TMP) for the trees to be retained on site, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed as evidence of its approval and will then form part of the permit and shall thereafter be complied with. The TMP must be prescriptive with no use of ambiguous language (eg. “must” instead of “should”) and must include, but is not limited, to the following: a) Initial clean up surrounding trees to be retained; b) Tree Protection Zones; c) Tree Protection Fencing required; d) Service Installation; e) Surface Treatments proposed and alternatives such as permeable surfaces; f) Pruning requirements (specific); g) Long Term Management of the trees; h) Reporting of tree condition and auditing of tree protection measures during the development process (including timing of inspections); i) Impact of proposed level changes surrounding trees to be retained, including proposed retaining walls; j) Alternatives to design to create a better environment for the tree to be retained; k) Cultural methods including mulching, watering etc. etc. to be used to protect the trees throughout construction; and l) How WSUD principles can be applied around trees to be retained to ensure water runoff can be directed towards the trees. 7. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a Park Integration Plan (PIP) that demonstrates the integration of Reg Marlow Reserve with the development, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed as evidence of its approval and will then form part of the permit and shall thereafter be complied with. The PIP must include, but is not limited, to the following:

166 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

a) Pedestrian access in the park to cater for playground access, and through access to Warrigal Road; b) Provision for Car parking on East Way; c) Public lighting details; d) Details as to how the integrity of the reserve will be maintained on the East Way perimeter given that Reg Marlow Reserve playground has been identified as a destination playground for children with autism due to its fenced/gated perimeter; and e) Consideration should be given to improving existing facilities such as the playground and the provision of additional park amenities such as a barbecue or park shelter/rotunda.

8. Before the commencement of any buildings and works on the Land, a Construction Management Plan (CMP), to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed as evidence of its approval and will then form part of the permit and shall thereafter be complied with. The CMP must specify and deal with, but not limited to, the following:

a) a detailed schedule of works which includes full project timing; b) traffic management details including when or whether any access points would be required to be blocked; c) the location for the parking of all construction vehicles and construction worker vehicles during construction; d) delivery of materials including details of where materials will be stored and how concrete pours would be managed e) proposed traffic management signage for Oak Avenue (if required) indicating any inconvenience generated by construction; f) fully detailed plan indicating where construction hoardings would be located and as relevant the associated approvals required; g) times for loading/unloading of materials; h) containment of waste on site; i) suppression of dust management; j) business operations on the site during construction; k) site security; l) public safety measures; and m) construction times, noise and vibration controls.

9. Before the commencement of any buildings and works on the Land, a Waste Management Plan (WMP) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed as evidence of its approval and will then form part of the permit and thereafter be complied with. The WMP must include but is not limited to:

167 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 a) The supply of bins for both ‘general waste’ and ‘recyclable waste’ and demonstrating how the garbage and recycling aspects of the development will operate;

b) The manner in which waste will be stored and collected including: type, size, number of containers and procedure(s) put in place as to how tenants are required to dispose of waste;

c) Spatial provision for on-site storage;

d) Private contractor details; and

e) The size of the collection vehicle and the frequency, time and point of collection.

The WMP must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The WMP must not be modified unless without the written consent of the Responsible Authority. 10. Prior to the endorsement of the Plans required pursuant to Condition 1 of this permit, the provision of an ESD report to be prepared by a suitably qualified professional must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed as evidence of its approval and will then form part of the permit and shall thereafter be complied with. The ESD report must include, but is not limited to, detailing initiatives for stormwater harvesting, insulation, daylighting, collective rainwater tanks as opposed to individual rainwater tanks, public and private landscape irrigation and car washing, energy efficient concepts, glazing and internal ventilation.

11. Prior to the occupation of development hereby permitted, the landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The landscaping must then be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 12. Prior to the occupation of development hereby permitted, all buildings and works and the conditions of this permit must be complied with, unless with the further prior written consent of the Responsible Authority. 13. The development of the site must be provided with stormwater works which incorporate the use of water sensitive urban design principles to improve stormwater runoff quality and which also retains, on site, any increase in runoff as a result of the approved development. The system must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Council's Development Engineer can advise on satisfactory options to achieve these desired outcomes which may include the use of an infiltration or bioretention system, rainwater tanks connected for reuse and a detention system.

14. Before the development commences, a Stormwater Management Plan showing the stormwater works to the nominated point of discharge must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Stormwater Management Plan must be

168 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 prepared by a qualified person and show all details of the proposed stormwater works including all existing and proposed features that may have an impact (e.g. trees to be retained, crossings, services, fences, abutting buildings, existing boundary surface levels, etc.).

15. Stormwater works must be provided on the site so as to prevent overflows onto adjacent properties.

16. Stormwater outflow from the development to the Council drainage system should not exceed the predevelopment outflow of the site.

17. Environmental Assessment (a) Prior to commencement of the development the owner must supply a preliminary site assessment of the site in accordance with the National Environment Protection Measures (Assessment of Site Contamination) 1999 and a report detailing the findings of the preliminary site assessment must be submitted to the Responsible Authority: or (b) Prior to the use or development authorised by this permit the applicant must submit a Soil Management Plan (SMP) to the responsible authority. When approved, the SMP will form part of this permit and the actions required by the SMP must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Which ever is to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. (c) If the site assessment identifies contamination of the land identified in (a) or (b) above, an environmental audit report must be produced in accordance with Section 53X of the Environmental Protection Act or alternatively a Certificate of Environment Audit produced in accordance with Section 53Y of the Environment Protection Act must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. (d) Soil validation testing must take place during any excavation works to determine whether soil is unreasonably contaminated for the proposed residential uses noting that residential development is to be erected on the first and second floors. If site contamination is detected, the results of the soil testing must be forwarded to the Responsible Authority and the EPA within 7 days of receipt of the soil validation testing 18. Prior to the occupation of any part of the development approved under this Planning Permit, or prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance for the subdivision of the subject site, the applicant / owner of the land must either, construct all footpaths and garden beds located along the Oak Avenue and Warrigal Road frontages of the site in accordance with the plans submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority at the developer's cost (including paving), or pay an agreed amount of money to the Responsible Authority towards the construction of all footpaths and garden beds located along Oak Avenue and Warrigal Road frontages of the site. The amount payable towards this construction must be determined in consultation with the Responsible Authority. 19. Prior to the occupation of development hereby permitted, or by such later date as is approved by the Responsible Authority in writing, the nature strip, kerb and channel,

169 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 vehicle crossover and footpath must reinstated to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

20. Any existing vehicular crossing not in accordance with the endorsed plan must be removed and the kerb reinstated in a manner satisfactory to the Responsible Authority and any proposed vehicular crossing must be fully constructed to the Responsible Authority’s standard specification.

21. Prior to the occupation of development hereby permitted, all boundary fences must be repaired and/or replaced as necessary to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, at the cost of the applicant/owner.

22. Prior to the occupation of development hereby permitted, areas set aside for parking vehicles, access lanes and paths as shown on the endorsed plans must be: a. Constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. b. Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans. c. Surfaced in accordance with the endorsed plans under this permit or in an all weather coloured concrete seal-coat, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. d. Drained and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Parking areas and access lanes must be kept available for these purposes at all times and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 23. All piping and ducting above the ground floor storey of the development (other than rainwater guttering and downpipes) must be concealed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 24. Finished Floor Levels shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered or modified without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority 25. The alteration of ground levels involving an increased or decreased level at the boundaries must be retained by the provision of an adequate retaining wall, constructed of brick or masonry or other suitable alternative approved by the Responsible Authority and/or a relevant Building Surveyor to buttress the soil against the possibility of shift. The construction of this retaining wall shall be the sole responsibility of the developer and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and/or a relevant Building Surveyor. 26. All excavation and/or filling on the site must be to Melbourne Water’s requirements and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 27. All external surfaces of the building elevations must be finished in accordance with the schedule on the endorsed plans and maintained in good condition to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 28. Construction on the site shall be restricted to the following times:

Monday to Friday 7:00am to 7:00pm; Saturday 9:00am to 6:00pm; and Sunday & public holidays no construction permitted.

170 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 Or otherwise as approved by the Responsible Authority in writing.

29. Before the occupation of any dwelling hereby permitted, roadworks and/or drainage as relevant and associated works must be provided in accordance with plans and specifications approved by Council and must include details of :- (i) Amenity Control During Construction; (ii) Road Pavement Design/Makeup; (iii) Drainage System Design/Layout; (iv) Traffic Management/Signage/Linemarking; (v) Footpaths; (vi) Cycle/Pedestrian Paths/Signing; (vii) Kerb and Channel; (viii) Road Widening on Existing Access Roads Acceleration/Deceleration Lanes; (viiii) Tree Planting: Tree Reserves; (x) Fencing on Tree Reserves; (xi) Permanent Survey Marks/Numbered/Levelled; (xii) Service Conduit Plan; (xiii) Metcon Marking/Signing; (xiiii) Street Signs; (xv) Street Trees provision or payment; (xvi) Fencing for Municipal Reserves; (xvii) Municipal Reserves (Standard of Construction); (xviii) Vehicle Crossings; (xviiii) Filling of Land/Placement/Material; (xx) Service Road - Provision/Construction; (xxi) Street Lighting; (xxii) Water Tapping location to provided on all Municipal Reserves).

30. The plan must set aside a reserve for public open space (abutting the Reg Marlow Reserve) equivalent to five percent (5%) per cent of all the land subject to this application. The plan must specify that the reserve rests in the Council. 31. All works on or facing the boundaries of adjoining properties must be finished and surface cleaned to a standard that is well presented to neighbouring properties in a manner to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 32. Once the development has started it must be continued and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 33 In accordance with section 68 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, this permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

• The development is not started within two (2) years from the date of permit issue.

• The development is not completed within four (4) years from the date of permit issue. In accordance with section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the responsible authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires, or within three months afterwards.

171 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

Note: Prior to the commencement of the development you are required to obtain the necessary Building Permit. Note: The applicant/owner must provide a copy of this planning permit to any appointed Building Surveyor. It is the responsibility of the applicant/owner and Building Surveyor to ensure that all building development works approved by any building permit is consistent with the planning permit. Note: If further information is required in relation to Melbourne Water’s permit conditions shown above, please contact Melbourne Water on telephone 9235 2517, quoting Melbourne Water’s reference 156467. Note: Before removing / pruning any vegetation from the site, the applicant or any contractor engaged to remove any vegetation, should consult Council’s Vegetation Management Officer to verify if a Local Laws Permits is required for the removal of such vegetation. Note: Check that the major flow of the development is contained within the road reserve (no overflow to the abutting properties or flooding garages).

172 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

L 103 KP882/08: 42-44 Westley Street, Carrum

APPLICANT: Neil Fletcher Design Pty Ltd ADDRESS OF LAND: No.42-44 (Lot 14 on PS006790) Westley Street, Carrum Melway Ref: 97F7 & 97E7 PROPOSAL Six (6) dwellings CONTACT OFFICER: Helen Walker FILE NO: KP882/08 ZONING: Residential 3 OVERLAY: Special Building Overlay KINGSTON State Planning Policy Framework PLANNING SCHEME Clause 12: Metropolitan Development ORDINANCE Clause 14: Settlement CONTROLS: Clause 16.02: Housing – Medium Density Housing

Local Planning Policy Framework Clause 21.05 MSS – Residential Land Use Clause 22.11: Residential Development Policy Clause 32.06: Residential 3 Zone & Schedule Clause 44.05: Special Building Overlay Clause 55: Two or More Dwellings on a Lot & Residential Buildings Clause 65: Decision Guidelines RESIDENTIAL Incremental Housing Change POLICY AREA: Area 6: Average lot size: 578.1m2 (development density: 1 dwelling per 1:289.05m2 of site area) Proposal Area: 1544.6m2 (proposed development density: 1 dwelling per 257.43m2 of site area) NEIGHBOURHOOD Area 81 CHARACTER AREA: DECISION BY: 8 June 2009 NETT DAYS: 81

INTRODUCTION At the meeting of 29th June, 2009 Council resolved to defer a decision on this application pending an officer report and councillor discussion of the Right-of-Way that forms part of the site subject to this application.

A report has been prepared by Council’s Manager of Property Services and will be presented to Councillors at the Committee Information Session on 20th July, 2009. The report details the history of the land and details the process for the sale of it to the owner of the remainder of the subject site.

Given this information, the application can be further considered by Council.

173 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

Development Assessment Table

Criteria ResCode Requirement Proposed Development Provision Private Incremental Housing Dwelling 1 – 70m² of which 46m2 is secluded Open Space Change requirements – private open space Schedule to the Residential 3 Zone: Dwelling 2 – 64.3m² of which all is secluded 40m2, located to the side / rear of the private open space dwelling, achieving a minimum Dwelling 3 – 40m² of which all is secluded dimension of 5 metres private open space for a 2 bedroom dwelling with convenient Dwelling 4 – 68.3m² of which 44.3m2 is access from a living secluded private open space room. An additional 20m2 is required for each Dwelling 5 – 61m² of which all is secluded additional bedroom, private open space which achieves a minimum dimension of 3 metres. Dwelling 6 – 41.6m² of which all is secluded private open space

Car Parking Two (2) spaces for each 3 bedroom All dwellings have two (2) car spaces – one dwelling. (1) in a single garage and one (1) in tandem

One (1) additional visitor car parking space is proposed

Dwelling The average distance of the Dwelling 1 – 6.42 metres Setback to setbacks of the front walls Street of the existing buildings on Dwelling 4 – 7.77 metres the abutting allotments facing the front street or 9 metres, whichever is the lesser. Site Incremental Housing Site coverage is 43.4% Coverage Change requirements – Schedule to the Residential 3 Zone: Maximum 50%

EXISTING CONDITIONS:

The subject site comprises two (2) allotments located on the south-west side of Westley Street in Carrum. The proposal also proposes uses land presently designated as a right-of- way and which abuts the south-eastern boundary of No.44 Westley Street. Both lots are rectangular in shape with a combined (including the right-of-way) frontage width of 27.18 metres, and a maximum depth of 56.31 metres, resulting in an overall area of 1,544.6m². The

174 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 site is essentially flat. Vehicle access to the site is via a single width crossover located at the north-west end of the frontage, with the right-of-way having its own direct vehicular access.

The subject site does not contain any significant vegetation, and there are no existing street trees within the Westley Street naturestrip.

The site is currently vacant.

The site is located within an established residential area, with surrounding residential development comprising both brick and weatherboard single and double storey development. Roof styles are varied, and include complex hip and hip and gable roofing, the majority of which are tiled, with some iron roofing also present. There is no predominant fencing style in the neighbourhood.

PROPOSAL IN DETAIL:

It is proposed to construct six (6) dwellings on the land comprising four (4) double storey and two (2) single storey dwellings.

Key elements of the proposal are as follows:

Dwelling Floor Area Private Open Space No. of Car Parking (excluding Bedrooms Spaces garage / verandah) 1 145.4m² 70m² of which 46m2 is 3 2 secluded private open space

2 142.9m² 64.3m² of which all is 3 2 secluded private open space

3 89.2m² 40m² of which all is 2 2 secluded private open space

Dwelling 4 – 68.3m² of 4 165.8m² which 44.3m2 is secluded 3 2 private open space

5 146.1m² Dwelling 5 – 61m² of which 3 2 all is secluded private open space

6 91.4m² Dwelling 6 – 41.6m² of 2 2 which all is secluded private open space

175 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

Building Materials and colours have been nominated as:

Roof: Concrete roof tiles (brown) Walls: Ground floor brick veneer (brown) First floor lightweight Styrofoam render finish (grey/brown) Garage doors Panel lift (light brown) Windows: Anodised aluminium Driveways: Concrete Front fencing: 1.2m high painted pickets (cream) Boundary fences: Paling The proposal would result in a site coverage of 43.4%, and a site permeability of 37.1%. TITLE DETAILS

The applicant has completed a restrictive covenant declaration form declaring that there is no restrictive covenant on the title.

AMENDMENT TO THE APPLICATION BEFORE NOTIFICATION

An application pursuant to Section 50 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 was received on 20th February, 2009. The amendment includes:

• Dimensions and other minor notations and additions to the Neighbourhood and Site Description Plan, Design Response Plan, Site Layout Plan and Elevation Plans; • Redesign of the first floor level of dwellings 1, 2 and 5 to create greater articulation and setback to neighbouring boundaries and the ground floor footprint; and • Garages to dwellings 1 and 4 located a minimum 1 metre behind the front façade of these dwellings.

Council decided to allow the amendments.

ADVERTISING

The proposal was advertised by sending notices to adjoining and opposite property owners and occupiers and by maintaining a notice on site for fourteen (14) days. Nine (9) objections to the proposal where received.

The grounds of objection may be summarised as follows:

• Traffic congestion • Mess from the construction

176 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 • Devaluation of property (invalid planning ground) • Overdevelopment of the site • Overshadowing • Not in keeping with neighbourhood character/ bulk and mass

PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE

A preliminary conference was held on the 15th April, 2009, where the above issues were discussed. There were no resolutions reached at the meeting, and accordingly, all objections still stand.

AMENDMENT TO THE APPLICATION AFTER NOTIFICATION AND RE- NOTIFICATION

No amendments made.

PLANNING SCHEME PROVISIONS

A planning permit is required to develop land for two dwellings, pursuant to Clause 32.06-4 of the Kingston Planning Scheme (the Scheme). In addition, according to ResCode at Clause 55 and the decision guidelines at Clause 65 of the Scheme, Council must consider the State Planning Policy Framework (Clause 16) and the Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF), including the Municipal Strategic Statement of the Scheme.

Other

The land is located in an ‘Incremental Housing Change Area’ as identified by the Residential Land Use Framework Plan that forms part of the Municipal Strategic Statement.

REFERRAL

The application was referred to the following external authority pursuant to Section 55 of the Planning And Environment Act. Where appropriate, amended applications under Section 50, S50A and S57C of the Act have been re-referred. The referral response below relate to the current application only: ƒ Melbourne Water

No objection was received from Melbourne Water.

The application was referred to the following internal departments within Council (where appropriate amended applications have been re-referred):

ƒ Property Services ƒ Vegetation Management Officer ƒ Development Engineer

177 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 Council’s Development Engineer and Vegetation Management Officer advised of no objection, subject to the inclusion of a number of conditions on any permit issued. Council’s Property Services Officers require the applicant to purchase the right-of-way that is incorporated into the proposal from Council This will be a condition of any approval issued.

Discussion

Kingston Planning Scheme Provisions:

Clause 12: Metropolitan Development This section of the scheme provides specific objectives and strategies for Metropolitan Melbourne, including the following:

Clause 12.01 A more compact city seeks to: ƒ Facilitate sustainable development that takes full advantage of existing settlement patterns, and investment in transport and communication, water and sewerage and social facilities. ƒ Locate a substantial proportion of new housing in or close to activity centres and other strategic redevelopment sites that offer good access to services and transport.

Clause 12.05 A great place to be – seeks to create urban environments that are of better quality, safer and more functional, provide more open space and an easily recognisable sense of place and cultural identity, including: ƒ Promotion of good urban design to make the environment more liveable and attractive. ƒ Recognition and protection of cultural identity, neighbourhood character and sense of place. ƒ Improvement of community safety and encouragement of neighbourhood design that makes people feel safe. ƒ Protection of heritage places and values. ƒ Promotion of excellent neighbourhood design to create attractive, walkable and diverse communities. ƒ Improvement of the quality and distribution of open space and ensuring the long term protection of open space. ƒ Improvement of the environmental health of the bays and their catchments.

Clause 12.06 A fairer city – seeks to increase the supply of well located and affordable housing by: ƒ Encouraging a significant proportion of new development, including development activity centres and strategic redevelopment sites, to be affordable for households on low to moderate incomes. ƒ Facilitate a mix of private, affordable and social housing in Transit Cities Projects. ƒ Ensuring the redevelopment and renewal of public housing stock better meets community needs.

Clause 12.07 A greener city – seeks to minimise impacts on the environment to create a sustainable path for future growth and development by: ƒ Ensuring that water resources are managed in a sustainable way.

178 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 ƒ Reduce the amount of waste generated and encourage increased reuse and recycling of waste materials. ƒ Contribute to national and international efforts to reduce energy usage and greenhouse gas emission. ƒ Reduce the impact of stormwater on bays and catchments.

Clause 12.08 Better transport links seeks to: ƒ Manage the road system to achieve integration, choice and balance by developing an efficient and safe road network and making the most of existing infrastructure. ƒ Give more priority to walking and cycling in planning urban development and in managing the road systems and neighbourhoods.

It is considered that this application meets these objectives.

Clause 14.01: Planning for Urban Settlement This section of the Scheme seeks facilitate the orderly development of urban areas. It is considered that this application meets these objectives.

Clause 14.01-2: Planning for Urban Settlement - General Implementation This section of the Scheme seeks to ensure that the consolidation of residential and employment activities is encouraged within existing urban areas and designated growth areas, and that development in existing residential areas should be respectful of neighbourhood character, and that higher land use densities and mixed use developments should be encouraged near railway stations, major bus terminals, transport interchanges and tram and principal bus routes.

It is considered that this application meets these objectives.

Clause 16.02: Housing - Medium Density Housing It is the objective of the State Planning Policy Framework to encourage the development of well-designed medium-density housing which: ƒ Respects the character of the neighbourhood. ƒ Improves housing choice. ƒ Makes better use of existing infrastructure. ƒ Improve energy efficiency of housing.

It is considered that this application clearly meets these objectives.

Clause 21.05 MSS - Residential Land use

Incremental Housing Change Area

The type of housing change anticipated in these areas will take the form of extensions to existing houses, new single dwellings or the equivalent of new two dwelling developments on average sized lots. The existing single dwelling character of these areas is to be retained.

The objectives of the Municipal Strategic Statement (as relevant to this application) include:

• Objective 1: To provide a wide range of housing types across the municipality to increase housing diversity and cater for the changing needs of current and future

179 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 populations, taking account of the differential capacity of local areas in Kingston to accommodate different types and rates of housing change. • Objective 2: To ensure new residential development respects neighbourhood character and is site responsive, and that medium density dwellings are of the highest design quality. • Objective 3: To preserve and enhance well landscaped/vegetated environments and protect identified significant vegetation. • Objective 4: To promote more environmentally sustainable forms of residential development. • Objective 5: To manage the interface between residential development and adjoining or nearby sensitive/strategic land uses. • Objective 6: To ensure residential development does not exceed known physical infrastructure capacities.

Relevant strategies to achieve these objectives (as relevant to this application) include: • Promote lower density housing in established suburban areas that do not have direct access to activity/transport nodes and “encourage” only incremental change in housing density (incremental housing change areas). Such areas will retain their predominantly single dwelling character and incremental change will occur in the form of single dwellings or the equivalent of dual occupancy developments on average sized lots. • Promote new residential development which is of a high standard, responds to the local context and positively contributes to the character and identity of the local neighbourhood. • Promote new residential development which provides a high standard of amenity and quality of life for future occupants. • Encourage the retention of existing vegetation wherever possible. • Improve landscape character by accommodating appropriate landscaping within new residential developments. • Ensure that the planning, design, siting and construction of new residential development responds to best practice environmental design guidelines for energy efficiency, wast and recycling, and stormwater management. • Promote medium density housing development in close proximity to public transport facilities, particularly train stations. • Ensure the siting and design of new residential development sensitively responds to interfaces with environmentally sensitive areas, including the foreshore. • Ensure that where medium and higher density residential areas are proposed adjacent to lower density residential areas, the design of such development takes proper account of its potential amenity impacts. • Ensure that the siting and design of new residential development is consistent with Urban Stormwater Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines and that new development contributes to the maintenance and upgrade of local drainage infrastructure as required, where such new development will impact on the capacity of such infrastructure.

180 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 • Require the provision of car parking to satisfy the anticipated demand having regard to average car ownership levels in the area, the environmental capacity of the local street network and the proximity of public transport and nearby on and off street car parking. • Ensure that all new medium density housing provides adequate private open space that is appropriately landscaped.

It is considered that the proposed development is generally consistent with the relevant objectives of Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement as outlined above. The proposal should create an adequate standard of amenity for the future occupants of each dwelling, as well as for occupants of existing dwellings in the immediate area. It is considered that the development should have minimal impact on the existing streetscape character, and the broader local neighbourhood character, particularly if the 2 middle dwellings (dwellings 2 and 5) are redesigned to be single storey dwellings.

Clause 22.11 of the Kingston Planning Scheme encourages single dwellings or dual occupancy style developments on ‘average sized lots’ within areas designated for Incremental Housing Change. The average lot size within this area (Area 6) has been calculated to be 578.1m2, which results in a suggested development density of 1 dwelling per 289.05m². The subject site has an overall site area of 1,544.6m2 and the development density would be calculated at 1 dwelling per 257.43m2. However, it is considered that the development proposes an appropriate number of dwellings on this site as demonstrated by its overall compliance with ResCode and the Schedule to the Residential 3 Zone Schedule requirements.

Clause 22.11 - Residential Development Policy The proposal has been assessed against the objectives and policy of the Residential Development Policy. It is considered that the proposal satisfactorily meets these requirements.

Clause 32.01: Residential 3 Zone The purpose of the Residential 3 zone includes the provision of residential development at a range of densities with a variety of dwellings to meet the housing needs of all households. A planning permit is required for the development of 2 or more dwellings.

Schedule The proposal meets the additional requirements listed in the Schedule to the Residential 3 zone.

Clause 44.05 – Special Building Overlay

It is considered that the proposed development satisfies the requirements of this overlay. The proposal has been referred to Melbourne Water in accordance with Clause 44.05-5.

Clause 55: ResCode The proposal has been assessed against the objectives and standards of Clause 55 (ResCode) of the Kingston Planning Scheme. It is considered that the proposal satisfactorily meets the requirements of ResCode, however, should dwellings 2 and 5 become single storey dwellings

181 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 it should exceed ResCode requirements. There are, however, some areas of non-compliance which are as follows:

Clause 55.02 - Neighbourhood Character & Infrastructure

Standard B1 Neighbourhood Character - The site is located within Character Area No.81 of Council’s Neighbourhood Character Guidelines (revised February 2003). Within this area, the following characteristics are considered to make “major” contributions to the streetscape:

• Roof shape, with most rooves being simple hipped, complex hipped, simple gabled, complex gabled and combination; and • Materials, with various roof materials and colours, and mainly white or pastel weatherboard walls or render.

The proposed hipped roof forms proposed are considered appropriate within the streetscape and broader neighbourhood character. Similarly, the part brick and part render external walls should blend with existing residential development on abutting and surrounding properties. Overall, the proposal achieves compliance with the Neighbourhood Character Guidelines, if dwellings 2 and 5 become single storey dwellings.

Furthermore, Councils Residential Development Policy (Clause 22.11) encourages the double storey component of new medium density housing to be located towards the front of a site, to respond to the character of the local neighbourhood, and should be sensitively designed to avoid unreasonable adverse amenity impacts on neighbours. It is noted that dwellings 1 and 5 at the front of the site, and dwellings 2 and 5 towards the middle of the site are all double storey, with dwellings 3 and 6 at the rear of the site being single storey. It is further noted that the upper level of all double storey dwellings have been somewhat articulated and recessed in from the level below, to provide some visual interest, and reduce perceived visual bulk. Whilst it is acknowledged that all dwellings maintain visual interest, given that dwellings 2 and 5 are situated at the middle of the site, it is, considered appropriate to require their upper level to be deleted. This way, the only double storey dwellings proposed are located at the front of the site. Subject to this modification, it is considered that the proposal adequately meets and responds to Council’s Policy, and is consistent with the streetscape and broader neighbourhood character.

Three (3) crossovers are proposed for the site, which are spaced evenly across the site frontage. This arrangement is considered appropriate in the context of the streetscape and neighbourhood character. The spacing of the crossovers further maximises the ability for street parking.

Standard B2 Residential Policy – As highlighted above, Councils Residential Development Policy (Clause 22.11) encourages the double storey component of new medium density housing to be located towards the front of a site, to respond to the character of the local neighbourhood, and should be sensitively designed to avoid unreasonable adverse amenity impacts on neighbours. As discussed, wellings 2 and 5 which are located towards the middle of the site are both double storey, and a condition on any approval issued will require that the first floor level of both of these dwellings be deleted.

182 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 It is further noted that the site is located within an area specified for “Incremental Change”, where housing change anticipated will take the form of extensions to existing houses, new single dwellings or the equivalent of new two dwelling developments on average sized lots. The average lot size for this area (area 6) is 578.1m² (1:289.05). The (combined) lot size is 1,544.6m² and the average density proposed by this proposal is 1:257.4m². The proposal, is therefore, not in accordance with this aspect of Council Policy. However, it is demonstrated that the proposal is consistent with all other aspects of Council’s Policy, and the provisions of Clause 55 of the Kingston Planning Scheme, and as such the proposal is justified.

Standard B5 Integration with the Street – the deletion of the upper level of dwellings 2 and 5 (as highlighted) should improve the integration of the development with Westley Street. The development should not be a dominant element within the streetscape, and should blend well with abutting and surrounding residential development.

Clause 55.03 - Site Layout and Building Massing

Standard B6 Street Setback - requires that any new dwelling on this allotment should be setback 7.78 metres from the site frontage. The dwelling on land abutting to the north-west is setback about 12.56 metres from its Westley Street frontage, and dwelling on land to the south-east, 3 metres from the Westley Street frontage. Dwelling 1 in the proposed development would have a varied frontage setback between 6.42 metres and 6.72 metres, and dwelling 4 a varied frontage setback between 7.55 metres and 7.77 metres. Given the setback of abutting dwellings, and other dwellings within Westley Street, the proposed setbacks are considered reasonable. It is also noted that the garage of the front dwellings (dwellings 1 and 4) would be set back from the front wall of the respective dwellings.

Clause 55.04 - Amenity Impacts

Standard B17 Side and Rear Setbacks – it is considered that all dwellings achieve reasonable side and rear boundary setbacks. The upper level of the double storey dwellings at the front of the site are provided with generous setbacks from abutting properties and dwellings.

Standard B18 Walls on Boundaries – boundary construction is proposed for both side and rear boundaries. This construction would be appropriate located given the location of dwellings and outbuildings on abutting properties. From a streetscape perspective, the boundary construction is considered reasonable, and should have adverse visual impact.

Standard B21 Overshadowing Open Space – any overshadowing created by the proposed dwellings satisfies ResCode provisions, and is not considered to be at a level detrimental to the abutting properties.

Standard B22 Overlooking – the upper level windows of dwellings that face abutting properties would have part obscure glazed windows and/or be highlight windows so as to avoid any overlooking into abutting properties.

Clause 65: Decision Guidelines This clause of the Planning Scheme sets out other matters which must be given regard to before deciding on an application.

183 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

It is considered that the proposed development, as required to be amended, meets the requirements as set out in this Clause of the Planning Scheme.

Neighbourhood Character Area Guidelines (Incorporated Document): The land is located within Area 81 of the Neighbourhood Character Guidelines. The proposals compliance with these Guidelines has been discussed at Section Clause 55 (Neighbourhood Character) of this report.

Designing Contextual Housing Guidelines – April 2003 (Reference Document): The Designing Contextual Housing Guidelines supplement the Kingston Neighbourhood Character Guidelines, Residential Development Policy and ResCode provisions and offer a range of design techniques and suggestions to assist with residential design which is responsive to local character. It is considered that the proposed development does not raise any issues of non-compliance with these guidelines.

Response to Grounds of Objection

It is considered that the majority of the objectors concerns with regard to neighbourhood character/ bulk and mass, overdevelopment and overshadowing have been adequately addressed in the ResCode section this report. However, with respect to the other valid grounds of objection the following comments are made:

- Traffic congestion: it is considered that the surrounding road network would be able to adequately accommodate any additional vehicle movements that are generated by the new dwellings, and accordingly, the proposal does not raise any traffic concerns.

- Mess from the construction: standard Conditions of any permit issued during construction regarding amenity can be placed on any approval issued. There is no evidence to suggest that this development would result in any excessive mess from the building construction.

General Comment

The proposed development as required to be amended, is considered appropriate for the site as evidenced by:

• The design and siting of the proposed development to be compatible with the surrounding area;

• The proposal should not have a detrimental impact on surrounding properties (subject to appropriate conditions); and,

• The proposal satisfies the requirements of the Kingston Planning Scheme, including the MSS, Residential Development Policy, Residential 3 zoning and the Schedule to the zone, Clause 55 – Two or more dwellings on a lot and Residential Buildings and the Neighbourhood Character Area Guidelines and the Designing Contextual Housing Guidelines.

184 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 It is considered that the objectors’ concerns have been addressed where appropriate, and on balance and subject to the inclusion of suitable conditions, the proposal is considered reasonable and warrants support.

Recommendation

That Council resolve to issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit for the development of this site for six (6) dwellings, subject following conditions: 1. Before the development starts amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be substantially in accordance with the plans submitted to Council on 26th February, 2009, but modified to show: a. the provision of an improved landscape in accordance with the submitted development plan and the City of Kingston Landscape Land Checklist, with such plans to be prepared by a suitably qualified landscape professional i). an associated planting schedule showing the proposed, species type, mature height and width, pot sizes and number of species to be planted on the site; ii). the delineation of all garden beds, paving and grassed areas throughout the development; iii). all existing trees on the site and within three (3) metres to the boundary of the site on adjoining properties, accurately illustrated to represent actual canopy width and labelled with botanical name, height and whether the tree is proposed to be retained or removed; iv). a range of plant types from ground covers to large shrubs and trees; v). adequate planting densities (i.e. plants with a mature width of 1 metre, planted at 1 metre intervals); vi). the provision of two (2) suitable medium-sized (at maturity) canopy trees within the front setback of the property and one (1) small (at maturity) tree within the rear private open space area of each dwelling, with species chosen to be approved by the Responsible Authority; vii). sustainable lawn areas and plant species taking water restrictions into consideration all trees provided at a minimum of two (2) metres in height at time of planting; viii). all trees provided at a minimum of two (2) metres in height at the time of planting; ix). medium to large shrubs to be provided at a minimum pot size of 200mm; x). the provision of notes on the landscape plan regarding site preparation, including the removal of all weeds, proposed mulch, soil types and thickness, subsoil preparation and any specific maintenance requirements;

b. the first floor level of proposed dwellings 2 and 5 completely deleted, and these dwellings redesigned to be single storey dwellings; with their private open space to fully meet the requirement of the Schedule to the Residential 3 Zone and their car parking to satisfy ResCode requirements;

185 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 c. the minimum floor levels for dwellings 1-5 (inclusive) nominated as 1.96 metres AHD (note: the applicable flood level for the property is 1.66 metres AHD); d. the minimum floor level for the garages of dwellings 1-5 (inclusive) nominated as 1.81 metres AHD (note: the applicable flood level for the property is 1.66 metres AHD); e. the driveway, from near the front of the site through the rear of dwelling 1, reduced to 2.6 metres in width, with the additional areas created provided as landscaping; f. the guttering pertaining to all garages on a site property boundary nominated as being contained wholly within the title property boundary of the subject land; g. the provision of a building materials and colour schedule (including samples) for all external elevations to the dwellings. h. the provision of a 3 metre wide vehicle crossover nominated with the vehicle crossing having a note stating “vehicle crossing constructed to Council’s standards – industrial strength”; i. front fencing clearly nominated, with any such fencing to be no higher than 1.2 metres; j. the location of mailboxes and external air conditioning units clearly nominated for each dwelling; k. the driveway for each dwelling clearly delineated, and the surface material of all driveways / accessways and car parking spaces nominated as being coloured concrete; l. all boundary walls nominated as no higher than an average 3 metres; and m. all dwellings provided with 450mm wide eaves; n. the provision fully workable turning / reversing areas for all car parking spaces; and o. the front 1.2m high picket fences for dwellings 1 and 4 to be painted in a colour complimentary to the dwellings, with these fence to be on the site’s front property boundary; 2. The development and/or use as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority. 3. Prior to the commencement of development and/or use approved by this permit, the 3.05 metre wide right-of-way along the south-east property boundary of No.44 Westley Street must be purchased from Council by the developer/ site owner, to Council’s satisfaction. 4. Condition required by Melbourne Water: a) No polluted and/or sediment laden runoff is to be discharged directly or indirectly into Melbourne Water’s drains or watercourses. 5. Before occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, the landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The landscaping must then be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

186 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 6. Before occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, all buildings and works and the conditions of this permit must be complied with, unless with the further prior written consent of the Responsible Authority. 7. The development of the site must be provided with stormwater works which incorporates the use of water sensitive urban design principles to improve stormwater runoff quality and which also retains on site any increase in runoff as a result of the approved development. The system must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Council’s Development Engineer can advise on satisfactory options to achieve these desired outcomes which may include the use of an infiltration system or bioretention system, rainwater tanks connected for reuse and a detention system. 8. Before the development commences, a Stormwater Management Plan showing the stormwater works to the nominated point of discharge must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Stormwater Management Plan must be prepared by a qualified person and show all details of the proposed stormwater works including all existing and proposed features that may have impact (e.g. trees to be retained, crossings, services, fences, abutting buildings, existing boundary, surface levels, etc.). 9. Stormwater works must be provided on the site so as to prevent overflows onto adjacent properties.

10. Construction on the site must be restricted to the following times: a. Monday to Friday 7:00am to 7:00pm; b. Saturday 9:00am to 6:00pm. and c. Sundays and Public Holidays – No construction permitted. Or otherwise as approved by the Responsible Authority in writing. 11. Before the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted starts, or by such later date as is approved by the Responsible Authority in writing, the nature strip, kerb and channel, vehicle crossover and footpath must reinstated to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

12. Any existing vehicular crossing not in accordance with the endorsed plan must be removed and the kerb reinstated in a manner satisfactory to the Responsible Authority and any proposed vehicular crossing must be fully constructed to the Responsible Authority’s standard specification. 14. Convenient taps or fixed sprinkler system must be provided to the satisfaction the Responsible Authority capable of watering all communal and private land and landscaped areas, including turf block visitor car parking where provided. 15. A street number of 100mm minimum height and contrasting in colour to its background, must be fixed at the front boundary of the property and as near as practicable to, or on the letterboxes with such numbering to be in accordance with Council’s Street Numbering Policy. Separate unit numbers of 75mm minimum height must be placed adjacent to the front entrance of each dwelling. Such numbers must be clearly legible from the access driveway.

187 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 16. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, all boundary fences must be repaired and/or replaced as necessary to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, at the cost of the applicant/owner. 17. Exterior lights must be installed in such positions as to effectively illuminate all pathway and porch areas. Such lighting must be controlled by a time clock or sensor unit, and must be designed, baffled and located to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to prevent any adverse effect on neighbouring land. 18. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, areas set aside for parking vehicles, access lanes and paths as shown on the endorsed plans must be: a. Constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. b. Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans. c. Surfaced with an all-weather coloured concrete sealcoat to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. d. Drained and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Parking areas and access lanes must be kept available for these purposes at all times and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 19. All works on or facing the boundaries of adjoining properties must be finished and surface cleaned to a standard that is well presented to neighbouring properties in a manner to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 20. All piping and ducting above the ground floor storey of the development (other than rainwater guttering and downpipes) must be concealed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 21. Finished Floor Levels shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered or modified without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority. 22. External clothes drying facilities must be provided for each dwelling. 23. Once the development has started it must be continued and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 24. In accordance with section 68 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, this permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

• The development is not started before two (2) years from the date of this permit

• The development is not completed before two (2) years from the commencement of works In accordance with section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the responsible authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires, or within three months afterwards.

Note: Any modifications to the stormwater pit located in the front of the development must be to Council’s current Standards. Note: Prior to the commencement of the development you are required to obtain the necessary Building Permit.

188 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 Note: The applicant/owner must provide a copy of this planning permit to any appointed Building Surveyor. It is the responsibility of the applicant/owner and Building Surveyor to ensure that all building development works approved by any building permit is consistent with the planning permit. Note: Before removing/pruning any vegetation from the site, the applicant or any contractor engaged to remove vegetation, should consult Council’s Vegetation Management Officer to verify if a Local Law Permit is required for the removal of such vegetation. Note: Information available at Melbourne Water indicates that the property is not subject to flooding from Melbourne Water’s drainage system, based on a flood level that has a probability of occurrence of 1% in any one year. If further information is required in relation to Melbourne Water’s permit conditions shown above, please contact Melbourne Water on telephone 9235 2517, quoting Melbourne Water’s reference 136221. In the event that Council wish to oppose the application, it can do son on the following grounds:

1. The proposal would have an adverse affect on the amenity of an established residential neighbourhood. 2. The proposal constitutes an over-development of the site. 3. The proposal exhibits excessive bulk and mass. 4. The proposal does not satisfy all of the requirements of Clause 55 of the Kingston Planning Scheme (ResCode), in particular Clause 55.02-1 Neighbourhood Character Objectives, Clause 55.02-2 Residential Policy Objectives, Clause 55.03-1 Street Setback Objective, Clause 55.03-8 Landscaping Objectives; Clause 55.03-9 Access Objectives; Clause 55.03-10 Parking Location Objectives and Clause 55.06-1 Design Detail.

189 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

L 104 Amendment C108 – Planning Scheme Errors (Fast Track Amendment)

Approved by: Tony Rijs – General Manager Environmental Sustainability

Author: Stacey Rees - Strategic Planner

1. Purpose The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the proposed Amendment C108 to the Kingston Planning Scheme which seeks to correct a number of minor planning scheme errors including spelling and grammar mistakes, mapping errors and zoning anomalies.

The report recommends that a request be made to the Minister for Planning to fast track an amendment to the Kingston Planning Scheme to rectify these issues.

2. Background The basis for this amendment has arisen from Council’s indicated desire to rezone land at No. 10 Tradewinds Lane to reflect its use as public open space. It is considered prudent to also simultaneously seek to rectify a number of other known minor errors and anomalies in the Kingston Planning Scheme (outlined below) as part of any amendment that may be initiated.

3. Issues 3.1. Cheltenham District Centre Urban Design Plan The Cheltenham Business Centre Policy, located at Clause 22.01 of the Kingston Planning Scheme, contains a plan known as ‘Map 1’ which defines the affected land and identifies the precincts within the area. The current black and white map poses a challenge to interpret as a number of the precincts are unable to be distinguished from one another due to the way the map has been shaded. As such, it is proposed to substitute the existing map with a colour version, including an updated key to clearly identify each precinct. The purpose and contents of the map would remain unchanged.

It is also proposed to amend the date on the plan which is incorrectly identified as ‘(Update, 1977)’, this should read ‘1997’.

3.2. 10 Tradewinds Lane Patterson Lakes - Rezoning The subject site is currently zoned Residential 3. The land lies at the end of Tradewinds Lane, Patterson Lakes and is abutted by dwellings to the north and east, Patterson River to the south and the Whatley Street drainage reserve to the west.

It is proposed to rezone the land to the Public Park and Recreation Zone. The proposal would bring the zoning of the land into line with its existing passive open space function and is understood to reflect the intentions of Council with respect to this land. The land is owned by Council.

190 City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 3.2.1 Heritage Overlay removal On the 4th December, 2008 Planning Permit KP442/08 was issued by Council for the demolition of the existing dwelling at No. 198 Old Dandenong Road, Heatherton. The officers report stated that the heritage listed dwelling was ‘in a very poor state of disrepair and is not worthy of retention’. The owners of the property are seeking to have the now redundant heritage control removed from the land. It is noted that the Heritage Overlay applied only to the subject building which has now been demolished.

3.3. Heritage Overlay mapping error It has come to Council’s attention that the heritage overlay affecting Carrum Primary School (No. 2-6 Church Rd, Carrum) has been mapped incorrectly. The heritage overlay is currently shown to affect the north-west corner of the site instead of the north-east corner which contains the original administration building dating back to 1910. Accordingly, it is proposed to amend the planning scheme map ‘9HO’ to show the heritage overlay in the correct position.

3.4. Clayton South Framework Policy (Clause 22.13) The Clayton South Urban Design Framework plan is incorrectly referenced as ‘May 2003’ in the Clayton South Framework Policy at Clause 22.13 of the Kingston Panning Scheme. The date should read ‘June 2003’.

3.5. Chicquita Park - Public Open Space areas At the 1st August 2005 Special Council Meeting Council resolved, as part of their resolution to adopt Planning Scheme Amendment C25, to: (d) That once transfer of land to the Responsible Authority as envisaged by the revised schedule 3 to the Development Plan Overlay has occurred, Council make a request to the Minister for Planning to authorise the preparation of an amendment to the Kingston Planning Scheme seeking to rezone the land transferred to Council, for the purposes of Public Open Space to a Public Park and Recreation Zone.

The subdivision and transfer of land to the Responsible Authority have been finalised. Accordingly it is considered that that designated public open space / reserve areas should now be rezoned from residential to a Public Park and Recreation Zone to reflect its pending use, as per the above Council resolution.

3.6. Spelling and grammatical mistakes It is proposed to rectify a number of identified minor spelling and grammatical errors in the Kingston Planning Scheme.

4. Fast Track Amendment The protocol for fast tracking an amendment has been released by the Minister for Planning and has been developed as part of the ‘cutting red tape in planning’ initiative in order to speed up the processing of amendments which remove redundant provisions or perform corrections. The matters addressed by proposed Amendment C108 are considered to fall within the scope of the aforementioned categories. All the components of the Kingston Planning Scheme affected by this Amendment are provided as attachments to the report, with the relevant proposed changes illustrated.

191. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 5. Conclusion It is considered that the above mentioned issues are minor in nature and as such are in accordance with the strategic intentions and purpose of the fast track amendment process. It is considered that the amendment would not cause any detrimental effects. It is therefore sought to exempt the amendment from the notice provisions of Section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. This report also proposes to seek authorisation for Council to approve the amendment after it is certified by the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Community Development, as the amendment does not have any State or Regional significance and does not raise major issues of public interest.

6. Recommendation That a request be made to the Minister for Planning to:

1. Authorise the preparation of the amendment under Section 9 (2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to: a) Improve the presentation of the Cheltenham District Centre Urban Design Plan at clause 22.01 of the Kingston Planning Scheme and correct an incorrect date. b) Rezone land at 10 Tradewinds Lane, Patterson Lakes and 20 Levanto Street Mentone from a Residential 3 Zone to a Public Park and Recreation Zone. c) Remove a Heritage Overlay from land at 198 Old Dandenong Road, Heatherton, and correct a mapping error in relation to the mapping of part of a property at 2 – 6 Church Road Carrum contained within a Heritage Overlay. d) Modify the date referred to as Clause 22.13 from ‘May 2003’ to ‘June 2003’ as identified in this report. e) Correct a number of spelling and grammar errors present in the planning scheme as outlined in the attachments (DDO7 & DD012) to this report. 2. Exempt Planning Scheme Amendment C108 from the notice provisions of Section 20(2) and/or 20(4) (as applicable) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. 3. That, subject to Authorisation being granted in accordance with Recommendation 1 of this report, Council also seek the consent of the Minister under Section 11 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to approve the amendment once it is certified by the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Community Development under Section 35A. of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

192. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

Attachments: ƒ Clause 22.01 (with proposed changes) ƒ DDO7 (with proposed changes) ƒ DDO12 (with proposed changes) ƒ Map of 10 Tradewinds Lane, Patterson Lakes ƒ Map of Carrum Primary School ƒ Demolition permit for 198 Old Dandenong Road Heatherton ƒ Clayton South Framework Policy (with proposed changes) ƒ Chicquita Park zoning map

193. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

L 105 Membership of the Voluntary Carbon Markets Association

Approved by: Tony Rijs, General Manager Environmental Services

Author: Hal Greenham, Greenhouse Officer

1. Purpose To seek approval for Kingston City Council to join the Voluntary Carbon Markets Association (VCMA)1.

2. Background Greenhouse emissions such as carbon dioxide and methane are the subject of intense national debate at the present moment. The Federal Government is attempting to pass its Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) through the Senate within the next month, whilst the Opposition are seeking to delay the decision until later this year. The ‘devil is in the detail’ of schemes such as the CPRS, and there is a window of opportunity to lobby now for a scheme which will assist the realisation of Kingston’s greenhouse and climate change objectives. One of the central issues being debated by key stakeholders has become known as the ‘voluntary reductions’ issue, which arises due to the cap-and-trade design of the Federal scheme. This will be explained below.

Emissions trading schemes such as the proposed CPRS aim to reduce emissions by legislating a ‘cap’, which is an exact tonnage for allowable national emissions in a given year. A given number of permits are issued which allow individual holders to emit carbon (or carbon equivalent) pollution. Nationally aggregated, these emissions add up to the level of the cap. The benefit of this kind of design is that national emissions are contained at a given level, facilitating effective management of emissions and therefore reduction in the severity of global warming and the broad range of associated issues which will be deleterious for Kingston. If the level of the cap is reduced each year to achieve a given target level which is informed by the best climate science (e.g. a 25-40% reduction on 1990 levels by 2020 as suggested by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) then Australia would effectively play its part in global efforts to combat climate change.

One of the major issues with this kind of scheme design is that if the cap is too loose2, climate change will continue and Australia (and Kingston) risk the damaging and diverse effects of climate change3. Australia’s position at the top of the table of international greenhouse emitters4 per capita means that international agreement to reduce emissions is unlikely in the absence of Australian leadership on the issue.

The government’s current targets (of 5-15% depending on the degree of international agreement and 25% only in an almost impossible scenario of all nations including developed nations agreeing to a 450 parts per million goal) represent a significant risk for Kingston’s

1 See http://www.vcma.org.au 2 Too ‘loose’: not requiring significant reductions in emissions, as opposed to a ‘tighter’ cap which would require bigger reductions. This terminology avoids the use of ‘low’ versus ‘high’ which can be confusing. 3 See http://www.csiro.au/science/Climate-Change.html 4 See http://www.csiro.au/news/GlobalCarbonProject-PNAS.html

194. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 climate future. In the context of the low5 reduction targets presently on the table in the Senate, a very important related issue emerges, the ‘voluntary reductions’ issue. In this kind of cap-and-trade scheme design, or rather in the specific form of the scheme design proposed by the Federal Government in the tabled CPRS legislation, individual entities who want to reduce their emissions beyond the national target level don’t make a difference to national emissions. This is because the choices they make which lead them to need less pollution permits make more permits available for other polluters, which perversely makes it cheaper for those entities who pollute more.

Perhaps the most significant impact of this design flaw will be in the process of community engagement, because an unintended side effect of the present legislation will be to effectively remove the greenhouse emissions reduction benefit in a huge range of community activities such as installation of energy efficiencies (e.g. compact fluorescent lightbulbs, solar panels), less polluting forms of transport, and so on. In short, a vast array of practical measures which the community could formerly undertake in order to ‘do the right thing’ and reduce their emissions will no longer contribute to lowered national emissions under the proposed CPRS. The mitigation and adaptation challenges inherent in climate change will be huge issues for the City of Kingston. It is a challenging enough task already to get individuals and businesses motivated to change their behaviour to reduce emissions, so if the CPRS becomes law in its present form we risk the community becoming even more disengaged because their individual actions would no longer affect total national emissions. If people feel their actions don’t make a difference, will they continue to be engaged in actions to avoid climate change?

For local government, and other entities who may want to show leadership on the issue of climate change by adopting voluntary emissions reductions beyond the low federal targets, this issue in the design of the scheme denies the real opportunity to do so. The only option presently provided by the scheme is the additional purchase and retirement of permits which is unlikely to be attractive as it is an abstract measure6 and imposes a significant cost burden.

Another major impact will be on businesses, some of whom will be Kingston based, whose business model revolves around goods or services which provide voluntary or additional carbon reductions. This innovative business sector has grown substantially in recent years and will almost certainly continue to do so if the CPRS establishes a workable market mechanism. Under the present CPRS proposal however, the likelihood is that such businesses would be forced offshore as there would be limited scope to provide the additional carbon reductions required for the business model to be workable.

The flaw in the present scheme which has these presumably unintended consequences can be remedied relatively simply, and a good working solution7 has been proposed by the Voluntary Carbon Markets Association (VCMA) which are a not-for-profit advocacy body who have formed in response to the problems with the present scheme. The VCMA represent “organisations that have an interest in expanding the voluntary carbon market

5 i.e. the cap set on emissions is too loose, and significant reductions will not therefore be achieved 6 Abstract in the sense of being counterintuitive, i.e. in the CPRS as it is currently proposed, a home investing in solar panels would not reduce Australian emissions, but visiting a government website and paying for CPRS permits by the tonne would reduce Australian emissions. 7 This consists of a system to accredit and account for voluntary reductions, and retirement of the appropriate number of CPRS permits from the market, thereby lowering national emissions. For details on the proposed solution see http://www.vcma.org.au/?p=205 and http://www.vcma.org.au/?p=115

195. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 sector and desire to see more rapid reduction in greenhouse gas emissions beyond that required by compliance measures.” Current members include the Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment, Greenfleet and the City of Port Phillip8.

3. Issues Cost Membership of the VCMA costs $1,000 per annum for a local government. Given the likely resolution of the form and detail of the CPRS this calendar year, it is not anticipated that Kingston would need to pay for more than one years membership.

Benefits The main benefit of joining the VCMA is that it provides an effective advocacy vehicle for an emissions trading scheme which facilitates Kingston achieving its greenhouse and climate change goals, in particular:

• Effective community engagement, i.e. encouragement of residents and businesses to play their part in reducing greenhouse emissions • Encouragement of community leadership in reducing greenhouse emissions, i.e. for those individuals, businesses or for Kingston itself to have the freedom to choose a reductions target which goes beyond the mandated CPRS target if that target is too low to effectively respond to the issue of climate change • Reduction targets which are based in science and will contribute to a low carbon, climate friendly future

The formal benefits of membership are:

• One vote at Annual General Meeting • Profile and logo on the members page of the VCMA website • Access to members only VCMA analysis and reports • Ability to provide input into VCMA policy development and advocacy • Invitations and discounted rate to Association events incl. conferences, seminars and workshops • Emailed copies of the VCMA Newsletter

Officer / manager / Councillor time demands It is not anticipated that joining will create significant demands on time as member involvement in the VCMA’s day to day operations is optional.

4. Options Join (recommended) Advantages are effective advocacy on climate change and emissions reductions as discussed above. Costs $1,000.

Don’t join Advantages are saving $1,000 in the short term. Disadvantages are less effective advocacy on climate change and emissions reductions.

8 See http://www.vcma.org.au/?cat=45

196. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

5. Triple Bottom Line Checklist • Environmental – the impacts of climate change on the City of Kingston are likely to be very large. If an effective emissions trading scheme that rewards community and local government involvement in actions to reduce emissions is not enacted the environmental costs to the municipality will be substantial. • Social – the social costs of a poor response to climate change mitigation and adaptation will also be very significant. • Financial – joining will cost $1,000. The medium and long-term financial costs of a poor response to climate change mitigation and adaptation will also be very significant.

6. Summary and Conclusion The proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, if passed in its present form, will make it significantly harder to engage the Kingston community in the level of greenhouse emissions reductions needed to avoid dangerous climate change.

It is recommended that Kingston joins the VCMA as there is a window of opportunity over the next few weeks and months in which alterations to the Federal CPRS will be debated in the Senate. The flaws in the proposed CPRS which are likely to discourage an effective community response to climate change can be fixed by the relatively simple solutions9 proposed by the VCMA.

For the relatively small amount of money and effort involved in joining this could form a useful part of Kingston’s advocacy efforts for an effective Australian response to climate change.

7. Recommendation That: Council join the Voluntary Carbon Markets Association as part of Council’s advocacy on behalf of an emissions trading scheme which is conducive to community engagement and a low carbon future.

9 This consists of a system to accredit and account for voluntary reductions, and retirement of the appropriate number of CPRS permits from the market, thereby lowering national emissions. For details on the proposed solution see http://www.vcma.org.au/?p=205 and http://www.vcma.org.au/?p=115

197. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

L 106 Review of Road Management Plan

Approved by: Tony Rijs – General Manager Environmental Sustainability

Author: Warren Ashdown – Manager Infrastructure

1. Purpose To report on the review of Council’s Road Management Plan.

2. Background Kingston City Council, as a Coordinating Road Authority under the Road Management Act 2004 (RMA), is responsible for the management, maintenance and development of the Municipal Road network in its district.

In accordance with the Act, Council prepared a Road Management Plan (Plan) in December 2004.

The purpose of the road management plan is:

• to establish a management system for Council’s road management functions that is based on policy and operational objectives and available resources; and • to set the relevant standard in relation to the discharge of duties in the performance of those road management functions.

In order to minimise the risk to Council in managing and maintaining its road assets, the Plan seeks to balance the expectations of road users and the community against the finite resources available to Council in establishing a reasonable system for managing their roads, including the setting of reasonable inspection and maintenance schedules and target times for repairing defects or deteriorations that are found or reported.

The roads to which the plan applies is covered in Council’s “Register of Public Roads” which is also a statutory document prepared under the Act

The Plan typically applies to footpaths, kerb & channel and road pavement of Council’s local roads including service roads and also footpaths of arterial roads. The kerb & channel and pavement of arterial roads are the responsibility of Vic Roads.

The review assessed Council’s experience over the past four years in meeting the standards adopted in the 2004 Plan. Whist the levels of service represent the minimum standards required to be provided, commonly a higher level of service is able to be delivered.

A strong indicator of Council’s performance over the past 4 years has been the level of reported tripping incidents on footpaths which has reduced from 194 in 2004 to 76 in 2008. And Council’s claims have reduced from 144 received with 12 settled in 2004/05 to 87 received and 6 settled in 2008/09.

Also Council’s public liability insurer has regularly audited Council’s systems with no substantive issues identified.

198. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

3. Requirement for Review and Consultation The review of the road management plan is required by the Road Management (General) Regulations 2005.

In conducting the review Council must give Notice to the public stating:

• the purpose of review; • a description of roads and classes; • that the current RMP can be inspected; • that a person may make submission on the current RMP.

The 28 day public comment period expired on the 26 June 2009, following placement of notices in the government Gazette and The Age. Notification was also given to all Village Committee members.

There were no comments received.

After completing the review, Council is required to make this report on the review available to the public for copying or inspection.

4. Proposed Updates to Plan The plan has been reviewed to ensure that the standards in relation to, and the priorities to be given to, the inspection, maintenance and repair of the roads and classes of road to which the plan applies are appropriate.

The initial 2004 Road Management Plan was prepared prior to the release of Code of Practice concerning what should be included in road management plans. At the time Council included additional information to that required by the Code of Practice. The additional information was of a more strategic nature, whereas the Road Management Plan is more operationally focused to ensure the routine maintenance of the road network is undertaken to protect safety and serviceability.

The Plan has been reformatted in accordance with the Code of Practice for Road Management Plans. Appropriate information from the current Plan that is to be included has been updated. This covers legislation requirements, Codes of Practice, Council asset management systems and maintenance procedures.

The review has included a full review of the classes of roads (road hierarchy), the frequencies in which inspections are carried out, intervention standards and response times in making defects safe and in repairing defects.

The review assessed Council’s experience over the past four years in meeting the standards adopted in the 2004 Plan. Whist the levels of service represent the minimum standards required to be provided, commonly a higher level of service is able to be delivered.

A copy of the draft amended Road Management Plan is attached and commentary on the key elements of the review are as follows with key page reference to the draft Plan:

199. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 Road Hierarchy: Refer p. 10 The hierarchy for roads and footpaths that was adopted by Council in the current Plan is still considered relevant.

Inspections Frequencies: Appendix 2 p 44 The inspection frequencies has served Council well and are achievable with current resources and as such it is not proposed amend the frequencies, that are detailed in the Attachment

Intervention Levels and Response Times: pp26 - 43 As with inspection frequencies, the intervention levels and response times has also served Council well.

While no amendments are proposed to the intervention levels, the review of the levels of risk and associated response times have resulted in some proposed changes to reflect the current practices and experience in managing the road assets over the life of the current Plan. These changes are improving standards to the community and are noted in the Summary Table appended to this report.

Defects are initially screened for emergencies or unsafe conditions. In such circumstances an immediate response time of 2 hrs during working hours and 4 hours outside normal working hours to repair or make safe. This service level is typically achieved through Council’s own ‘emergency response team’ based at Council’s Mentone Depot, Collins St. Maintenance defects that have reached the intervention level condition but are still safe (tolerable) are repaired as part of the routine maintenance program.

In some instances the review of the risks have identified response times that have been shown to be unnecessarily long and not reflective of current practices and have therefore been shortened.

The Plan is proposed to be audited annually. Council’s public liability insurer undertakes an audit every two years, and it is intended to undertake an independent audit on the alternate year.

4. Amending the Plan Technically as the review of the Plan has not proposed reducing the standards, undertaking the formal amendment procedures are not necessary. However as the Plan has be reformatted it is suggested that the process be followed, to give the community a further opportunity to comment.

The amendment process involves public Notice in the government gazette and a daily newspaper advising of the nature of the amendments, were the Plan can be viewed and how submissions can be made.

5. Triple Bottom Line Checklist n/a

200. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

6. Summary and Conclusion It is considered that the general standards proposed in the amended Plan, which are unaltered or to a higher standard, are reasonable and have served Council and the community well over the past 4 years. This outcome is particularly noteworthy mindful of Council’s challenge with funding road infrastructure renewal over this period, which has placed some pressure on maintenance budgets. Notwithstanding Council’s claims history is low and the Plan has not been challenged.

Public notice of the review to the community, in the prescribed form was made, and there were no submissions.

With the reformatting of the Road Management Plan incorporating the minor amendments to some standards, which are higher service levels to the community, it is proposed the formal amendment process be undertaken which involves public notices and the opportunity for the community to make further comment. This process would be undertaken over the August to September, 2009 period.

7. Recommendation That Council

1. Approve the review of the Road Management Plan and that this report be made available to the public for copying or inspection; and 2. Undertake formally amending the Road Management Plan as drafted, and that a report be presented to Council on the outcome of submissions

Attachment: Draft amended Road Management Plan

201. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

SUMMARY PROPOSED AMENDMENTS No. Asset Proposed Amendment Comment

1 Sealed Roadway Response Time - Refer to Response times removed. - Minor Surface Capital works Program Works typically not reactive Treatment maintenance tasks and are referred to Capital Works Program. Defects < 25 m2 typically requires no action 2 Sealed Roadway Structural Failure – previously Terminology change – Structural referred to as dig-out.` Failure

Formed Delete response times for There are no unsealed roads in Unsealed Trunk Collector and Collector this road hierarchy category Roadway – Road Roads Resheeting

3 Unformed Roads New Asset Class added Not included in previous Plan – Repair Road

4 Roadside: Deleted Duplication: covered under Naturestrips Street Landscaping

5 Roadside: Fire Deleted Responsibility of Water Hydrants, Posts, Authority Covers 6 Road Furniture: Sign assets rearranged to group Higher risk value associated Regulatory, -Regulatory and Warning signs with damage/defects to Warning Signs (includes Stop, Give Way, Regulatory and Warning signs. and Standard Warning (yellow and black), Signs Chevrons) and Parking with Guide signs 7 Road Furniture: Defects assessed under the Defects relating to condition do Regulatory and following two standards: not have the same risk level at Warning signs as those related to 1. Missing or otherwise missing/illegible signs damaged beyond legibility; 2. Post > 10 degrees off vertical.

Reflectivity is reduced by > 50% due to accumulation of dirt; 8 Road Furniture: Higher standard proposed ie Low risk road category Guard Fence reduction in response time for Access Lane from 360 days to 180 days Street Lighting (Council 202. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

managed)

Guide Posts and Delineators

203. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

L 107 Food Sample Analysis

Approved by: Tony Rijs, General Manager Environmental Sustainability

Author: Robert Beattie, Coordinator Policy & Projects

1. Purpose To advise Council of the results of food sampled and analysed pursuant to section 32(1) of the Food Act 1984. This report relates to: The quarter January 2009 to March 2009.

2. Background Council is obligated under section 32 (1) of the Food Act 1984 to obtain, at a minimum, three food samples for every thousand persons of the population, and submit them for analysis. In Kingston, this equates to approximately 413 samples per annum. The target for this reporting period is 103 per quarter and the actual achievement was 110. Under the Act there is also a requirement to formally report the results of analysis to Council.

The food-sampling program is conducted by Council’s Environmental Health Officers (EHO’s), who visit food premises, purchase samples and submit them, to an accredited independent laboratory for analysis. Samples for analysis are also sometimes received from the public or another Council as a result of a consumer complaint.

Any failed samples are followed up by the EHO’s with the relevant business. Samples are considered to have failed if they do not meet any number of criteria including incorrect labelling or issues arising from poor handling. The sample may not necessarily pose a risk to health. The type and level of failure will direct the type of follow up action taken such as a letter being sent to the premises, or an inspection by an officer, or education leading to changes in procedures within the premises or in some cases, prosecution. There have been no prosecutions in relation to this reporting period so far.

3. Summary and Conclusion Council continues to meet its statutory obligations pertaining to the purchase and analysis of food samples. Attachment 1 lists the 110 food samples taken and attachment 2 is an overview the actions taken with non-complying samples for the period.

It should be noted that the failure rate is not indicative of the whole food supply, as sampling is targeted at specific food types and also includes specific complaint samples.

Recommendation That Council note the report.

(See Attachments) Attachment 1: Samples submitted for analysis Jan – Mar 2009. Attachment 2: Actions relating to non-complying samples Jan – Mar 2009.

204. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

Appendix 1 Food Samples submitted for Analysis January – March 2009

Date Submitted Sample Number Product Description Result 2/01/09 INV/09/001 Foreign Object Lolly FAIL 14/01/09 INV/09/016 Meat Pie FAIL 22/01/09 INV/09/021 Foreign object lolly Comply 25/01/09 DTS/09/001 Chicken Kebab Comply 25/01/09 DTS/09/002 Meat Pastry Comply 25/01/09 DTS/09/003 Chicken Gyro Comply 25/01/09 DTS/09/004 Meat and Seafood Paella Comply 25/01/09 DTS/09/005 Fried Rice Comply 25/01/09 DTS/09/006 Pork Dumpling Comply 25/01/09 DTS/09/007 Chicken and Rice Comply 25/01/09 DTS/09/008 Chicken and Potato Curry Comply 25/01/09 DTS/09/009 Roast Pork with Sauce Comply 25/01/09 DTS/09/010 Roast Beef with Peanut Sauce Comply 04/02/09 DTS/09/012 Sliced Ham Comply 04/02/09 DTS/09/013 Pre-packaged Yoghurt FAIL 04/02/09 DTS/09/014 Sliced Pineapple (half) Comply 04/02/09 DTS/09/015 Sliced Cantaloupe (half) Comply 04/02/09 DTS/09/016 Sliced Pre-Packaged Apple Comply 04/02/09 DTS/09/017 Sliced Honeydew Melon (half) Comply 04/02/09 DTS/09/018 Pomegranate & Blueberry juice FAIL 04/02/09 DTS/09/019 Mexican Rice & Kidney Bean Salad Comply 04/02/09 DTS/09/020 Chopped Ginger (Tube) FAIL 04/02/09 DTS/09/021 Sliced Cantaloupe (half) Comply 04/02/09 DTS/09/022 Hommus & Bean Dip (pre-packaged) FAIL 04/02/09 DTS/09/023 Gourmet Pizza (pre-packaged) FAIL 11/02/09 DTS/09/024 Halved Cantaloupe Comply 11/02/09 DTS/09/025 Halved Pineapple Comply 11/02/09 DTS/09/026 Halved Cantaloupe Comply 11/02/09 DTS/09/027 Cut Celery Stick Comply 11/02/09 DTS/09/028 Capsicum (cut) Comply 11/02/09 DTS/09/029 Halved Watermelon Comply 11/02/09 DTS/09/030 Halved Cantaloupe Comply 11/02/09 DTS/09/031 Halved Honeydew Melon Comply 11/02/09 DTS/09/032 Halved Watermelon Comply 11/02/09 DTS/09/033 Halved Honeydew Melon Comply 11/02/09 DTS/09/034 Tabouleh mix with Lemon mint dressing Comply 11/02/09 DTS/09/035 Apple Jacks Comply 11/02/09 DTS/09/036 Mexican Rice & Kidney Bean Salad Comply 11/02/09 DTS/09/037 Quick Bits – Cucumber, Carrot, Celery Comply 11/02/09 DTS/09/038 Fine Coleslaw Comply 205. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

Date Submitted Sample Number Product Description Result 11/02/09 DTS/09/039 Caesar Salad with Chicken Comply 11/02/09 DTS/09/040 Couscous, roasted pumpkin cocktail salad Comply 11/02/09 DTS/09/041 Halved Paw Paw Comply 11/02/09 DTS/09/042 Raspberry Yoghurt Comply 11/02/09 DTS/09/043 Passionfruit Yoghurt Comply 11/02/09 DTS/09/044 Pineapple Comply 11/02/09 DTS/09/045 Honeydew Melon Comply 11/02/09 DTS/09/046 Cantaloupe Comply 25/02/09 DTS/09/047 Sliced Pineapple (half) Comply 25/02/09 DTS/09/048 Sliced Honeydew Melon (half) Comply 25/02/09 DTS/09/049 Sliced Cantaloupe (half) Comply 25/02/09 DTS/09/050 Watermelon piece Comply 25/02/09 DTS/09/051 Pineapple piece Comply 25/02/09 DTS/09/052 Pumpkin piece (Queensland Blue) Comply 25/02/09 DTS/09/053 Pumpkin piece (Gap) Comply 25/02/09 DTS/09/054 Sliced Pineapple (half) Comply 25/02/09 DTS/09/055 Pumpkin piece (Butternut) Comply 25/02/09 DTS/09/056 Pumpkin piece (Butternut) Comply 25/02/09 DTS/09/057 Pumpkin piece (Jap) Comply 25/02/09 DTS/09/058 Pumpkin piece Comply 15/03/09 DTS/09/059 Butter Chicken Comply 15/03/09 DTS/09/060 Lamb Curry Comply 15/03/09 DTS/09/061 Basmati Rice Comply 15/03/09 DTS/09/062 Cheiquimula Beef FAIL 15/03/09 DTS/09/063 Burrito Chicken Comply 15/03/09 DTS/09/064 Chicken Caesar Salad Comply 15/03/09 DTS/09/065 Gourmet Sausages Comply 15/03/09 DTS/09/066 Chicken Gyro Comply 15/03/09 DTS/09/067 Lamb Gyro Comply 15/03/09 DTS/09/068 Fried Calamari Comply 15/03/09 DTS/09/069 Cheese Empanada Comply 15/03/09 DTS/09/070 Yabbie and Scallop Pie Comply 15/03/09 DTS/09/071 Woodfire Margarita Pizza Comply 15/03/09 DTS/09/072 Chicken Cazuela Comply 15/03/09 DTS/09/073 Yellow Rice Comply 15/03/09 DTS/09/074 Chicken Dumpling Comply 15/03/09 DTS/09/075 Salami Roll Comply 15/03/09 DTS/09/076 Steak and Black Bean FAIL 15/03/09 DTS/09/077 Steamed Dim Sims Comply 15/03/09 DTS/09/085 Chicken Pide Comply 15/03/09 DTS/09/086 Chicken Schnitzel Burger FAIL 15/03/09 DTS/09/087 Chicken and Corn Soup Comply 16/03/09 DTS/09/089 Rainbow Salad Comply 16/03/09 DTS/09/090 Aussie Salad Comply 16/03/09 DTS/09/091 Red Papaya Comply 206. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

Date Submitted Sample Number Product Description Result 16/03/09 DTS/09/092 Watermelon Piece Comply 16/03/09 DTS/09/093 Pineapple Piece Comply 16/03/09 DTS/09/094 Pasta with basil pesto & boccincini cheese FAIL 16/03/09 DTS/09/095 Papaya Piece Comply 16/03/09 DTS/09/096 Honeydew Melon Piece Comply 16/03/09 DTS/09/097 Pineapple Piece Comply 16/03/09 DTS/09/098 Watermelon Piece Comply 16/03/09 DTS/09/099 Packaged Snow Shoots Comply 16/03/09 DTS/09/100 Asian Salad Sliced Comply 16/03/09 DTS/09/101 Seedless Watermelon Piece Comply 16/03/09 DTS/09/102 Rockmelon Piece Comply 16/03/09 DTS/09/103 Pineapple Piece Comply 16/03/09 DTS/09/104 Spinach & Rocket Salad Comply 16/03/09 DTS/09/105 Mixed Salad Package Comply 16/03/09 DTS/09/106 Watermelon Piece Comply 16/03/09 DTS/09/107 Pineapple Piece Comply 16/03/09 DTS/09/108 Honeydew Melon Piece Comply 16/03/09 DTS/09/109 Watermelon Piece Comply 16/03/09 DTS/09/110 Honeydew melon piece Comply 16/03/09 DTS/09/111 Pineapple Piece Comply 16/03/09 DTS/09/112 Cantaloupe piece Comply 18/03/09 INV/09/026 Vegetarian pizza Comply 31/03/09 MDU/09/002 Vegetable Korma Comply 31/03/09 MDU/09/003 Butter chicken Comply 31/03/09 MDU/09/004 Rice Comply N.B. Samples DTS/09/078 – 84 & 88 were submitted in the second quarter. TOTAL 110 Comply 99 Fail 11

207. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

Appendix 2 Action on Failed Samples January – March 2008

Description Result Action Status Sample No INV/09/001 Foreign Object Lolly Contained piece of wood Investigation Complete INV/09/016 Meat Pie Contained piece of metal Investigation Complete DTS/09/013 Pre-packaged Yoghurt Fail – Labelling Investigation Ongoing DTS/09/018 Pomegranate & Blueberry Fail – Labelling Investigation juice Ongoing DTS/09/020 Chopped Ginger (Tube) Fail – Labelling Investigation Ongoing DTS/09/022 Hommus & Bean Dip (pre- Fail – Labelling Investigation packaged) Ongoing DTS/09/023 Gourmet Pizza (pre- Fail – Labelling Investigation packaged) Ongoing DTS/09/062 Cheiquimula Beef High Bacillus cereus Investigation Complete DTS/09/076 Steak and Black Bean High standard plate count Investigation Ongoing DTS/09/086 Chicken Schnitzel Burger High Enterobacteriaceae Investigation Complete DTS/09/094 Pasta with basil pesto & High Enterobacteriaceae Investigation boccincini cheese Ongoing There were 11 failed samples this quarter

208. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

L 108 Charity Clothing Bins in Kingston

Approved by: Tony Rijs, General Manager Environmental Sustainability

Author: Jarrod Slattery Operations Coordinator – Local Laws

1. Purpose The report is to inform Council of issues involving Clothing Recycling Bins placed without permits within Kingston. This report also seeks clear direction from Council on its policies relating to the issuing of permits for clothing recycling bins within Kingston’s municipality.

2. Background Councils Local Law 5.14 states: “A person must not, without a permit, place or authorise to be placed any clothing recycling bin(s) on any road or Council land or on or in any other public place.” This offence carries an on the spot penalty of $400. In determining whether to grant a permit consideration must be given to the proposed location of the bin. Any policy or guidelines adopted by Council should consider whether the clothing bin/s will detract from the amenity of the area and whether the clothing bins will be emptied and maintained in a manner sufficient to ensure materials do not accumulate outside the clothing bin. Previously Council has issued permits for a limited number of clothing recycling bins to be placed throughout the municipality in designated areas. Some of these authorised areas were located at Waves Leisure Centre, Don Tatnell centre, various train station car parks and in some shopping centre car parks. Local Laws receives many complaints about the amount of rubbish dumped at and around these clothing recycling bins and has experienced long delays from the charity organisations in attending to remove the rubbish/goods. Due to this problem Local Laws was instructed to issue notices for the removal of the clothing recycling bins to eliminate the problem. This was only done on a complaint basis (refer to attached photos). Council has tried working closely with charity organisations over the years to overcome the issues associated with clothing recycling bins. Whilst charities have good intentions and Council has persisted with the ongoing issues the charities cannot clean up around the clothing recycling bin sites faster enough as residents use them for an excuse to dump unwanted rubbish. In 2002 Council had 34 legal clothing recycling bins, which due to complaints about the accumulation of unsightly materials outside the bins was reduced to 7 in 2007. Council Policy No.2.11 is outdated and needs to be reviewed as part of the overall management of clothing bins in Kingston. The Policy needs to reflect current changes made by Council and the clothing bin industry.

209. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

3. Issues The removal of the clothing recycling bins had eliminated the complaints and prevented large amounts of unwanted rubbish and materials being dumped making the area unsightly. However, unauthorised clothing bins are starting to reappear throughout the municipality and with the clothing bins the issue of unsightly accumulated materials has resurfaced. In 2008 Council prosecuted Life Gate for illegally placing bins within Council’s municipality after Local Laws had repeatedly instructed them to remove their clothing recycling bins. This was brought to our attention through complaints due to the unsightly rubbish and materials placed around the clothing recycling bins. Since 2002 Local Laws has had continued dealings with Southern Cross Recycling, formally FM Recycling who have had a number of infringements issued against them for placing charity bins without a permit and littering. Southern Cross Recycling manages the majority of clothing recycling bins and continues to cause problems with the unauthorised placement of their clothing recycling bins and the general waste they accumulate around them. Local Laws had a policy to remove clothing recycling bins after receiving multiple complaints about the same site and to not allow any new clothing recycling bin permits to be issued, with the intention of eventually eliminating clothing recycling bins in public places. Many clothing bins are a lucrative earner for private business and are not owned by charities. Most of the clothing from these bins are not recycled or given to the needy, instead the donated clothing ends up sold as rags or exported. On average approximately 5% of the profits from the sale of contents of privately owned bins is donated to charities. Banning the placement of charity bins in public places throughout Kingston will not stop charities from receiving donations of used clothing and goods, however it will control the way residents dispose of their unwanted goods. Removing the bins will have very little impact on Kingston’s residents. Alternative options open to them can include dropping their goods off at an opportunity shop (Red Cross, St Vinnies, Salvation Amy etc) or call Diabetes Australia to collect their goods (must be boxed or bagged with a D on it). The following table is a brief overview of what neighbouring Councils are doing:

Casey Mornington Bayside Glen Eira Dandenong Frankston

Allow permits No No new permits Yes No No No new permits (Council land)

Follow up N/A Fading clothing Only 6 in Private land Clothing bins on Fading Action bins out total. No for unsightly private land get clothing bins dumping (on complaint) issued a unsightly out (on issues. (on complaint) complaint)

4. Options Option 1 Re-introduce authorised clothing recycling bin sites, with permits issued by Council.

210. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

Option 2 Do not permit any more sites within the Municipality and remove all existing clothing recycling bins after two complaints have been received regarding the amenity of the area and issue infringement notices and prosecute when required. This is the preferred option 5. Triple Bottom Line Checklist • Environmental – Option two will enhance the amenity of the area. This will protect and improve the general amenity of the municipality for residents and assist in preventing large stacks of unsightly rubbish accumulating around charity bins. • Social - Option two will have an impact on the charity that manages the clothing recycling bins. By removing them it will reduce their ability to receive donated goods, some of which is used to provide funding for their charities. (The remaining clothing recycling bins will only be removed if identified as a problem or are illegally placed) • Financial - Option one will incur further complaints, utilizing ongoing investigation and prosecution resources.

6. Summary and Conclusion By receiving clear directions from Council, a procedure can be produced giving all staff members and charity organisations clear understanding on this issue and the consistent action Council will take. This would help to eliminate any inconsistency that is currently being demonstrated.

7. Recommendation That Council not permit any more sites within the Municipality and remove all existing clothing recycling bins after two complaints have been received regarding the amenity of the area and issue infringement notices and prosecute when required.

Attachment 1: Photos of unsightly accumulation of materials outside clothing bins

211. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

212. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 11. Community Sustainability Reports

L 109 Draft Disability Action Plan

Approved by: Mauro Bolin, General Manager Community Sustainability

Author: Dominic McCann, Coordinator, Community Projects Heath Stenton, Team Leader Community Engagement

1. Purpose To provide a background regarding the Draft Kingston Disability Action Plan 2009 - 2013, elaborate on the development process and seek Council support for the release of the Disability Action Plan 2009 – 2013 for public comment for a period of one month. This strategy relates to the Council Plan 2009 – 2013, Planned Outcome 3 – Healthy, Strong and Connected Communities. The development of a Disability Action Plan is a requirement of all Statutory Authorities under the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA), and the State Disability Act 2006.

2. Background As a local government authority, Council has legal and community obligations to ensure that all members of the community are afforded the same opportunities to be active and engaged citizens. Council has a range of roles in delivering services to its local community, and must ensure the needs of people with disabilities are considered at all levels.

Council has obligations under State and Commonwealth legislation to develop and implement a Disability Action Plan and to comply with the various legislative Codes and Guidelines.

Consultation. The Draft Kingston Disability Action Plan 2009 – 2013 includes data from a range of sources and key stakeholders. This has been collated to assist with the identification of the key issues affecting people with disabilities, their carers and families, and identify potential strategies to address these issues. A wide range of interest groups, key stakeholders and community members were invited to make comment in drafting this Plan.

A comprehensive series of consultation forums and information sessions were undertaken as part of the development of the Draft Disability Action Plan 2009 – 2013. Twenty staff from a wide range of departments within Council, 22 representatives from non- government service providers and a wide range of members of the public in excess of 100 participated in these forums and made valuable contributions to the Disability Action Plan. In total, more than 150 people participated in this consultation phase.

213. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 The Draft Disability Action Plan 2009 – 2013 was then developed and distributed across all departments within Council for further feedback and comment and a series of follow up consultations were held with 45 Council staff.

The Draft Kingston Disability Action Plan 2009 – 2013 also considered information and material from a range of sources including: • The United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Disabled Persons • Australian Human Rights Commission • Victorian Government Policy – A Fairer Victoria • Best practice in other local governments in Victoria • Community Satisfaction survey • Public consultation forums • Input from the MetroAccess Community Mapping process.

3. Issues The Draft Kingston Disability Action Plan 2009 – 2013 articulates Council’s commitment to Kingston being a place in which people with disabilities can enjoy equitable access to, and participation in, all aspect of local community life. It articulates the principles which underpin this vision and the specific objectives which will guide Council towards the achievement of that commitment.

Link to Council Business The implementation of the Draft Kingston Disability Action Plan 2009 – 2013 is explicitly set out as actions within the Council Plan 2009 – 2013 and is also reflected in the following City of Kingston Plans and Strategies: • City of Kingston Community Plan 2006 – 2010 • City of Kingston Youth Strategy 2007 – 2010 • City of Kingston Municipal Public Health Plan 2006 – 2009 • City of Kingston Positive Ageing Plan 2008 – 2013.

Council acknowledges its responsibilities to people with disabilities, their carers, their families and the broader community by currently delivering a range of services and programs to the local community that support and improve access for all. These include: Aged and Disability services, Residential Aged Care provision, MetroAccess Program and the Access and Equity Advisory Committee. Council also auspices Access Care Southern which supports people with disabilities to access the support services and programs required to live in the community.

Council also works in partnership with a range of disability service providers to ensure the needs of residents with a disability are being met in the most appropriate way.

People with Disabilities in Kingston

The definition of disability is included as Attachment B.

According to the Survey Disability Ageing and Carers data, in the City of Kingston it is estimated that up to 32,228 or 23% of the population has some kind of disability. Of these 32,228 residents, it is estimated that 1,951 are children aged 0 – 14 years, 16,522 are people of working age (15-64 years) and 13,755 are older residents aged 65 or more.

214. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

With regard to the range of disabilities, it is estimated that 10,751 residents (7.6% of the total population) have disabilities causing profound or severe restriction of communication, mobility or self care; with a further 12,691 residents (or 9% of the total population) having disabilities which place limits on their employment or educational opportunities.

Key Areas for Action A number of common themes emerged from the consultations and these themes have formed the basis of the key strategic directions where Council’s efforts and resources could be focused. The key strategic areas of focus were identified as:

• Key Strategic Direction 1 Improving access to the built environment (including physical infrastructure, outdoor public space and access to transport).

• Key Strategic Direction 2 Provision of flexible services which support, and are accessible and responsible to, those with disabilities.

• Key Strategic Direction 3: Processes for provision of information for, and communication with, people with a disability which actively facilitates their capacity to participate in civic life.

• Key Strategic Direction 4 A corporate culture which sets the standard in Kingston for access and participation principles, including good governance and community planning which empowers people with disabilities and fosters positive community attitudes towards them.

• Key Strategic Direction 5 Recreational, cultural, leisure and learning opportunities which are inclusive of people with disabilities.

4. Options 4.1 That Council supports the release of the Disability Action Plan 2009 – 2013 for public comment for a period of one month. 4.2 That following the feedback period the Disability Action Plan 2009 – 2013 is then presented to Council for adoption. 5. Triple Bottom Line Checklist

5.1 Environmental: Activities pertaining to the implementation of the Draft Kingston Disability Action Plan 2009 – 2013 will ensure that people with disabilities, their families and carers can access the physical environment in an equitable manner, including the built and natural environments.

215. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 5.2 Social: The Action Plan seeks to achieve the following social outcomes: • A community that is accessible and actively promotes equitable participation for people with disabilities • A community that is inclusive of all community members • A community that is supportive of all community members.

5.3 Financial: Subject to maintaining available staff resources the majority of the strategies developed within the Disability Action Plan are achievable over the proposed four year period within existing Council resources. Additional external funding may also be sought to support the Plan’s implementation.

6. Summary and Conclusion The Disability Action Plan 2009 – 2013 articulates Council’s commitment to being a place in which people with disabilities and their families and carers can enjoy equitable access to and participation in all aspects of community life. At the core of this vision is a belief that although a disability may impact upon an individual’s capacity or ability to participate in community life, it is the economic, social and environmental barriers that cause a person with a disability to enjoy less favourable treatment and access than a person without a disability.

Within each of the five key strategic directions discussed in this Action Plan, Council has identified the priority areas that will work towards achieving the goals of an inclusive community for all its citizens.

The benefit of a final public comment period on the Draft Kingston Disability Action Plan 2009 – 2013 is that it will strengthen the plan before adoption by Council.

Adoption of the Disability Action Plan 2009- 2013 will continue to enable Council to take a lead role in enabling all members of the community to participate fully in the life of the community.

7. Recommendation (1) That Council supports the release of the Disability Action Plan 2009 – 2013 for public comment for a period of one month. (2) That following the feedback period the Disability Action Plan 2009 – 2013 be presented to Council for adoption. Attachments: A Draft Kingston Disability Action Plan 2009 – 2013 B The definition of disability

216. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

Attachment 2:

Disability means: • total or partial loss of the person’s bodily or mental functions; or • total or partial loss of a part of the body; or • the presence in the body of organisms causing disease or illness; or • the presence in the body of organisms capable of causing disease or illness; or • the malfunction, malformation or disfigurement of a part of the person’s body; or • a disorder or malfunction that results in the person learning differently from a person without the disorder or malfunction; or • a disorder, illness or disease that affects a person’s thought processes, perception of reality, emotions or judgement or that results in disturbed behaviour; and ¾ includes a disability that: ¾ presently exists; or ¾ previously existed but no longer exists; or ¾ may exist in the future; or ¾ is imputed to a person.

217. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

L 110 2009/10 Community Grants Program – Recommendations

Author: Jacqueline Moro, (Acting) Community Grants Coordinator

Approved By: Mauro Bolin, General Manager Community Sustainability

1. Purpose of Report The purpose of this report is to present the recommended funding allocations for the 2009/2010 Community Grants Program to Council and to seek approval for the distribution of the funding from the 2009/2010 budget. The recommendations specifically relate to the funding streams of Triennial Grants, Triennial Event Grants, City Wide Grants and Village Committee Grants.

2. Background The City of Kingston offers a range of opportunities for groups and individuals that service the municipality of Kingston to apply for financial assistance by way of a Community Grant. Grants are primarily offered to: • Enable not-for-profit organisations to deliver services, programs, special events and other activities to the community, which would not otherwise be provided; and • Enable the community to participate in a broader range of activities than those directly funded by Council, through full or partial funding of costs.

Seven funding streams are supported through Community Grants: Triennial Grants, City Wide Grants, Village Committee Grants, Individual Development Grants, Schools Development Grants, Access & Equity Grants and the newly available Triennial Event Grants. Descriptions of these funding streams are included as attachment F.

In 2007 the Community Grants program underwent a review resulting in changes to the policy and the application process. The most significant change was the introduction of funding limits: $2000 for equipment and $5000 for minor capital works on a dollar for dollar basis. The application period was also changed from December to February to better coincide with the allocation of funds at the commencement of the financial year. In addition, the Village Committee apportionment of funding was recalculated using the population figures obtained from the 2006 ABS Census and distributed on percentage of population. These changes were implemented in a staged process and this year’s program was the first time all changes were present.

This report provides recommendations for the allocation of funding for City Wide Grants, Village Committee Grants, Community Event Grants and Triennial Agreements comprising: • Community Centres & Neighbourhood Houses (triennial agreement); • Citizens Advice Bureaus (triennial agreement);

218. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 • Emergency Services (triennial agreement); • Major Community Agencies (triennial agreement); • Community Events grants (triennial agreement); • St Vincent de Paul’s (triennial agreement via Community Services); • Municipal Bands (triennial agreement via Arts & Culture); • City Wide Grants (annual agreement); and • Village Committee Grants (annual agreement).

2.1 Process The 2009/2010 Community Grants round opened on the 13th February 2009 and closed 14th April 2009. The Community Grants funding opportunity was promoted through: • Kingston Your City (KYC); • Mail out to organisations who expressed a wish to be on a mailing list; • A public notice in local newspapers; • Council’s telephone on-hold message; • Distribution of flyers; • Word of mouth; and • Placement of Community Grants Kits at Kingston Customer Service locations and Kingston libraries. • Radio 88.3 Southern FM • Flyers at major events

Five information sessions were held, a total of 56 people attended these sessions. The sessions provided information about the guidelines and the application process. Individual “help sessions” were also offered and 8 different groups availed themselves of this support. The Community Grant Coordinator gave a presentation at a seminar organised by the Sport & Recreation Coordinator for 41 of the City of Kingston sporting clubs. The Community Grants presentation was also included in an information session for the local pre-schools. Interpreters were available but no requests for this assistance were received.

On receipt, all applications were scanned into TRIM and reviewed by Council Officers for their completeness. Where possible applicants were provided with an opportunity to supply further information if required.

A cross-Council panel was formed and met three times to assess annual City Wide Grant applications and Community Event applications. The panel comprised: • (Acting) Sponsorship & Grants Co-ordinator ; • Team Leader Festivals & Arts Planning • Team Leader Leisure Planning

219. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 • Property Compliance Coordinator • Team Leader Arts and Cultural Services • Children’s Services Development Officer • Team Leader Community Engagement • Team Leader, Aged & Disability Services • Access & Equity coordinator • Environment Officer • Arts & Cultural Development Coordinator • Business Development Officer – Community & Aged Services.

For Village Committee Grants, each Village Committee nominated representatives to form a Grants Sub-Committee. It was the responsibility of these committees to develop grant recommendations for applications made to their Village Committee. To assist the Sub-Committees, an information session was held on 28th April 2009 to discuss the assessment process, Conflict of Interest, any grants policy queries, and distribute relevant applications.

A review will be conducted in August to identify any potential improvements to the delivery, accountability and implementation of the program, a report will be presented to Council regarding the outcomes of the review.

2.2 Summary of Applications The 2009/2010 Community Grants Program attracted 188 new applications comprising of • 27 City Wide applications • 126 Village Committee applications • 31 Triennial applications • 4 Triennial Event applications

Attachments A, B, C, D and E provide full details of the assessment of 2009/2010 City Wide, Village Committee, Triennial and Community Event grant applications.

2.3 Budget As part of its 2009/2010 budget deliberations, Council increased the 2009/2010 Community Grants budget by 3%, in addition $45,000 was included as a result of the Festivals and Events Strategy to fund the Triennial Event grants lifting the total dollar value of funding available from $1,036,746 to $1,114,749.

220. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

The table below summarises the financial details for the 2009/2010 grants

GL Code Category 2009/2010 2009/2010 2009/2010 Comments Requested Budget Recomme nded Allocation 1818.2397 Community Centres / $413,599 $412,546 $412,546 3% increase as per Neighbourhood Houses agreement 1818.2396 City Wide Grants Annual $135,587 $127,181 $125,986 Unallocated funds Grants (Total) of $1,195 Triennial agreements $283,244 $288,766 $288,766 Triennial Community Event Grants $137,000 $45,000 $41,000 Unallocated funds Triennial agreements Total for 3 of $4000 yr period 1818.2383 • Aspendale VC $23,782 $22,801 $22,801 Total budget allocated 1818.2385 • Chelsea VC $45,650 $22,801 $22,801 Total budget allocated 1818.2386 • Clarinda VC $46,634 $17,194 $17,194 Total budget allocated 1818.2387 • Clayton South VC $22,940 $15,338 $15,338 Total budget allocated 1818.2388 • Cheltenham VC $27,145 $22,532 $22,532 Total budget allocated 1818.2389 • Dingley VC $22,113 $15,873 $15,623 Unallocated funds of $250 1818.2390 • Moorabbin VC $19,156 $11,195 $10,485 Unallocated funds of $710 1818.2391 • Mordialloc VC $26,291 $13,999 $13,999 Total budget allocated 1818.2392 • Patterson Lakes VC $12,213 $13,749 $13749 Total budget allocated 1818.2393 • Mentone VC $40,816 $23,068 $23,068 Total budget allocated

Village Committees (Total) $286,740 $178,550 $177,590 Unallocated funds of $960 1818.2394 Individual Development Grants $23,278 $23,278 Applications accepted on an ongoing basis. 1818.2410 Access and Equity $10,300 $10,300 Applications accepted on an ongoing basis. 1818.2398 Supplementary Grants $19,503 $19,503 Applications accepted on an ongoing basis 1818.2395 School Development Grants $7,725 $7,725 3% increase in line with CPI TOTALS 1,256,170 $1,114,749 $1,106,694 $6,155

221. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 3. Issues

Timelines for Village Committees The timelines for the roll out of the Community Grants Program were set in December 2008 and the dates widely advertised. The timelines were set around the Village Committee meetings occurring on the second week of the month. These meetings were changed to the first week of the month, resulting in the time frame for the assessment process being considerably shortened. The change of meeting dates will be allowed for in the 2010/2011 Community Grants program.

Unallocated Funds After assessment of all grant applications, some money has remained unallocated. • City Wide grants: $1,195 The assessment panel’s recommendations were decided after considering each application using the grant’s assessment criteria. The process was sound and the surplus funds were not allocated just to “use up” the remaining funds. • Dingley Village Committee: $250 $250 left unallocated by the Village Committee • Moorabbin Committee: $710 $710 left unallocated by the Village Committee. • Community Event Grants: $4,000 The assessment panel selected an event from each ward to support. The successful applicant’s funding requests totalled $41,000 leaving $4000 unallocated. • Requests not submitted for assessment. A number of requests were not eligible for assessment as they were not in accordance with the grants policy. These comprised of: ƒ Greek Orthodox Community of Clayton – Not a not for profit organisation ƒ Woodlands golf Club - Not a not for profit organisation ƒ The Leading Dramatic Society – Not a Kingston group ƒ Mordialloc & District Historical Society – Submitted after the closing date ƒ Chelsea & District Netball Association - Submitted after the closing date ƒ Lions Club of Clarinda - Submitted after the closing date ƒ Basava Samithi of Australasia - Submitted after the closing date ƒ Chelsea Heights Community Centre – Not submitted as a formal grant application

The late applications have been invited to provide reasons for the late submissions. The policy provides that we may consider an out-of-round submission as a supplementary grant, provided the applicant can demonstrate that the application was late due to “extraordinary circumstances”.

222. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

4. Triple Bottom Line Checklist Social The funding provided to successful applicants demonstrates Council’s commitment to working in partnership with local groups and allows Council to support events, projects, services and/or initiatives that are of benefit to the community that are not currently being delivered directly by Council. Financial The 2009/10 Council Budget has a provision of $1,114,749 to fund the 2009/10 Community Grants. It is recommended that the grants be distributed to organisations as per Attachments A, B, C, and D. Environmental Not applicable to this report.

5. Summary and Conclusion The 2009/2010 Community Grants Program attracted 188 applications for consideration with requests for funding reaching $1,256,170 The Council Assessment Panel and Village Committees have assessed the applications in accordance with the grants policy and recommend that the grants be distributed to organisations as per Attachment A, B, C, and D for the Community Grants Program for 2009/10.

6. Proposed Action That Councillors

• Endorse the proposed allocations for the 2009/2010 Community Grants Program as per Attachments A, B, C, and D. Attachments:

Attachment A – Community Grants Program – City Wide successful applications Attachment B – Community Grants Program – Village Committee successful applications Attachment C – Community Grants Program – Triennial successful applications Attachment D – Community Grants Program – Triennial Community Event successful applications Attachment E – Community Grants Program – Unsuccessful applications Attachment F – Community Grants Program – Description of funding streams

223. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

L 111 Victorian Universal Housing Alliance Membership

Approved by: Mauro Bolin, General Manager Community Sustainability

Author: Malcolm McCall – Social Strategies Coordinator

1. Purpose Following a Councillor request this report provides information on the Victorian Council of Social Services (VCOSS) Victorian Universal Housing Alliance. In addition, the report defines the concept of universal housing, overviews related regulatory frameworks and outlines existing impediments to housing access for all persons irrespective of physical mobility. This program relates to the visions set out in the City of Kingston Council Plan 2009 – 2013. In particular Planned Outcome 3 Healthy, Strong and Connected Communities; 3.1 Promote family and community wellbeing and participation in community life 3.2 Strong, cohesive and engaged communities 3.4 Monitor and plan for the changing needs and aspirations of the community.

2. Background

2.1. Universal Housing There is no one definition of universal housing (sometimes called accessible housing). It can effectively be characterised as housing that is designed to reduce impediments for those living with impaired mobility and motor skills, resulting from accident, disease or ageing. Design elements can include accessible entry ways, showers that can accommodate carers and bedrooms on the ground floor. Under the provision of the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act (1992) (DDA) and the Victorian Disability Act (2006) public buildings should be accessible for people of all abilities. With the exception of transitional public housing and supported residential services, no such provisions exist for private residences. The Planning and Environment Act (1996) contains no specific provisions on residential dwelling disability access. The Victorian Planning Provision Scheme makes only limited reference to disabled access; • In the development of new residential areas and in the redevelopment of existing areas; subdivision should be designed to create liveable and sustainable communities by being accessible to people with disabilities • That public premise should have a non-domestic disabled access ramp; and, provisions should be made in parking facilities for cyclists and disabled people. 2.2. Universal Housing Initiatives in Victoria Some local council’s are attempting to introduce local planning policies aimed at compelling developers to improve accessibility. Three councils (City of Melbourne, City of Moonee Valley and City of Yarra) have put forward planning scheme amendments

224. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 which require that all new housing planning permit applications meet the enhanced Australian Standard Design for Access and Mobility Parts (AS1428 Part 2).10 These Planning Scheme Amendments are currently with the Victorian Minister for Planning. The Accessible Housing Taskforce was established by the State Minister for Planning in late 2005, to provide advice on non-regulatory and regulatory options for increasing the stock of housing that is accessible and adaptable. The Taskforce comprised representatives from the housing and property industry, local government, the Municipal Association of Victoria, disability advocacy organisations, groups representing older people and Victorian Government agencies. In response to the Taskforce’s work ‘Planning in Partnership with Local Communities’ and ‘Addressing Disadvantage – Investing in a Fairer Victoria,’ the State Government committed to establishing a state-wide Accessible Housing Program, delivering the following initiatives: • “An industry led ‘Homes for Life’ guide to assist industry and consumers in the delivery of accessible housing. • A campaign to promote greater understanding and awareness of accessible building issues within the construction industry and the broader community, delivered by utilising the education and promotional resources of the Building Commission, Human Services, VicUrban, the Equal Opportunity Commission and the Office for Disability. • Establish a simple and low-cost access rating system to indicate how accessible and adaptable a dwelling is to potential tenants and purchasers. • Where local governments propose amendments to their local planning schemes in relation to housing accessibility, the Government will ensure that a consistent approach is achieved by specifying that a suite of standard ‘low cost/ no cost’ measures are included in the amendments. Such measures will apply only to the ground floor of new medium-density developments and one out of five units in new high-density apartment blocks.” There have been no further actions. 2.3. Federal Universal Housing Initiatives: DDA Access to Premises Standard Over the past few years, at the request of the Federal Government, the Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB), along with disability advocates, design professionals, Government and the property industry have been preparing a new access standard for buildings. In February 2004, the ABCB released for public comment the draft Disability Standards for Access to Premises (Premises Standard) and public consultation closed on 30 April 2005 after a national round of awareness sessions. The ABCB’s Building Access Policy Committee considered all submissions from the public consultation process – the response was generally supportive of the development of new provisions, but opposing views were expressed on the stringency of the proposals. The ABCB then provided advice, including a Regulation Impact Statement (estimating the costs and benefits likely to accrue from the proposal) to the Federal Minister for

10 See Appendix A

225. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 Industry, Tourism and Resources and the Federal Attorney-General for their consideration. There have been no further actions. 2.4. The Victorian Universal Housing Alliance (VUHA) The Universal Housing Alliance is an advocacy initiative of the Victorian Council of Social Services and is also auspiced by over a dozen peak bodies and agencies. The Victorian Universal Housing Alliance stated aim is that at least one-quarter of all Victorian Houses will meet the following universal standard by 2031: • A clear pathway to a step-free, well-lit entry with access to street/car parking • Appropriate lighting evenly distributed throughout the house • Identifiable light switches, controls and handles in easy-to-reach places for someone sitting or standing • Reinforced walls in the bathroom, shower and toilet • Wide doorways and corridors • A straight staircase adjacent to a load-bearing wall • Slip-resistant flooring • Open-plan kitchen, lounge and bathroom with step-free shower • Open-plan room on entry level that can be used as a bedroom • Accessible toilet and bathroom on entry level.

3. Issues The VUHA contends that these standards will deliver housing to the market that is liveable, visitable and adaptable by people of all ages and that meeting these standards will create only nominal cost increases in property development. The VUHA is already advocating to State and Federal Government requesting that these regulatory standards apply to all new housing and major home renovations. In addition to the strategies cited from the Council Plan, participation in the Universal Housing Alliance would further the aims of Council’s Positive Ageing Plan (2008) that states “housing is another issue for the older community, with many wishing to remain in the homes that they have lived in for many years” and (in Action 6.4.3) Council will: • Inform Kingston’s older population of the full range of potential housing and support options available to them; • Identify barriers to housing options for older persons within the municipality; • Continue strategic and advocacy efforts concerning affordable and appropriate housing strategies.

226. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 4. Triple bottom line • Environmental - Not Applicable • Social “The inappropriate design of most housing makes it unsuitable for many people. Families with children in prams, people with a temporary or permanent injury or a chronic illness and anybody who has ever moved house will have been inconvenienced by narrow doorways, curved staircases and steps to the entrance of the house. Building houses with some simple universal design features makes them liveable for everyone, regardless of age, family needs, or the changes a person may experience during their lifetime. It also means that they are visitable by everyone, regardless of age or ability.” (Victorian Universal Housing Initiative, VCOSS 2008) • Economic The Victorian Universal Housing Alliance is an advocacy program and does not require any financial commitment in the form of membership fees. Improving the accessibility of residential developments may result in increased building costs for developers and in turn consumers.

5. Conclusion The regulatory means to achieving universal housing remain unresolved. The Victorian Planning Minister has not reached a decision on permitting local planning policies requiring the enhanced housing access Australian Standard Design for Access and Mobility Parts (AS1428 Part 2). This enhanced standard is not yet mandated federally and the Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB) is still to deliver a recommendation on the draft Disability Standards for Access to Premises (Premises Standard). The policy platform of the Victorian Universal Housing Alliance is practical and commendable and the collective advocacy appears the best means to achieve regulatory change after several years of federal and state indecision. More accessible housing will improve the quality of life for people living with a disability and address the needs of an ageing population.

6. Recommendation That Council determine to join the Victorian Universal Housing Alliance.

Attachments: Appendix A: Australian Standard Design for Access and Mobility Parts ( Summary) Appendix B: Victorian Universal Housing Alliance Platform, TRIM Ref: 09/49872

227. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 Appendix A: AS1428 - Design for Access and Mobility Parts 1,2,3 and 4

ILC Reference NO 92:10:021 Item sourced from ILC QLD database

Short Description AS1428 Design for Access and Mobility sets standards for access requirements for buildings and related facilities. It includes information on paths of travel, circulation space and fitments. There are four parts: • Part 1 - General requirements for access – buildings • Part 2 - Enhanced and additional requirements - buildings and facilities. • Part 3 - Requirements for children and adolescents with physical disabilities. • Part 4 - Tactile ground surface indicators for the orientation of people with visual impairment. More Details CONTENTS: AS1428.1 - 2001 PART 1 - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCESS - BUILDINGS. Sets out minimum requirements for elements of building and related facilities; in particular, access pathways, circulation spaces and fitments to permit access by people with disabilities. A set of transparent overlays of space modules to assist in the design of sanitary facilities is included. The Standard refers only to those requirements for access which are to be regulated under the building code. This Standard claims to meet only basic needs for minimum access.

AS1428.2 - 1992 PART 2 - ENHANCED AND ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS - BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES. The purpose of this Standard is twofold. First, it covers items which are not covered in AS1428.1 (see above); and second it gives enhanced requirements for access, for reference by authorities and other users who wish to provide a greater level of accessibility than the minimum requirements of Part 1. Information in this Standard includes details on the following: Car parking facilities. Water closets (ambulant disabled), urinals, baths symbols, signs and tactile ground surface indicators. Emergency warning systems, lighting, hearing augmentation - listening systems. Auditoriums and assembly areas, street furniture, gateways and checkouts, vending machines, drinking fountains, telephones, post boxes and time delay for lights at pedestrian crossings. APPENDIX A: Kitchens and laundries. APPENDIX B: Additional information on access requirements in specific types of buildings and facilities.

228. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

CONTENTS (CONT): AS1428.3 - PART 3 - REQUIREMENTS FOR CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS WITH PHYSICAL DISABILITIES. This Standard provides the requirements for design to meet the access needs of children and adolescents with physical disabilities. Walkways, ramps and landings. Stairways, handrails, sanitary facilities. Reach ranges, controls, furniture and fitments. Drinking Fountains and vending machines. AS1428.4 - 1992 PART 4 - TACTILE GROUND SURFACE INDICATORS FOR THE ORIENTATION OF PEOPLE WITH VISUAL IMPAIRMENT. The ground surface indicators proposed in this Standard are designed to give warning of hazards and directional information to pedestrians who are blind or who have impaired vision, through contact by foot or cane with the ground surface.

229. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

L 112 Australia Day Awards Criteria

Approved by: Mauro Bolin, General Manager, Community Sustainability

Author: Melissa Shaw, Project Officer

1. Purpose The purpose of this report is to propose development opportunities for Kingston’s Australia Day Awards process. Specifically, to increase the number and quality of nominations, it is proposed to strengthen the current marketing and communication of the awards.

2. Background Each year a call for nominations for Kingston’s Australia Day Awards is made via a mailout based on Council’s Community Directory and through KYC and Kingston’s website.

Nominations are taken in the categories of Citizen of the Year, Young Citizen of the Year, Community Group of the Year and Young Community Group of the Year.

Once all nominations are received they are put before Council who select a winner in each of the above listed categories.

Winners are announced and presented with their awards by the Mayor at the Australia Day Breakfast in January the following year.

Council officers have conducted some benchmarking and found that Kingston’s published information about the Australia Day Awards is less comprehensive than other Local Governments benchmarked against. These include Glen Eira, Monash, Port Phillip, Yarra and Stonnington Councils.

3. Summary and Conclusion Kingston’s Australia Day Awards recognise the contributions of outstanding members of the Kingston community. In order to select deserving winners in each of the award categories, there is a need for a good quality pool of nominations from which to select.

Through the development of awards assessment criteria and clear communication of the awards and selection process to the community, Council’s chances of receiving a large number of good quality nominations could be improved.

This in turn would enhance the community’s perception of Kingston’s Australia Day Awards.

A suggested Criteria, Nomination Form, Selection Process and timeline for the event have been detailed in the report.

230. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 4. Consultation No consultation has been required for this report. 5. Issues Assessment Criteria Currently there are no formal assessment criteria for the selection of award winners, nor is there a document available to the community which clearly outlines these criteria and the selection process undertaken. It is considered important to develop criteria that ensure the selection process is equitable and that they be published to ensure transparency.

Low Number of Nominations Each year, the number of nominations received is relatively low and potentially limits the ability of Council to select worthy winners in each of the categories. This could be due in part to two main reasons: • Current marketing of the awards is not reaching its intended audience; and, • Community members may be unclear about who can be nominated.

Clearer, more visually stimulating promotional material detailing awards criteria and assessment information would contribute to increased interest. A suggested criteria and selection process document and nomination form have been developed for consideration and feedback. Please see attachment 1 and 2.

Time Frame To avoid the difficulties of trying to contact award winners close to or during the Christmas break, Council Officers suggest that a final decision on winners in each category be made by the end of November.

The following timeline is proposed:

TIMING ITEM DETAILS 20 July 2009 Report to CIS (Agenda Review) Proposed document attached

27 July 2009 Report to Ordinary Council Proposed document attached Meeting for discussion

Mid August 2009 Call for nominations Via mailout, COK Website, customer service counters

1 September 2009 Call for nominations Via KYC publication

1 October 2009 Final call for nominations Via KYC publication

30 October 2009 Close of nominations

231. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

Early-Mid Nov 2009 Australia Day Awards Containing summary details Nominations report to CLG of all nominations received Mid Nov 2009 Australia Day Awards Containing summary details Nominations report to CIS of all nominations received 30 Nov2009 Decision of winners in each By CIS category made Early Dec 2009 All winners contacted

6. Options Option 1 Adoption of the proposal to develop and publish assessment criteria and selection process details as suggested with an aim to finalise the process at the end of November.

Option 2 Leave the process as it stands.

7 Triple Bottom Line Checklist Social The Australia Day Awards are an important part of Kingston’s Australia Day celebrations with a number of community members and Council officers involved in the celebrations of the day.

Adoption of Option 1 could enhance public perception and participation in these awards. A longer term objective due to increased interest and participation in the event will be the need to assess how to structure the invitations and management of audience numbers. This will be achieved through the reduction of the number of guests allowed by nominees from 10 to 5.

The number of nominations is already low in some of the categories. Adoption of Option 2 would result in award nominations continuing to stagnate and decline.

Financial The cost of designing and producing a leaflet can be absorbed by the current Australia Day budget. No financial operational impact regardless of whether Option 1 or 2 is adopted.

Environmental No significant environmental issues were noted as a consequence of this issue.

232. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

8. Recommendation That Council resolve to adopt Option 1 and approve the suggested assessment criteria and selection process document.

Attachments: Attachment 1: Australia Day Awards Assessment Criteria and Selection Process Attachment 2: Australia Day 2010 Nomination Form

233. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

L 113 Mordialloc Laneway Proposed Closure

Approved by: Mauro Bolin - General Manager Community Sustainability

Authors: Heath Stenton, Team Leader, Community Engagement Lena Okin, Community Projects Officer

1. Purpose

To present findings from a safety audit recently conducted in the laneway at Rear 2-10 Centreway, Mordialloc, following the installation of an illegal fence by local resident/s.

This laneway is a responsibility of Council under the Local Government Act (1989).

2. Background

Since early 2004, a number of residents living at Centreway, Mordialloc, have expressed concerns about the level of anti-social behaviour and criminal activity occurring in and around the laneway that connects Beach Road, Mordialloc with the Mordialloc Safeway car park. The laneway is used as a walk through and it does not allow for motor vehicle movement for its entire length.

Numerous complaints have been lodged with Council and for many years Mordialloc Police have been liaising with several residents who are concerned about the level of crime in this area. Mordialloc Police have reported that during a 12 month period over 2008-2009, Police were called to this location on 53 occasions for offences mostly relating to assault, disputes and property damage. (Attachment A provides police statistics for this period). The body corporate membership of 10 Centreway, Mordialloc, also report that they have regularly cleaned up syringes and other objectionable rubbish from this location.

Residents and the owners of the Bay Hotel at 2-6 Centreway, Mordialloc, requested Council to close public access to the laneway in order to address anti-social issues.

Council was recently notified that a fence had been erected illegally (by an unnamed resident or group) to restrict access from Beach Road to the Safeway car park.

Following the illegal fence installation, Council received a complaint from another resident requesting the fence be removed.

3. Issues

On 30th April 2009, Council officers a Victoria Police Crime Prevention Officer conducted a safety audit to examine the area and report on community safety issues.

The safety audit report (Attachments B with photos at Attachment C) shows that the laneway is generally clear of obstructions and fall hazards; however a small section behind the Bay Hotel was littered with bottles, broken glass and other rubbish. In

234. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 addition, there was much graffiti along the length of the fence as well as on surrounding private property adjoining the laneway.

Although the safety audit was undertaken during the day, it was apparent that at night it would be very difficult to see the fence from either end of the laneway. The inability to clearly identify the fence at night, coupled with the lack of signage identifying the laneway as a “No Through Road”, represents a potential hazard for injury as well as entrapment.

Since the installation of the illegal fence, Council officers have received reports that the fence is providing a level of security to the residents in the laneway. Council officers have also received a separate complaint from a local resident who used the laneway on a regular basis and who has requested that the fence be removed.

4. Options Council is requested to consider options to improve community safety in the location by investigating permanent improvements that can be made to the laneway.

Council is requested to consider a public submission period utilising a panel consisting of Council officers and a Councillor or Councillors to receive public feedback. Following a public notice period this panel would conduct a one off public meeting receiving submissions presented by the public. Any written submissions received would also be considered by the panel. These public submissions would then be presented for Council’s consideration of the issue. This process conforms with the requirement of the Local government Act in relation to Road closures.

The following options could be presented for public feedback:

4.1 That the road is closed permanently with a permanent fence installed at the current location. Additional lighting to illuminate the area would be installed and signage that identifies the location as a “No through road” be installed.

4.2 That the temporary fence is removed and not replaced

5. Triple bottom line

Environmental:

The main environmental impacts arising from permanently closing the walkway may be the improved amenity of the areas from the anticipated reduction in graffiti and rubbish. Installation of lighting may increase the amount of energy consumed in the location although if this option is adopted the use of solar lighting could be explored.

Social:

It is anticipated that closing public access to the laneway would present social benefits. It is expected that many residents will feel a greater sense of safety and wellbeing, thus increasing perceptions of safety in the location.

235. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 One resident has requested that the fence be removed in order to restore his access to the laneway. This resident (and any others who haven’t made a formal complaint) may believe that the loss of this public access is unfair and/or unreasonable.

Financial:

Installation of lighting and signage and other minor works could be accommodated within existing Council budgets.

6. Conclusion

For many years, residents living around the laneway that adjoins Beach Road with the Safeway car park have expressed concerns regarding anti-social behaviour and criminal activity taking place on the laneway. In response to their concerns, a resident or group illegally erected a fence across the laneway, restricting public access.

Council has undertaken a safety audit to identify community safety issues. Findings from this audit reveal that a potential community safety risk exists in both leaving the laneway open and with the current installation of an illegal fence. A process of community engagement to consider possible options to improve community safety will assist Council to determine an outcome with respect to community concerns and the existence of the illegal fence.

7. Recommendations That Council resolves to: 1. Approve the commencement of statutory procedures in accordance with the Local Government Act 1989 to close the laneway, at the rear of 10 – 16 Centreway, Mordialloc, along the extension of the north east boundary of this property. 2. Establish a Committee of Council consisting of appropriate Council officers and Councillors Brownlees and Dundas to receive submissions in regard to the proposed road closure as per the provisions of Section 223 of the Local Government Act 1989. 3. That the Committee of Council upon hearing and considering submissions prepares a report for Council consideration.

Attachments:

Attachment A 2008-2009 Victoria Police Statistics Attachment B 2009 Mordialloc Laneway Site Assessment Report Attachment C Site Assessment Photos

236. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 Attachment A 2008-2009 Victoria Police Statistics

Mordialloc Police Uniform No. 3 Region 1 (Central) Region: 1 31 Albert Street, 24 April, 2009 Mordialloc 3195 Victoria, Australia DX 212158 Mr. D. McCANN, Telephone 9588 2988 Community Projects Coordinator, Facsimile 9588 2187 Email [email protected] City of Kingston, www.police.vic.gov.au P.O. Box 1000, Mentone, 3194

Reference: Restriction of access at laneway abutting Beach Road, Mordialloc.

Dear Dominic,

I write in reference, and in furtherance to your telephone call on 23 April 2009, regarding the laneway that abuts Beach Road, Mordialloc, and proceeds to the Safeway Car Park at Mordialloc. I am unsure of the name of this laneway and unsure of ownership, whether it be a private or public thoroughfare.

I am aware that the laneway has now had a gate or fence erected by a resident or group from the immediate area, and also understand that this barrier was erected following constant offences being committed in and around this vicinity, and possibly anticipating that the restriction would minimise and/or alleviate these offences being committed. I am also advised that an objection has been lodged with Council over the erection of this barrier.

For many years now, Police have been interacting and liaising with several residents in the vicinity regarding the following issues:

• Undue detriment to the area by patrons of the former nearby Redfin Hotel and now The Bay Hotel.

• Graffiti (criminal damage) offences committed to private property at Centreway, Mordialloc.

• Summary offences and anti-social behaviour committed and evident in the laneway and area of the Bay Hotel.

• Community safety emanating from a lack of lighting for users of the laneway.

I also understand several residents from a group of units in Centreway, Mordialloc have been communicating with and lobbying to the City of Kingston, to have the matter of safety and damage addressed, mainly in respect to lighting and/or barriers, with which to

237. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 restrict access, which they say, may in turn may prevent the continuation of criminal and behavioural problems.

Victoria (Mordialloc) Police are concerned at the level of crime in this area and support any community objective(s) that works towards a reduction of crime.

In supporting a call for community safety, which includes the prevention of offences, I report that between 25 April 2008 and 24 April 2009, Victoria Police received reports of 15 offences within a 50 metre radius of Centreway, Mordialloc, which includes the laneway in question. These offences are mainly public-order related, with key offences being property damage (6) and assault (3).

I also report that for the above period, Police were called to this location on 53 occasions, with 77% of those calls for public order issues. Peak call types were assaults, brawls and disputes (19), persons causing trouble (12) and property damage (4).

I also report that in January 2009, an offender used the Safeway Car Park and laneway as an escape route after committing a criminal damage to a business in Main Street, Mordialloc.

Further analysis by the Moorabbin Divisional Intelligence Unit reveals that the demand for Police attendance peaked of a Friday night between the hours of 2000 hours and 0100 hours of a Saturday morning.

Should you require further information or personalised verification of this evidence, I am quite happy to elaborate.

I trust this information will assist in your (Council) deliberations.

Yours sincerely,

Brad HANEL Senior Sergeant 17624 Officer in Charge

238. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 Attachment B 2009 Mordialloc Laneway Site Assessment Report

2009 Mordialloc Laneway Site Assessment Report

On 30th April 2009, Council’s Community Projects Officers and a Victoria Police (Kingston) Crime Prevention Officer visited a laneway that connects Beach Road, Mordialloc with the Safeway car park. A safety audit was conducted to examine the issues of community safety following an illegal fence that was recently erected by a resident or group.

Background:

Over the past few years, Victoria (Mordialloc) Police have been concerned about the level of crime occurring in and around the laneway. A number of complaints have been reported in this vicinity regarding graffiti, anti-social behaviour and lack of lighting. Additionally, over a 12 month period in 2008-09, Police were called to this location on 53 occasions for offences mostly relating to assault, disputes and property damage.

Numerous complaints have also been lodged with Council, with local residents requesting Council to close public access to the laneway. An illegal fence has now been built (by a resident or group) to restrict access from Beach Road to the Safeway car park.

Site Audit:

Lighting:

During the day the area receives much natural light and is clearly visible from Beach Road. However, because there is no lighting at either entrance of the laneway or along the laneway itself, it is evident that during the night, there would be insufficient lighting to promote safe passage.

Although the safety audit was undertaken during the day, it would be very difficult to see the fence from either end at night. The problem is compounded by trees overhanging the fenced area, which would most likely block any light from the Safeway car park. The inability to clearly identify the fence at night, coupled with a lack of signage identifying the laneway as a “No Through Road” represents a potential hazard for injury as well as entrapment.

Accessibility:

The laneway was generally clear of obstructions and fall hazards, however a small section of the laneway behind the Bay Hotel was littered with bottles, broken glass and rubbish.

The entry from the Safeway car park is not accessible to people using prams and wheelchairs as no ramp is installed on the stairs. The stairs are also quite steep which can be seen as a tripping hazard.

Graffiti: There was much graffiti along the length of the fence as well as on surrounding private property adjoining the laneway.

239. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 Attachment C Site Assessment Photos

Mordialloc Laneway Site Audit Photos

April 2009

Illegal fence erected by a resident or group. This barrier blocks access to and from Beach Rd, Mordialloc and the Safeway car park.

View from Safeway car park.

240. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

View from Beach Road. The fence is located between residential properties.

Graffiti on residential property

241. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

A small section of the laneway behind the Bay Hotel and on the boarder of residential property was littered with bottles, broken glass and rubbish.

242. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

L 114 Interfaith Advisory Committee Terms of Reference

Approved by: Mauro Bolin, General Manager Community Sustainability

Author: Janice Raux, Coordinator Community Development

1. Purpose To present the proposed development of the Kingston Interfaith Advisory Committee and draft Terms of Reference for endorsement.

This report relates to the visions set out in the Council Plan 2009 – 2013, in particular; Planned Outcome Three; Healthy, Strong and Connected Communities.

2. Background Over the past 12 months, Council has conducted a review of the Kingston Faith Network. The outcomes of this review indicated that in order to strengthen dialogue between faith communities and Council, the governance structure of the Network should be redeveloped. The following actions are proposed in order to achieve this;

• The Kingston Faith Network is restructured to become the Kingston Interfaith Advisory Committee, based on a similar structure to the Kingston Access and Equity Advisory Committee. This committee will provide advice and guidance to Council on interfaith issues, and issues affecting faith communities. They will also oversee the delivery of the quarterly interfaith breakfast meetings currently held each year. • A new governance structure is developed and implemented to support the functioning of the Kingston Interfaith Advisory Committee including; Council endorsed Terms of Reference; a nomination and selection process for Committee members; and a framework to oversee the development of an Interfaith dialogue agreement in consultation with key stakeholders to guide the broader Network. • Council’s commitment to community engagement and proposed future direction in interfaith engagement is communicated to the current Kingston Faith Network, its Coordination Committee and key stakeholders. • A communication and engagement plan is developed to support dialogue with faith communities, faith leaders and culturally diverse groups not already engaged with the Network.

A draft Terms of Reference has been developed to oversee the formation of the Kingston Interfaith Advisory Committee. These Terms of Reference have been developed using best practice experiences from the establishment of other Committees supported by Council, including the Positive Ageing Advisory Committee and Access and Equity Advisory Committee.

3. Issues The Kingston Interfaith Advisory Committee will provide Council with a mechanism to engage with various faith communities within the municipality. A key focus of the Committee is to ensure that faith communities and Council are connected through open

243. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 communication channels that allow for exchange of information and ideas. The Committee will engage authorised representatives of various faith communities, groups or institutions.

The Terms of Reference outline the scope, roles and responsibilities and nomination process that will be used to develop the Kingston Interfaith Advisory Committee. Following the endorsement of the Terms of Reference by Council, the Community Engagement Team will call for nominations to the Committee using the process outlined in the Terms of Reference (Section Eight).

4. Triple Bottom Line Checklist

• Environmental – not applicable

• Social - The Kingston Interfaith Advisory Committee will provide a conduit between Council and faith communities of Kingston. Council’s commitment of being community inspired leaders will be supported by ensuring communication channels remain open, and faith communities are provided with an opportunity to contribute towards the strategic direction of Council.

• Financial – The development of the Kingston Interfaith Advisory Committee will be achieved within the existing budget.

5. Summary and Conclusion The Kingston Interfaith Advisory Committee will provide an opportunity for Council to further develop its relationships with faith communities across the municipality. The Committee, guided by a strong Terms of Reference will create a sustainable and strong mechanism to ensure that faith communities are engaged not only with each other, but also with Council to support Kingston residents to maintain and achieve active and engaged communities.

6. Recommendation

That Council resolve to adopt the draft Kingston Interfaith Advisory Committee Terms of Reference.

Attachment(s): 09/19857 Kingston Interfaith Advisory Committee Terms of Reference 2009

244. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 12. Organisational Development and Governance Reports

L 115 Councillor Ward Funds Applications

Approved by: Elaine Sowerby, General Manager Organisational Development and Governance

Author: Jason Stubbs, Manager Governance and Performance Planning

1. Purpose The purpose of this report is to seek formal Council approval of the expenditure of Ward funds in accordance with the ‘Expenditure of Ward Funds Policy’.

2. Background The Council, on 23 March 2009, adopted a revised policy for the expenditure of ward funds.

Each financial year during a Council term, Kingston Councillors are allocated $6,000 in ward funds for utilisation in accordance with the adopted policy. Part 2 of the policy, which outlines the limitations on the expenditure of ward funds, specifies that Councillors may propose that ward funds be allocated for initiatives that aim to:

“a) assist a recognised community group (including sporting/recreational body, arts/cultural group, charity, youth group, pre-school, playgroup, senior citizens club, historical society, friendship group, environmental group, trader organisation or toy library) which provides a service, program or activity used by or of benefit to Kingston residents;

b) assist an individual who is a resident of the City of Kingston to participate in a sporting, recreational or cultural activity, or other pursuit of a personal development nature, or who is in necessitous circumstances;

c) Support an event or activity which will be of benefit or interest to residents of the City of Kingston;

d) Support the key external themes of enhancement of the physical environment or the development of community well being, identified in the Council Plan.”

It should be noted that the policy also enables a Ward Councillor to propose that his / her ward funds be expended outside of the Councillor’s specific ward, provided that the ward funds are expended for the benefit of the Kingston community, and that one or more of the criteria set out above are met.

245. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 The table below lists the Councillor requests for the expenditure of ward funds received since the last Ordinary Council Meeting.

Table of Councillor requests: Request Amount Councillor Ward Initiative Date $ Mayor, Cr North The Lions Club of Melbourne 7/07/2009 100 Athanasopoulos Markets Inc Children's Magic Show

Cr Bauer South The Lions Club of Melbourne 7/07/2009 100 Markets Inc Children's Magic Show

Cr Brownlees Central The Lions Club of Melbourne 7/07/2009 100 Markets Inc Children's Magic Show

Cr Dundas Central The Lions Club of Melbourne 7/07/2009 100 Markets Inc Children's Magic Show

Cr Peulich North The Lions Club of Melbourne 7/07/2009 100 Markets Inc Children's Magic Show

Cr Ronke South The Lions Club of Melbourne 7/07/2009 100 Markets Inc Children's Magic Show

Cr Shewan South The Lions Club of Melbourne 7/07/2009 100 Markets Inc Children's Magic Show

Cr Staikos North The Lions Club of Melbourne 7/07/2009 100 Markets Inc Children's Magic Show

Cr West OAM Central The Lions Club of Melbourne 7/07/2009 100 Markets Inc Children's Magic Show

Mayor, Cr North Parktone Primary School Parents 7/07/2009 90 Athanasopoulos and Friends Association Milk Program

246. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 Cr Bauer South Parktone Primary School Parents 7/07/2009 90 and Friends Association Milk Program

Cr Brownlees Central Parktone Primary School Parents 7/07/2009 90 and Friends Association Milk Program

Cr Dundas Central Parktone Primary School Parents 7/07/2009 90 and Friends Association Milk Program

Cr Peulich North Parktone Primary School Parents 7/07/2009 90 and Friends Association Milk Program

Cr Ronke South Parktone Primary School Parents 7/07/2009 90 and Friends Association Milk Program

Cr Shewan South Parktone Primary School Parents 7/07/2009 90 and Friends Association Milk Program

Cr Staikos North Parktone Primary School Parents 7/07/2009 90 and Friends Association Milk Program

Cr West OAM Central Parktone Primary School Parents 7/07/2009 90 and Friends Association Milk Program

Cr Bauer South Carrum Life Saving Club 2/07/2009 500 Purchasing equipment for their Little Nippers Program

Cr Bauer South Aspendale Gardens Community 20/07/2009 50 Centre Trivia night donation

Cr Shewan South Aspendale Gardnes Community 20/07/2009 50 Centre Trivia night donation

247. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 Recommendation

That Council approve the expenditure of ward funds in accordance with the table of Councillor requests.

248. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

L 116 Appointment of Village Committee Members

Approved by: Elaine Sowerby, General Manager Organisational Development & Governance

Author: Michael Fry, Team Leader Council business

1. Purpose To advise Council of applications for appointment of two Village Committee members.

2. Background a) John Atkinson

John Atkinson was formerly a member of the Moorabbin / Highett Village Committee. This Committee currently has seven members, as such, there are five vacancies available

John inadvertently did not seek renewal of his appointment to the Village Committee after serving his previous term. John has indicated that he would like to rejoin the Committee. As a previous long-standing member of the Village Committee an interview process was not required.

John has continued to attend the Village Committee meetings in the interim period. b) Tom Drummond

Tom Drummond applied to join the Patterson Lakes / Carrum Village Committee. This Committee currently has 11 members with one vacancy available.

Tom has been interviewed by the Patterson Lakes / Carrum Village Committee Chairperson, who has recommended his appointment for a period expiring on 31 December 2011. The Advisory Officer to the Village Committee formally notated the interview proceedings.

3. Summary and Conclusion It is proposed to appoint an additional member to both the Moorabbin / Highett and the Patterson Lakes / Carrum Village Committees.

4. Consultation In both cases consultation has occurred with the Chairpersons and the Advisory Officers of the respective Village Committees.

249. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009 5. Issues Clause 2.3 of the Village Committee Policy states as follows:

“…extraordinary or unfilled vacancies may be filled at the discretion of Council at any time”.

The policy also states that candidates who have applied to join a Village Committee may be required to meet with a Ward Councillor, the Chairperson of the Village Committee and the Advisory Officer as part of the appointment process. It is the usual practice that such meetings are held in instances where the applicant has not previously participated in the program.

6. Triple Bottom Line Checklist • Environmental – Not applicable. • Social – The broader range of views available to be heard at Village Committee meetings (within the maximum limitation of 12 members) the more effectively the Council can communication with its community. • Financial – Not applicable.

7. Recommendation That: 1. Mr John Atkinson be appointed to the Moorabbin / Highett Village Committee for a period expiring on 31 December 2011; and 2. Mr Tom Drummond be appointed to the Patterson Lakes / Carrum Village Committee for a period expiring on 31 December 2011; 3. the applicants be advised of the outcome of their application.

250. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

L 117 Quarterly Report to Council Plan – June 2009

Approved by: Elaine Sowerby, General Manager, Organisational Development and Governance

Author: Louise Barren, Performance Planning Officer

1. Purpose To present the Quarterly Report for the June 2009 quarter in respect of the Council Plan to Council.

2. Background The 2006 – 2011 Council Plan was adopted by Council in June 2006. The Council Plan is broken down into five planned outcomes, with associated strategies, priorities and actions. The Council Plan was reviewed in 2007 and again in 2008 to ensure its currency and accuracy in reflecting Council priorities and emerging issues. The Quarterly Report to the Council Plan provides information about milestones and also tracks progress against each item.

The attached June Quarterly Report, which is the last report against strategies in the 2006-11 Council Plan, shows significant progress has been made towards achieving the milestones identified in the Council Plan.

3. Issues 3.1 Changes to Report format A new feature in this quarter is the inclusion of ‘traffic light’ indicators on the summary page of the report. The indicators summarise the progress of each initiative as follows: • Green - action completed or on track • Yellow - 60% to 80% completed or minor issues affecting progress • Red - cancelled or significant issues affecting progress

3.2 Progress against the Council Plan: Highlights of the June 2009 Quarter During the final quarter for 2008/09, further progress against some milestones has been significant and the following highlights have been extracted from the reports.

Highlights of the June 2009 Quarter

Outcome 1: Infrastructure − Playgrounds at Edithvale Reserve and Bembooka Reserve have been refurbished. − The Cricket nets at Chelsea and Bonbeach Recreation Reserves have been upgraded. − Soccer infrastructure upgrades have been completed at Kingston Heath, Chadwick, Browns, Keely Park, Jack Grut and Namatjira Park. − A strategy on the use of synthetic playing surfaces as a response to climate change was presented to Council in April 2009 for consideration.

251. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

Outcome 2: Sustainable Environment − A number of projects have been completed as part of Council’s Sustainable Water Use Plan, including the installation of water tanks and water saving showerheads and upgrades of urinals and toilet cisterns at a number of sites. − North Aspendale has been selected for renourishment works by DSE to be undertaken in 2009/10 costing $600,000 as part of the Beaches at Risk program. − Gateway landscaping works have been completed at the southern entry of Nepean Highway. Design works have also been completed for other entry sites.

Outcome 3: Community Wellbeing − Approved Health and Wellbeing Strategies continue to be implemented across Council, including the Being Active, Eating Well Program, Multicultural Action Plan, Disability Action Plan, and the Immunisation Program. − The Community Engagement department has developed consultation guidelines to engage with our Indigenous community. − Seven markets have been held this financial year with excellent attendances at each. . − The Environment Department has established a framework for the Industrial Sustainability program in partnership with the Economic Development Department. Initial conversations have been held with several large manufacturing businesses that have expressed an interest in investigating potential energy reductions.

Outcome 4: Prosperous Local Economy − 11 new Kingston businesses were accepted into the Mentor Partners program in the first half year. It is clear that there has been an increase in interest in the program from local businesses. Mentor recruitment continues to be a challenge. − The following workshops/seminars were run in 2008: Selecting a Retail Location; 2 x Marketing; Business Intenders; Kingston Business Women's Network; Employing People; Carbon Emissions. In 2009: Starting your Business, Cashflow Management, Increasing Operating Liquidity and Kingston Business Women's Network. − The Regional Economic Development Strategy was endorsed by Council in May. − A total of 59 Business Starters packs have been issued this financial year.

Outcome 5: Professional and Accountable Government − Reward and Recognition programs being implemented with three key policies adopted in November/December. First Employee Milestone event was celebrated in February with another celebration scheduled for November 2009. Excellence and Innovation awards will also be acknowledged for the first time in November 2009. − A range if Health and Safety initiatives have been undertaken this year, including hazard assessments, workplace inspections, incident investigations, training, corporate reporting, contract reviews and WorkSafe Week. − A review of all human resources processes has been undertaken and each process has been "process mapped” as part of the development of the new Human Resources Information System.

The Quarterly Report to the Council Plan also notes triple bottom line indicators where a specific quarterly figure is available. The 2008/09 Annual Report will report fully on these indicators.

252. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

Although the target for road infrastructure renewal was 20kms for the 2008/09 financial year, a total of almost 4kms was renewed. The reason for this large difference was that the general spray sealing program has not been undertaken this year largely due to priorities with the large reconstruction program. The reseal program will continue next financial year.

Over 13,000 volunteer hours were undertaken this quarter, which was the highest quarter result recorded during the year. These results were boosted by the increase in the Environment area as a result of the start of the new planting season.

4. Triple Bottom Line Checklist

• Environmental – not applicable • Social - not applicable • Financial – not applicable

5. Summary and Conclusion As noted above and in the attached June Quarterly Report, significant progress is being made towards achieving the milestones identified in the Council Plan.

6. Proposed Action

ƒ That Council resolve to note the Quarterly Report

Attachment: 1. Quarterly Report to Council Plan June 2009 quarter

253. City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 27 July 2009

15. Items in Camera

254.